Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Agema]

I have a huge problem with mail in voting, even if done securely. People are voting before there has even been a 1st debate. Voting is a civic duty as well as a right. This just seems wrong to me. We should, with very few exceptions, be voting as a people at around the same time with the same public information.

I would be willing to bet that about 60-70% of the votes every election are from voters who vote for the same party, every time. Maybe in the long term they may switch allegiance as times, parties and their nature changes, but basically, they've got a party, and that's that. Sure there's a chunk of "genuine" swing voters who have to make up their mind (I'm guessing ~10-20%) each time, and even then many of them have very strong inclinations one way or another. After that, the rest are voters who don't vote regularly, but might on the odd occasion feel particularly motivated - many of whom are also only ever going to vote for one party.

Which is a long way of saying that most voters may as well cast their vote a year before the election. Or two years. Or, frankly, they may as well cast their vote for both the election and the one four years after. Those who want to wait until later to make up their mind can do so.

Nor does having the same public information really matter. Too much information out there is bullshit, and loads of voters don't really pay any attention to it anyway. Like I said, they've got their party, they're only interested in the news they want to watch, and they're only ever going to vote one way. It doesn't matter whether they watch a debate or not. Even if their favoured candidate did nothing but pull his penis out and swing it around, they'd think he won the debate and vote for him.

 

[SilentPony]

Really? The rules look an impressive mess to me, but they work? The new fluff tends to be terrible, though.

The rules work, and the game isn't as slow as it once was. The new rules are designed to keep the game going and not have you bogged down for 20mins arguing about vehicle angels and endlessly going through rules bloat. Some thing have changed that are a little awkward, but on the whole its a more user/newbie friendly rule set.

 

[Silvanus]

I apologize, I really can't keep track of the difference between your arguments, SilentPony's arguments, Agema's arguments, and the arguments of all the other people in this topic.

Or, in fact, between those arguments and ones you've dreamt up during a fever.

Anything that isn't already publicly available. Let's have every signature made public. Every address. Every absentee application. Every ballot. Matt Braynard had to fundraise and pay tens of thousands of dollars to get access to all the data that he used in his examination.

Every... address and ballot made public. So, your solution is to dox the entire population of the US, and then end the fundamental democratic principle of the private ballot.

I was thinking more of the "why aren't they coming out and saying anything about the evidence we've already seen?" question. Their necks are on the line if they admit that fraud happened on their watch.

But in your scenario, yes, if an honest official wanted to call out another official, their neck wouldn't be on the line.
They would just be dismissed by the other higher-ups who were in on it, like all the other workers who tried to speak up about what they saw, and were dismissed. Here's one example of that.

So we're back to just allegation, then. And that goes for the "evidence we've already seen"; the stuff we actually have already seen is so pathetically weak that we don't need anyone to specifically say it didn't happen. Half of it is just circumstantial allegation, often showing a complete lack of understanding of procedure (like that yahoo who complained that officials stopped them handwriting fucking lists of voters). The rest is really shitty, untransparent data analysis from people like Braynard. But even so, we do have officials coming out and stating that nothing untoward happened-- like at that State Park Arena voting centre.

There's nothing the witnesses could do. If they don't come out and give statements, you say they should do if they believe it was all fine. If they do come out and give statements, you say they're liars.

I don't remember any "context" that makes it okay to selectively enforce the rules with the intention to harm republicans and republicans only.

That didn't happen. This is just, yet again, regurgitating the allegation. Over and over. It doesn't become more persuasive the twentieth time.

I'm just talking about this one video of the lady telling the other workers to "just count".

Even speaking generally, no. I'll stop believing it's a conspiracy if an actual investigation happens.

No, you won't. There is nothing that can be done to convince you. As soon as the investigation were to conclude, you'd merely adjust the conspiracy to include those investigators.

Nobody is expecting you to believe that.

If those independents want to give testimony that contradicts the testimony we've already heard, they're free to do that. But they haven't.

By all means, let's pit contradicting testimony against each-other in a court of law and let the truth come out. Only one side doesn't want that. Republicans are happy to have their day in court, aren't they?

...no, they're not. They keep dropping the material allegations of fraud as soon as it gets to court.

So, what, exactly? You want defendants to pre-emptively send witnesses to court to present statements about... things they're not being officially accused of? The fundamental order of the justice system just in reverse? We're getting into Kafka's Trial territory.

 

[Houseman]

Every... address and ballot made public. So, your solution is to dox the entire population of the US, and then end the fundamental democratic principle of the private ballot.

Voter registration is already public record, and the ballots don't have any personally identifying information to link them to who voted for what. So nobody would be doxxed any more than they already are. Ballots would still remain private.

