Georgia Election Investigation Fails, Once Again, To Find Massive Voter Fraud
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger claimed that over 1,000 people voted more than once. He now admits that number is far lower.

Much was made both during and after the 2020 presidential election about rampant voter fraud. This week, yet another of those claims fell apart under scrutiny.
In September 2020, Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced that more than 1,000 people may have voted more than once in the state's primary and runoff elections that year. Amid ongoing allegations of widespread vote fraud from President Donald Trump, Raffensperger charged that the voters in question returned absentee ballots, and then also voted in person—a violation of both state and federal law. Raffensperger assembled a task force to investigate, and he warned that convictions under Georgia law would garner up to 10 years in prison and $100,000 in fines.
But now, Raffensperger admits that his initial claims were overblown.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Tuesday that in response to requests for information about the investigation, the secretary of state's office indicated that only around 300 cases of double-voting were ultimately substantiated, "almost always because of mistakes by confused voters and poll workers." Of the 1,339 cases which Raffensperger initially claimed, the confirmed total represents barely more than one-fifth (22 percent), though the paper contends that about 100 cases remain "under investigation."
Even from the outset, the cases that Raffensperger described appeared more like carelessness on the part of election officials than intentional malfeasance by voters. Georgia voters who fill out an absentee ballot may either mail it in or drop it off. They could also go to their polling place and vote in person instead. In that case, according to page 55 of the State of Georgia Poll Worker Manual, the poll worker's terminal will prompt that the voter has been issued an absentee ballot. At that time, the voter would either turn in their absentee ballot to be discarded, or if they did not have it with them, the poll worker would call to verify that the ballot had not been counted before having the voter fill out a form requesting their original ballot be canceled.
If, as Raffensperger alleged, more than 1,000 voters cast more than one vote, by mailing back an absentee ballot and then also voting in person, then in every single case that would require a failure on the part of the state of Georgia or its poll workers.
There is evidence that Raffensperger's office realized this when he first made the claim. According to emails published by American Oversight, a government accountability watchdog group, on the same day that Raffensperger made the announcement about double-voting, Ryan Germany, the general counsel to the secretary of state, was advising members of the task force on the subject: "There are systematic checks to stop double voting from happening, and those checks appear to be largely working as intended. [Some] people likely voted twice inadvertently or because they were not sure if their absentee ballot had been returned on time."
Raffensperger won office in 2018 after an endorsement from Trump. He now faces Trump's ire for refusing to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, not to mention a primary challenger from the right threatening Raffensperger's bid for reelection this fall.
Long before Trump's attorneys were making the case that elections were stolen by pernicious algorithms developed by long-dead Latin American strongmen, the prospect of widespread voter fraud permeated political discourse. Despite little to no evidence of it on any sort of massive scale, it is still incumbent upon election officials to guard against it, and to pursue any perpetrators who willfully vote more than once or in somebody else's name. It's ironic, then, that amid overselling allegations of electoral fraud, Raffensperger lost the confidence of his party's leader for being unwilling to commit such fraud himself.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
All the Trump you can handle, all the time.
Whataboutism doesn't happen spontaneously! And the editors need to defend their votes for Biden.
Yea yea. Just admit it. You think facts are for losers.
Well. Good. If that's the case, then we're happy. However, this doesn't address any of the larger accusations of corruption concerning election officials or fraudulent ballots.
You cannot disprove one part of the claim and ignore all the others.
I guess it is good, in some ways, that the slack-jawed misfits on the right have put birtherism behind them and become 'stolen election' kooks.
Slightly less racism.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, anyway. Better Americans will, as has become customary, let you know how far and how long.
Need mommy sweetie?
Kamala Harris isn't a natural born citizen because her parents weren't citizens when she was born.
You're completely ignorant of the requirements for citizenship, aren't you? Mind boggling.
To be POTUS you don't have to be a citizen you have to be a natural born citizen. I challenge you to find any law or federal court case that explicitly defines the phrase natural born citizen. Hint it's not Wong or Elk or Happerset.
We, STILL, haven't seen a legitimate birth certificate for the guy, whose mini-bio on his own book says he was born in Kenya.
Cite?
Are you talking about this?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566
What’s the problem here? Someone hand delivered ballots that were filled out by real people. He did this by going door to door and offering that service, to which he was paid $10 per ballot by the respective party. This is legal in California but appears to be illegal in Georgia? I’m not sure how this would affect an election either way though. It’s definitely not fraudulent votes though.
Did you accidentally reply to the wrong comment?