I would just like to make it easier to do things like Matt Braynard did and this example from Texas. Y'know, true transparency, so individuals don't have to empty their pockets paying for data in order to verify the integrity of their own election.

That didn't happen.

Prove it. I don't recall anyone refuting the "poll watchers were thrown out to applause" or providing any reason as to why "it's okay in context".

There is nothing that can be done to convince you.

And all the evidence in the world will never convince you, because you've made up your mind that Trump lost fair and square.

See, I can do it too. Wouldn't it be better if we just had respect for one another and assumed that we were both arguing in good faith?

. They keep dropping the material allegations of fraud as soon as it gets to court.

You said something before about regurgitating the same allegations over and over. You're doing this now. What you're referring to is one lawsuit that has been posted here before, the campaign's redacted PA lawsuit, this, which you probably haven't even read and are just taking the word of some journalist that they've "walked back allegations of fraud".

So it seems like you're taking one lawsuit and extrapolating that to mean "EVERY TIME they bring a lawsuit alleging fraud they ALWAYS walk it back".
Please stop exaggerating.

 

[Houseman]

More evidence:


When a ballot goes to adjudication, it pops up on a screen and then workers manually select who the votes are supposed to go to. They can just switch a Trump vote for Biden if they want to. It would be undetectable, because the original ballot is considered faulty and the new adjudicated ballot is printed and used instead.

A recount/audit wouldn't catch this.

 

[Shadyside]

If the Dems grab Georgia, then they need to go all out. Pack the court, huge stimulus bill, make DC and Puerto Rico a state, etc. No Excuses.

 

[Avnger]

More evidence:

<tweet snip>

When a ballot goes to adjudication, it pops up on a screen and then workers manually select who the votes are supposed to go to. They can just switch a Trump vote for Biden if they want to. It would be undetectable, because the original ballot is considered faulty and the new adjudicated ballot is printed and used instead.

A recount/audit wouldn't catch this.

That's not even circumstantial evidence. At most you might call it a vulnerability if your tweet is true (wouldn't be the first time you regurgitated patently false info), but you've provided nothing that shows anyone even considered exploiting it (aka evidence).

 

[Houseman]

That's not even circumstantial evidence. At most you might call it a vulnerability if your tweet is true (wouldn't be the first time you regurgitated patently false info), but you've provided nothing that shows anyone even considered exploiting it (aka evidence).

To find out if republican ballots were intentionally misprinted, you'd need to do an investigation and know what to look for, like how this guy does. Obviously, he doesn't have access to all the ballots.

 

[Silvanus]

Voter registration is already public record, and the ballots don't have any personally identifying information to link them to who voted for what. So nobody would be doxxed any more than they already are. Ballots would still remain private.

Registration is obviously not the same thing. And you said addresses, which is identifying information. You make it possible to publicly match which address voted for which candidate, you're essentially doxxing them.

Prove it. I don't recall anyone refuting the "poll watchers were thrown out to applause" or providing any reason as to why "it's okay in context".

I'm happy with the burden of proof resting with the positive claim, thanks.

And all the evidence in the world will never convince you, because you've made up your mind that Trump lost fair and square.

If we had something beyond shaky, shitty, solely-Republican testimonies, and opaque data "analysis" for which we lack the original data sets, I might be convinced. Show me actual, demonstrable fraudulent ballots on a significant scale, or testimony from non-affiliated people that isn't full of holes, and i could be convinced.

You said something before about regurgitating the same allegations over and over. You're doing this now. What you're referring to is one lawsuit that has been posted here before, the campaign's redacted PA lawsuit, this, which you probably haven't even read and are just taking the word of some journalist that they've "walked back allegations of fraud".

Your memory must be pretty poor then, because I went into depth on the text of that lawsuit, giving exact quotes and page numbers.

They left claims of fraud in... solely as references in other, unrelated points. They didn't ask the court to rule on whether they actually took place. Yes, thats legally equivalent to walking it back. They fully dropped it as a legal allegation.

 

[Houseman]

Registration is obviously not the same thing. And you said addresses, which is identifying information. You make it possible to publicly match which address voted for which candidate, you're essentially doxxing them.

What I would hypothetically ask for would not dox them.

Addresses are already publicly available, as are names. You could not match which address voted for which candidate, as one does not sign the ballot itself. Ballots are always secret, by design, and this wouldn't be undoing that.

I'm happy with the burden of proof resting with the positive claim, thanks.

Your original objection to the applause thing was "there's additional context there that makes it a non-issue!"
I'm asking what that additional context is. If you can't or won't produce it, I have no reason to be persuaded by your claims.

If we had something beyond shaky, shitty, solely-Republican testimonies, and opaque data "analysis" for which we lack the original data sets, I might be convinced. Show me actual, demonstrable fraudulent ballots on a significant scale, or testimony from non-affiliated people that isn't full of holes, and i could be convinced.

hereistheevidence.com

Matt Braynard showed you over a thousand invalid addresses, and you handwaved them away, saying "pshh, there's an apartment complex across the street for this address", which I showed, using google maps, was factually incorrect.

Your memory must be pretty poor then, because I went into depth on the text of that lawsuit, giving exact quotes and page numbers.

If my memory appears to be poor, it's because I have to deal with, like, five different people bringing up different objections to everything I say. You only have to remember your exchanges with me.

Even if the Trump campaign did walk back specific allegations, you're still extrapolating that to every lawsuit.

But here's how it goes. It's much harder to accuse specific individuals of fraud than it is to claim that the entire setup was unsecure and could be exploited. I said before, maybe not to you specifically, that they have a time limit. They have to triage and choose their battles very selectively. Them not choosing to pursue a certain argument in court doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have faith in that argument.

 

[MrCalavera]

More info on election fraud. This time ties to recent events in Nashville. Probably worth investigating.





Kappa

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

More evidence:

When a ballot goes to adjudication, it pops up on a screen and then workers manually select who the votes are supposed to go to. They can just switch a Trump vote for Biden if they want to. It would be undetectable, because the original ballot is considered faulty and the new adjudicated ballot is printed and used instead.

A recount/audit wouldn't catch this.

Your entire argument here is that, because a crime could have been committed (and you haven't even proven such), this is evidence that one was committed.

You're not even trying anymore, are you?

 

[gorfias]

I would be willing to bet that about 60-70% of the votes every election are from voters who vote for the same party, every time. Maybe in the long term they may switch allegiance as times, parties and their nature changes, but basically, they've got a party, and that's that. Sure there's a chunk of "genuine" swing voters who have to make up their mind (I'm guessing ~10-20%) each time, and even then many of them have very strong inclinations one way or another. After that, the rest are voters who don't vote regularly, but might on the odd occasion feel particularly motivated - many of whom are also only ever going to vote for one party.

Which is a long way of saying that most voters may as well cast their vote a year before the election. Or two years. Or, frankly, they may as well cast their vote for both the election and the one four years after. Those who want to wait until later to make up their mind can do so.

Nor does having the same public information really matter. Too much information out there is bullshit, and loads of voters don't really pay any attention to it anyway. Like I said, they've got their party, they're only interested in the news they want to watch, and they're only ever going to vote one way. It doesn't matter whether they watch a debate or not. Even if their favoured candidate did nothing but pull his penis out and swing it around, they'd think he won the debate and vote for him.

I think this reasoning tells us not to even have elections. Take a poll showing there are more Democrats than Republican and end elections. Just put Democrats in power. In this case, I'm reading 17% of Biden voters would change their vote had they known then what they know now about him. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...d-wouldnt-voted-knew-media-censored-scandals/
SEVENTEEN PERCENT of Biden Voters Said They Wouldn’t Have Voted for Him if They Knew About Media-Censored Scandals

 

[Trunkage]

I think this reasoning tells us not to even have elections. Take a poll showing there are more Democrats than Republican and end elections. Just put Democrats in power. In this case, I'm reading 17% of Biden voters would change their vote had they known then what they know now about him. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...d-wouldnt-voted-knew-media-censored-scandals/
SEVENTEEN PERCENT of Biden Voters Said They Wouldn’t Have Voted for Him if They Knew About Media-Censored Scandals

'Brokering Peace in the Middle East' - that's very funny. More like favoured one side over another so they favoured side can screw over the side that lost

Maybe this was 'censored' because that is a huge stretch of the truth

 

[Thaluikhain]

Take a poll showing there are more Democrats than Republican and end elections. Just put Democrats in power.

If the poll is big enough, say if every citizen is allowed to participate, they tend to call that "Democracy".

 

[Elijin]

I think this reasoning tells us not to even have elections. Take a poll showing there are more Democrats than Republican and end elections. Just put Democrats in power. In this case, I'm reading 17% of Biden voters would change their vote had they known then what they know now about him. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...d-wouldnt-voted-knew-media-censored-scandals/
SEVENTEEN PERCENT of Biden Voters Said They Wouldn’t Have Voted for Him if They Knew About Media-Censored Scandals

The math in that article is atrocious and I geniunely hope you understand that and don't actually believe headlines like that.

 

[Silvanus]

What I would hypothetically ask for would not dox them.

Addresses are already publicly available, as are names. You could not match which address voted for which candidate, as one does not sign the ballot itself. Ballots are always secret, by design, and this wouldn't be undoing that.