How did that work out for your fellow travelers when they ran around of Kyle Rittenhouse? He left your friends dead and maimed. Now he’s a national hero for it after being found innocent of all wrongdoing.
If your accusations are completely unfounded then yes, we can very well ignore them.
Bring some evidence you clown.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/new-video-voterga-releases-video-georgia-ballot-trafficker-holding-ballots-taking-photo-dumping-ballot-dropbox/
Again, big fucking deal. Do y’all have anything showing vote fraud besides trump trying to threaten Georgia reps careers if they didn’t find 12k votes for him?
Yes, video of people harvesting ballots which is illegal in Georgia.
Some fraud exists. Because this is reality. But there is no evidence that enough fraud existed to swing any state, let along half a dozen states. That assertion is nonsense and based on bad statistics and outright conspiracy mongering.
There's no evidence. All that kraken's worth of evidence and no one has been able to show anything substantive. It's just not there. Sure some dude in Bumfuck Iowa got caught voting twice, but that's not enough to turn an election. The GOP narrative is that there was so much fraud that it turned the election. That narrative is bullshit conspiracy mongering every bit as stupid as Hillary's claim that Russia stole the election from her.
Not a reason to not prosecute the few fraudsters and hang the inept and confused, but it's not a reason to continue this batshit insane conspiracy theory.
New Evidence Indicates Enough Illegal Votes In Georgia To Tip 2020 Results
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/09/new-evidence-indicates-enough-illegal-votes-in-georgia-to-tip-2020-results/
“ Soon after the November general election, Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues, obtained data from the National Change of Address (NCOA) database that identified Georgia residents who had confirmed moves with the U.S. Postal Service. After excluding moves with effective dates within 30 days of the general election, and by using data available from the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, Davis identified nearly 35,000 Georgia voters who indicated they had moved from one Georgia county to another, but then voted in the 2020 general election in the county from which they had moved.”
I tried to find any other source or discussion of this matter, and see only the Federalist’s articles. So, let’s say that Davis analysis was correct, the interpretation of the Georgia election laws was correct, and this information was suppressed by Georgia election officials.
Isn’t it likely that those 10,300 votes are probably distributed about the same as Georgia’s votes in general for Trump or Biden?
Hmm:
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/more-trump-election-distortions/
“Officials in the Georgia secretary of state’s office acknowledge there could, in fact, be some cases such as Davis described, and they say they have been looking into the data Davis provided. But they say Davis is glossing over several legal realities that affect this issue.”
Several paragraphs of explanation follow
that paragraph. Follow the link and read if you are interested in lots of details about how residency is established for voting in Georgia.
I agree. Trump needs to be cancelled for threatening Georgia vote counters. That’s just mob boss behavior. Dudes gotta go away and not come back - he’s toxic, and I was a trump supporter until he made the huge gaffe on Jan 6th (which didn’t amount to anything, but it was a a bad call). The threatening phone call to find 12k votes sealed the deal for me. He’s a crook.
It’s heartening to hear of a Trump supporter reaching a limit to what behavior they will accept from him. Kudos for being a person who can change your mind politically.
Really? You’ve never once gone against your fellow travelers in the democrat party.
I am a poll worker in Virginia. Our election security is not perfect, but it is more than enough to make it easier to win an election legally rather than by cheating. I wrote an extensive blog post on this topic: https://dave.marney.org/no-mass-election-fraud/
It's the poll workers and watchers from every party and group that keeps things honest.
Which is why despite all the talk of fraud, the vote steal nutters are focused on the voting machines. And Hugo Chavez. And smuggling in ballots through Maine. And all the other rabid shit.
Logic did not get the GOP into this nuttery, so don't expect logic to get them out. The actual conservatives need to either take back the party and clean house, or just give up and start a new party.
You know they threw the Republican poll watchers out in Detroit?
And Philly, and Atlanta
If they hadn't said they were stopping the count at 2am, then everyone waking up later that morning to Biden making million vote gains only in key states, maybe less people would assume the worst?
Leftist poll workers are evil totalitarians who lie constantly. Pray you avoid justice.
Election security doesn't address things like LieCheatSteal party changes to election regulations, especially about the fraud-prone mail balloting.
Or the MSM and Social Media censoring the story about Hunter Biden's laptop, that one third of those polled said they never heard about, and enough, to change the results, said would have prompted them not to vote for Joe.
Or the miraculous change of fortune that happened after election night, when "late-arriving' ballots came in at a far greater percentage of Biden votes, than he had been receiving prior to polls closing, a time at which had Trump comfortably in the lead.
..or the $450 million donated by Zuckerberg to Democrat voting infrastructure in 2020.
"when "late-arriving' ballots came in at a far greater percentage of Biden votes,"
A statistically improbable, some almost impossible, percentage...
Except the thousands of double voters they know about...
https://georgiastarnews.com/2020/12/15/as-the-u-s-senate-runoffs-approach-georgia-declines-prosecuting-the-double-voters-they-catch/
Or the thousands who voted in the wrong precinct against state law.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-voting-law-disqualifies-ballots-cast-in-the-wrong-precinct/N4I437PT4RA47LG2MA3YS32WEA/
Or the fact a Georgia judge removed signature validation. I'm sure there was nothing wrong there.
https://tennesseestar.com/2020/11/16/analysis-a-lack-of-signature-verification-in-georgia-damages-recount-validity/
Or the changed guidance on felon voting made in 2020 by the SoS and not the legislature.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-election-officials-say-ex-felons-can-vote-while-paying-debts/3YHUKB5MHFGP7POBNZFDXIWBTE/
Reason wants you to believe the issue is resolved and any questions about voter fraud have been put to bed.
You forgot the false narative that Trump was pushing for fraud.
Raffensperger lost the confidence of his party's leader for being unwilling to commit such fraud himself.
Really Lancaster? Reeeaaallly? You're seriously claiming Trump was asking for Raffensperger to commit fraud? As opposed to the reasonable interpretation he was asking Raffensperger to find evidence of fraud Trump believes exists?
Exactly.
And in this article, Lancaster falsely claims that Trump wanted Raffensperger to "interfere" with the election.
(I read the transcript of the 2021 Jan 02 call between Trump and Raffensperger and have had long arguments online explaining that, far from supporting the Narrative about what Trump said on the call, the transcript contradicts it. It's nice to finally see someone else who understands this.)
Thank you. I listen to Scott Adams (not the only one here who does). Good information for calling out BS. If you don't, I recommend you try it out.
Did you really expect Reason to publish an article that wasn’t completely disingenuous on this subject?
Trump was asking Raffensberger to find find the votes. Find the votes. We have it all on tape. Find. The votes.
Trump later said, and I quote, "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes”.
So your assertion that Trump was only looking for evidence of fraud at the time is absolute virgin grade bullshit.
No, you foaming at the mouth and bleating shrill pronouncements showcases your TDS.
How expected.
Jesse, methinks Reason should contract with you to have an actual article written.
Wrong narrative, won't happen.
Jesse should write an article and post it here. Several will post lengthy comments (Ken and Bill, amongst others). I wrote articles about Transnistria and România and posted them.
I’d very much welcome an article length post from Jesse on this. And similar from others on other topics.
I'll happily host an article on my 'stack, and pay to do it if it's decent.
I don’t think Lord Koch would permit such an article.
Maybe I am wrong, but have the investigations into Fulton and Dekalb counties been completed yet? I do not believe they have been.
It is premature to declare: Nothing to see here.
Whaddya talking about? 'Nothing to see here!' 'Nothing to see here!' See? I can declare it at any time. You saying it's premature suggests that I'm, intentionally or not, ignoring something when I say 'Nothing to see here!' That, somehow, my declaring 'Nothing to see here!' repeatedly might be rightly considered as misinformation in certain contexts, even if unintentionally. Especially if I've been saying 'Nothing to see here!' to pretty much everything, since Nov. 7th... 2016.
"The investigations must continue until I get my way!!!"
brandybuck, I would not say it that way. Why? The time to challenge was the interregnum period between election day and January 20th. POTUS Biden resides at 1600 Pennsylvania. The EC votes have been certified. The election is over.
What we do not have, and probably will not have for some years, is a full and complete accounting of what happened in several states (GA, NV, NM, MI, PA, WI, AZ). It is much less about getting ones way as much as it is understanding what actually happened.
Well said, XY.
Except we do know what happened. More electors for Biden than for Trump. There is literally no evidence of a stolen election, only evidence that the Republican Party in some states tried to cheat with their own fake electors.
Here in California they caught some Republicans with fake ballot drop-off boxes (Sylmar as I recall). But the idea that could have turned California to Trump is batshit crazy. And I still have family members who sincerely believe California would have gone to Trump except for fraud. It's all nuttery all the way down.
Will you ever have an accounting of each individual vote? Of course not. We have secret balloting for a reason. But it's absolutely clear that what tiny bit of fraud existing was not enough to swing the state into providing a different slate of electors.