Exactly, addresses and names are publicly available (though you can opt out of being in the directory in the UK-- can you in the US?). So... what are you asking for? You mentioned "every address", which I took to mean connecting addresses to ballots. If that's not what you meant, and addresses are already public, then what specifically do you want?

Your original objection to the applause thing was "there's additional context there that makes it a non-issue!"
I'm asking what that additional context is. If you can't or won't produce it, I have no reason to be persuaded by your claims.

Its already been covered multiple times in this same thread. I have no interest in endlessly repeating it whenever you selectively forget and rehash old arguments which've already been addressed.

hereistheevidence.com

Matt Braynard showed you over a thousand invalid addresses, and you handwaved them away, saying "pshh, there's an apartment complex across the street for this address", which I showed, using google maps, was factually incorrect.

This isn't what actually happened, of course.

Braynard has shown a bunch of addresses from a wider dataset which we haven't seen. Some of which, if you Google Maps them, correspond to stuff like USPS addresses (though several relate to larger buildings which contain USPS facilities alongside other facilities). Frankly, I would want someone non-partisan and actually qualified to put this forward. Not a Republican campaign advisor without relevant qualifications.

If my memory appears to be poor, it's because I have to deal with, like, five different people bringing up different objections to everything I say. You only have to remember your exchanges with me.

That's understandable. But then, maybe you shouldn't base accusations on these recollections if you're uncertain of them.

 

[Agema]

I think this reasoning tells us not to even have elections. Take a poll showing there are more Democrats than Republican and end elections. Just put Democrats in power. In this case, I'm reading 17% of Biden voters would change their vote had they known then what they know now about him. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...d-wouldnt-voted-knew-media-censored-scandals/

This article is true in a sense, and not in others.

These stories were not buried by the media. The Tara Reade allegations were covered in every major newspaper and by every major news channel, as were the Trump "peace" deals. (They aren't of course peace deals, as these nations were not at war; they're barely even "historic", when we consider Egypt recognised Israel in 1979 and Jordan in the 1990s.) In that sense, the article is lying to us about what it claims is a "buried" story. There's also a caveat this this survey was taken by a partisan right-wing propaganda outlet, and I do not trust them to have been very honest about how they conducted this survey.

However, I do believe that many people would not vote for candidates (whether not vote at all or vote for the other guy) if they knew better. But this is what I mean by the fact that people just don't know. For every person that wouldn't vote for Biden if they knew better, one wouldn't vote for Trump, either. There are people out there who access effectively no political information whatsoever: they don't hear about things because they don't even look. And a lot of what they do know, they only know from hopelessly biased and inaccurate sources. To add context, polls suggested 20-30% of Americans - mostly Democrats - believed the US government (or CIA) were in on 9/11. 40% of Republicans still don't believe Obama was born in the USA, and 30% are doubtful. This is the voting public: where absolute bollocks and gross misinformation claim huge percentages of popular belief.

I would also go a step further. I would bet you the correlation between people who believe the absurdist, wrongest, least evidentially supportable things and the people who least trust the mainstream media is very high.

But that's democracy: you just accept people's right to vote stupidly. The point of democracy is not to ensure that a highly competent government is elected by a well-informed populace - that's just a notional ideal of how a democracy would be. Democracy exists to give the people some say so that leaders are kept on their toes to try to deliver, and that bad enough governments can replaced without the messiness of armed rebellion.

 

[Seanchaidh]

(though you can opt out of being in the directory in the UK-- can you in the US?)

If nothing else, you can opt out of being in the directory by being without an address.

The Tara Reade allegations were covered in every major newspaper and by every major news channel

In the United States they were covered in a slanted way transparently intended to question Reade's credibility and then quickly forgotten about. They were also only covered in that brief way after independent media (starting with Katie Halper, iirc) interviewed Ms. Reade. Tara Reade had reached out to news organizations and until then had been rebuffed. And afterward she was still largely ignored.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I think this reasoning tells us not to even have elections. Take a poll showing there are more Democrats than Republican and end elections. Just put Democrats in power. In this case, I'm reading 17% of Biden voters would change their vote had they known then what they know now about him. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...d-wouldnt-voted-knew-media-censored-scandals/
SEVENTEEN PERCENT of Biden Voters Said They Wouldn’t Have Voted for Him if They Knew About Media-Censored Scandals

TheGatewayPundit s a horrible news source. If people knew the truth, they wouldn't vote for either of the candidates. The jobs created thing is pretty fucking hilarious. Is the president supposed to get credit for getting millions of lost jobs back due to millions getting fired/laid off/furloughed because of a pandemic? You might as well just say a random rock is responsible for "creating" millions of jobs.