Keep spending the taxpayer money until the end of time on investigations, and you still won't find the kraken of evidence to prove the election was stolen. Give it up, Gore won in 2000, Trump in 2016, and Biden in 2020. Jeepers H Cripes on a pogostick just give it up already.
The way you ignore the fortifications in front of your face is incredible. The Emperor's New Votes.
Scroll up for JesseAZ.
If you keep counting fraudulent votes, of course you keep coming up with the same number.
Scroll up for JesseAZ.
Why would anyone do that? Dude's a piece of shit liar.
Projection on your part, I believe.
So sayeth the town drunk.
Jesse tells the truth. Whereas you are a known liar. Do you really expect anyone here to believe you and not him?
Gore won in 2000
Sigh.... you had us going for a second there that you were not engaging in your usual partisan hackery-pokery. Fuck off.
It's what the Democrats still sincerely believe. Just like the Republicans sincerely believe Trump won twenty years later. Both sides are nuttier than squirrel turds.
Leftists don't sincerely believe anything, you cocksucking totalitarian simp.
Logic and facts escape you. This is why you’re a democrat.
You just want to shout down any dissent in the democrat narrative. This is your way. You are not a credible, and are a democrat shill.
That's not what most of us are, or have been, saying. At all.
Wisconsin is another fun one. 7.1 million registered voters. 5.8 million people (including minors).
Where do you get the 7.1 million number from?
https://elections.wi.gov/node/7567
Why does he need a source when he can just make up a number?
Hey, it works for everything else.
I think that Scott Adams raises a good point about this: it's hard to resolve these claims because our voting systems are not readily auditable. I don't think we'll ever truly know if fraud occurred; when people express their opinion it tends to reflect their team loyalty.
when people express their opinion it tends to reflect their team loyalty.
That's pretty dumb. You're saying that anyone who doesn't believe that the election was stolen is a Democrat. Last I checked at least half of all Republicans don't buy the crybaby in chief's big lie. Most unregistered people do not believe it either. Are they all on TEAM BLUE?
I'm referring to the people who loudly express an opinion.
Fact is that there is no credible evidence of massive fraud. None.
The belief that the election was stolen is based solely on faith.
So people who loudly express their opinion are expressing their faith, or lack of faith, in Trump's claims.
Team has nothing to do with it.
Ah, I see. You're defining "team" strictly in terms of political party. But as I'm sure you're aware, neither party is monolithic. For instance, the GOP includes Never-Trumpers. The Democrats have their Bernie Bros. etc.
I'm defining "team" to mean political party because in normal discourse that's what it means.
You're defining "team" strictly in terms of political party.
He's also defining 'reflects' as 'conscribes'. My reflection in a funhouse mirror distorts, but still represents, reality. My reflection in a concave mirror magnifies finer portions of what it's reflecting. My reflection in *any* mirror doesn't portray, in any way, the portions of my person not emitting light incident on the mirror's surface.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/new-video-voterga-releases-video-georgia-ballot-trafficker-holding-ballots-taking-photo-dumping-ballot-dropbox/
Where are you against transparency? In an election, it is incumbent upon the government to prove it was legitimate. The election system is intentionally designed to prevent audits and transparency. Fraud is guaranteed.
In an election, it is incumbent upon the government to prove it was legitimate.
And the sore loser will say "Prove there wasn't fraud! You can't do it! That's proof that there was fraud!"
The burden of proof is on those claiming fraud. You're committing the fallacy of switching the burden of proof.
No one says they have to prove that there wasn't fraud, but that their relentless refusal to grant access to the data, requested by the ones wanting to see if there was fraud, indicates a consciousness of guilt.
If the election was honest, election officials would be falling all over themselves to provide the information to show it was.
They are doing the opposite.
And when did I say anything about being against transparency? Transparency is good. But a lack of transparency isn't proof of fraud.
Strange, Banks prove no fraud all the time. They have auditable systems for tracking money movement. If the system is intentionally designed to be unauditable, fraud will occur.
The burden of proof is on those claiming fraud. You're committing the fallacy of switching the burden of proof.
Fallacy? Proof of innocent until proven guilty is used for the people because the government has all the power. When it's the government, it's guilty until proven innocent. Nothing else works and it's been proven time and again the government will hide wrongdoing.
And when did I say anything about being against transparency? Transparency is good. But a lack of transparency isn't proof of fraud.
Where did I say it was proof of fraud? I said where there is no transparency and it can't be audited, fraud is guaranteed. If not today, then eventually. Anything that can be abused will, eventually, be abused. Simply look at the reduction in dependents on tax forms once the IRS started requiring SSNs for the tax deduction.
Proof of innocent until proven guilty is used for the people because the government has all the power.
Proof of innocent until proven guilty is because a prejudiced court might set the bar so high that it's impossible to prove one's innocence. "Nope, not good enough. Guilty!"
Same deal with election fraud. Trump and his supporters will never be convinced that there was no fraud unless Trump is declared the winner. "Nope, not good enough. Fraud!"
Proof of innocent until proven guilty is because a prejudiced court might set the bar so high that it's impossible to prove one's innocence. "Nope, not good enough. Guilty!"
A prejudiced court prejudiced against the government? God forbid! A court being skeptical of government claims!
Same deal with election fraud. Trump and his supporters will never be convinced that there was no fraud unless Trump is declared the winner. "Nope, not good enough. Fraud!"
And thus you refuse to investigate at all? Yes, I'm sure that's more convincing and will provide a better result. Never investigate anything in a system where fraud is all but guaranteed to be attempted and the rewards for getting away with it are high.
You hate Trump more than anyone, and have a troubling history of shouting down any dissent against democrats here. No matter what proof could possibly be offered, you will always scream against Trump.
Actually, it is, when you're talking about voting, and talking about procedures which were in place to achieve transparency, but which were abandoned in 2020 because of COVID.
For example you seem very angry about it.
I can't say firsthand, but mister "Comment hidden because this user is muted" always seems to strike people as angry. Usually pretty unhinged too.
To be angry I'd have to care.
Expressions of doubt about your conclusion seems to set you off.
Sure, troll. Whatever you say.
Not everyone that points something out is a troll, sarc.
Strawman harder.
From a strictly operational/audit point of view, there is the Catch-22: a system 100% auditable and verifiable could only be so if each individual vote could be verified as valid-- but such verification would require tying it to an individual voter. Thus making the ballot no longer secret.
If ballots are to remain secret, then there must be at least one layer of trust around the collection and aggregation of individual ballots into total numbers-- some part of the process that is simply not auditable, but can only be vouched for. That might be trust that the ballot box everyone dropped their vote into was in fact empty at the start. Or it might be that the software gathering the votes works exactly as advertised.
The bedrock of this trust in current systems is the poll worker, and the fact that multiple poll workers from different political parties watch each other, and the process, to make sure everything is on the level.
From a process point of view, it's a hard problem.
For sure.
It is only a difficult problem if the standard is going to be a 100% guarantee of no hanky-panky at all. That has never been the standard in the past because it is impossible to achieve. Instead we have a system where the incentives and processes strongly discourage messing around with the vote, such as with multiple poll workers watching the vote, procedures for challenging potentially ambiguous ballots, etc., as you note. These have been the standards for a while now. And if these standards are no longer acceptable to Team Red, because their Orange Man has told them so, then it's up to them to come up with something better. Don't just bitch about it, don't just make it harder for everyone to vote, set up a clear standard for what is an acceptable electoral counting system and then devise procedures and systems consistent with that.
Either you believe Trump or you support Biden. Those are your choices.
But I wrote in Vermin Supreme!
That means you support Biden.
Oh, you mean things like 'show ID to vote' and 'no ballot harvesting' and prohibitions on 'no excuse absentee voting' = then it's up to them to come up with something better.
That's just making it harder to vote, without setting clear standards on what would be an acceptable standard for a 'clean election'.
What's to stop Team Red from, after next election, if their candidate loses again, claiming FRAUD! FRAUD! and passing yet another round of restrictions? They can sell it as "stopping fraud" because they have not established clear standards. Set a standard, and if a system meets that standard, then shut up about fraud. Don't keep using the FRAUD accusation as a cudgel to undermine the electoral process itself every time your preferred candidate loses. That is just corrosive to democracy and will eventually ruin it.
That's just making it harder to vote, without setting clear standards on what would be an acceptable standard for a 'clean election'.
A standard was offered and you dismissed it as, "just making it harder to vote." How about you wait for the response to the inevitable loss before preemptively throwing a fit about it? Or are we only allowed to demand more rationality and patience from Republicans?
What's to stop Team Red from, after next election, if their candidate loses again, claiming FRAUD! FRAUD! and passing yet another round of restrictions?
I agree with the principle here: there should be restrictions around changing voting rules in advance of the upcoming election, or some time limit around how often rules may change.
Unless you claim an emergency then all bets are off.
Like the way democrats were changing the rules to benefited themselves right before the 2020 election. Jeffy doesn’t have a problem with that. Just worried about republicans.
Pretty sure the things you just listed are setting a clear standard, just one you don't like. Showing ID is so hard, I mean we have to do it to buy a gun, drive a car, buy alcohol and tobacco, fly on an airplane, and most states do require IDs to vote and seem like people have no trouble voting in those states.
My God, stop with the empty talking points. Do you listen to NPR and MSNBC to hype yourself up and get your marching orders before posting?
I'll gladly accept "no ID to vote" if they maintain that across everything that's a right and it includes "no ID to purchase a firearm". 😀
These have been the standards for a while now.
These were the standards up until, oh, 2020, when they were changed mostly via administrative fiat. Which is why there's been such a flurry of reforms before the next cycle (for all the sound and fury around GA's voting reform, on net they liberalized the process compared to the pre-pandemic status quo).
There's surely some sour grapes here, but a lot of the proposed and implemented reforms predate the Trump era and his personal obsessions. Also, if you can't grasp why it's not good to have ~40% of the electorate find the results untrustworthy then there's no helping you.
I think it's more than 40%. Not that that makes it better, but that means that it's not just Republicans that think there was some shenanigans.
Also, if you can't grasp why it's not good to have ~40% of the electorate find the results untrustworthy then there's no helping you.
I don't think it is good. That is why I am asking for a concrete objective standard that would satisfy the concerns of the 40%. Not this ad-hoc "well I don't like the result so it must have been fraud".
Voter ID, no mail-in ballots, no partisan advertising outside the buildings...
No mail in ballots? So you'd like to disenfranchise the active duty military?
Active duty can't set up a polling station on base?
I’m ok with absentee ballots. Not the shit the democrats have set up.
How about internally consistent math and a legitimate reason why all precedents were no longer applicable to results at least.
We'll start there and leave aside other behavioral cues for now.
Bullshit you lying ignoramus. You've been offered the outlines of acceptable changes and dismissed them out of hand. You and the rest of team blue just want a system that is as easy as possible to commit fraud and no way to get caught. Go fuck yourself with a rusty running chainsaw.
Agree. And this why a politician shouldn't lie. If they damage their reputation by lying throughout their career then I'm less apt to believe their unverifiable claims. Trump is on the lying camp for me, at the same time I also find him to be the most honest president of my political lifetime; which is sad.
From a strictly operational/audit point of view, there is the Catch-22: a system 100% auditable and verifiable could only be so if each individual vote could be verified as valid-- but such verification would require tying it to an individual voter. Thus making the ballot no longer secret.
Just use Bitcoin. Problem solved. Duh. - fanboi
Bitcoin is NOT private. I don't know why people keep spreading the nonsense that it supports anonymous transactions. It doesn't. It is literally a public register. Heck, it's a massively duplicated and distributed public register. It couldn't be less private.
What Bitcoin isn't is controlled by a government (yet). Not the same thing as private.
There are plenty of ways to ensure your bitcoin transactions are private. Even just the basic way bitcoin works makes it extremely hard to track who has what.
Example: I send you btc from wallet A. You get the coin in wallet B. The 'change' is sent to wallet C.
Reading the blockchain you have no idea who got what unless you know who owns wallet B (which was likely created specifically for this transaction) or wallet C (which didn't even exist until it was created to get the change).
Tracing wallet ownership is trivial. The only way to hide your participation in a transaction would be to not use that wallet. Which sorta defeats the whole purpose.
Sorry, just can't keep my comments away on this. Voting happens routinely, of course, and have to match up with state registration records, so voters' wallets would have to matched and validated. No one-time-use wallets here, it has to be your wallet.
Yeah, so once I find all the votes in the registry, I absolutely get the wallet identifiers, and now all I need are the corresponding state identifiers and I know how you voted now and forever, amen.
No thanks. I'll keep my time-tested, battle-hardened process where I fill out an anonymous ballot myself in my own hand and place it in the tabulator myself.
But wallet A no longer has anything in it. Who cares if you know that I own it? Once I send the coin to the two new wallets, you don't know who controls what. And even if you can do this with certainty, there are any number of off-chain transactions that aren't recorded on the blockchain at all.
Yes, ballot secrecy is hard but not at all unsolvable. I would say the key ingredients are:
1. Ballots go straight from voter to tabulator. No intermediaries, unless cannot be avoided (e.g. absentee remote ballots)
2. Tabulators regularly audited to prove they count accurately
3. Multiple, contemporaneous records using different protocols, such as paper ballots scanned real time into a tabulator, multiple copies of tallies, archived under lock and key by independent agencies.
4. Written instructions, preferably with check lists and fixed procedure flows.
5. Required training of poll workers.
6. All activities take place in the open with multiple observers representing different parties.
Just a few of the things that can make this doable.
1b) Tabulating takes place where the votes are cast. Votes are not moved from the polling locations until all are counted.
New Jersey misplaced ballots. That ballots are temporarily misplaced at all is concerning. That no one knew to look for them is terrifying. Who knows how many ballots were cast, we only have the number of votes counted.
How do you see the systems as not auditable? The systems have a large number of checks, the article even points this out. This idea of auditing is just a talking point that ignores reality.
The systems are not auditable by the best, most unimpeachable audit technique: (1) Tracing a sample of votes in the tallies for each candidate to a choice made by a valid voter, and (2) tracing choices made by a sample of valid voters to the vote tallies.
This cannot be done while maintaining complete secrecy of voting.
I see few details whenever I am told of the "large number of checks" on voting processes. These tests would have to be of two general sorts:
1. Statistical analyses of voting results for anomalies.
2. Tests of the vote collection and tabulation procedures and controls over them. This seems to be the sort of testing done in the case discussed in the article.
You are correct that a secret vote does not allow for a person to vote type audit. That is hardly necessary.
First there are numerous checks and cross checks that are conducted of the votes. Machines are checked for accuracy with manual counts. Pole books and ballot counts are checked against the machine numbers. Ballot counts are checked periodically against expected numbers. This means you could not have a between one hundred and several hundred votes over the day and then get one or two thousand in the last hour. All of this will involve a large number of people so no individual could by themselves change the count.
That was the whole point of changes to the election rules. They make it impossible to prove the fraud because they introduce so many weak points that can be ...... misused.
We came within a hair's breadth of Biden and the progressives passing the Green New Deal, creating massive new entitlement programs, admitting two more states, killing the filibuster, and packing the Supreme Court. Everyone who dreaded Biden winning the election and the Democrats winning the Senate runoff election in Georgia was right to do so. There is no good reason for average Americans not to dread the progressives and the U.S. government becoming one in the same thing.
That's not proof of fraud.
Remember, Ken argued back in 2020 that it was fair game to question the legitimacy of the election, EVEN IF HE THOUGHT IT WAS LEGIT, because creating an impression that Biden was not legitimately elected would undermine his chances of enacting his agenda, even while it did grave damage to the electoral process itself.
So Ken doesn't need proof of fraud. Ken freely admits that he will claim fraud exists where HE KNOWS it doesn't, because he thinks it will undermine Biden. It is disgusting and wrong, but that is what passes for our resident Team Red "thought leader" around here.
It’s good none of those things happened to Trump.
IDK about Ken, but I advocated questioning the legitimacy by legal means when Trump did it in 2016. It was a fantastic troll of HRC's flip-flopping of "Trump is Hitler for alleging election is rigged.", "Trump won, the election is rigged.", "Trump can't investigate the election just because he thinks some illegal immigrants may've voted.", "The election was rigged... by Russians!" stupidity (with overtures reaching back to '00/'01).
I even advocate his red teaming (in the OPSEC sense) of the VP's role in certifying the electoral vote and even the whispers about ascending to the big chair or right hand via appointment to the speaker's chair. Better to sort it out with the least warmongering and most 'good people on both sides' President in more than a generation rather than an "All your base are belong to us."/"Papieren bitte!" candidate down the line.
So he's intentionally perpetuating what he knows to be a lie to get gullible people to hate Biden even more. This is what I mean when I say conservatives are becoming just like the people they hate. That's not a tactic they would have used before Trump turned the GOP into a pile of elephant dung.
We don’t want to become a Leninist authoritarian state ruled by Marxist democrats. You may support that, but Americans don’t.
Funny, you were singing a different tune for four goddamn years of "Russia collusion" bullshit.
Really? I never said anything remotely like "even if the Russia collusion scandal is false, let's keep pushing it so as to undermine Trump". That is in your dreams. I mostly said nothing about the Russia collusion scandal because I thought it was a mostly exaggerated scandal from the beginning. Go back and look at what I wrote, if you can. There isn't much there. Stop believing in strawmen.
Oh, so you did have a problem with the constant use of bullshit attacks by the DNC and the Media on the previous administration to hamper any chance of it enacting it's desired policies, you just didn't say anything about it back then?
Since I don't make a habit of saving anyone's post to dredge up later, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was somebody else that spent years on this website propping up every attempt to unseat and deligitimize Trump because he's an uncouth loudmouth with an (R) after his name.
Maybe when you get tired of prefacing posts with "Hey, that's not what I said. This is what I said." you'll wise up and use the Mute feature.
Or you could just go away and not shit up thread after thread.
You and your cohorts gleefully reposted any breaking stories involving any supposed confirmation of the supposed Russian collusion.
The proof of fraud most of us rely on is the sneering article the leftists wrote in Newsweek of Time about how they committed massive vote fraud to 'fortify' the election.
Or did you miss that?
Well, I read that article. Here, I'll even post a link to it here.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Why don't you specifically point out what in the article constitutes definitive proof of fraud.
Illegal 11th hour changes to voting standards by a legal body that had no jurisdiction ring any bells?
How about something more recent - like mail-in fraud being a concern for any sane nation.
https://rsbnetwork.com/news/arizona-lawmakers-introduce-resolution-to-decertify-the-2020-election-in-three-counties/
He didn't say it was?
I’m of the opinion that the system cannot be fixed and accelerating towards the cliff may be the best option. Those of us successful outside of the welfare state will be able to weather the transitory storm.
Did anyone check how many out of state volunteers stuck around after the Senate run-off?
So the author is trying to pretend like Raffensberger's claim that there were over 1,000 potential double voters and the internal claim that there's checks to prevent double voting are somehow inconsistent. It's not. Being aware that there's a process to try to prevent this doesn't mean you can't point out that it's potentially failed. There's no inconsistency.
"returned absentee ballots, and then also voted in person—a violation of both state and federal law" -- not always. NYC Duchesne County voting faq says "Even if you request or cast
and return an absentee ballot, you may still go to the polls and vote in person.": https://www.elections.dutchessny.gov/frequently-asked-questions/
My state elections office told me: "The law prohibits a voter from casting more than one ballot. A ballot is considered cast when it is accepted by the local election official for mail-in ballots or when inserted into the tabulator on Election Day. Since you had already cast an in person ballot, when your mail-in ballot was received by [your city], they rejected it since you had already cast one ballot and therefore could not cast another. Since your mail-in ballot that you returned to [your city] was rejected, you are only going to appear on the voter list and in [your city]'s records as having voted once."
Maybe it's different in Georgia.
Please define 'massive'.
Does it depend on the margin? I.e., If the Margin is 1.5M is 9k invalid massive? If the Margin is 50k, is 9k invalid massive? If the margin is 5k, is 9k massive?
That is, what percent of the margin makes it massive vs. not massive?
Given that the margin is not known until the votes are cast, what efforts to minimize invalid voting is necessary and sufficient to secure elections?
Given that the margin is not known until the votes are cast, what efforts to minimize invalid voting is necessary and sufficient to secure elections?
That is a great question.
We've had a system of elections in this country that has worked reasonably well for a while now. It was not 100% guaranteed "secure", it was not 100% guaranteed "auditable", but it worked well enough. If those who think this system is no longer sufficient, then it's up to them to come up with a superior alternative.
We've had a system of elections in this country that has worked reasonably well for a while now. It was not 100% guaranteed "secure", it was not 100% guaranteed "auditable", but it worked well enough. If those who think this system is no longer sufficient, then it's up to them to come up with a superior alternative
THAT system worked fine--and if we could get back to it, removing all the illegalities the left has been using to 'fortify' the vote, that'd be great.
But you and your leftist brethren don't want that. You want everyone to shut the hell up and let you make the US into a de facto one party nation--the way you've made California and Hawaii one party states.
Blah blah blah, more YOU'RE EVIL projection
1. Progs are evil.
2. He's right about the rest as well.
We've had a system of elections in this country that has worked reasonably well for a while now.
Again, "The most secure election since Kennedy v. Nixon!"
Something was different in 2020 than in all those previous elections, I wonder what that was?
"Massive" should be defined in terms of how close the margin is between the winner and the top loser. That's the way we define the margin for recounts. In my state, for example, recounts are only permitted if the results are within 1% -- and only if the results are within 1/2% will the state pay for the recount to be done.
Same here, I think. Any irregularity large enough on its own to trigger a recount is "massive".
But my question re: margins are a trailing indicator (won't know until after the count) stands. In CA statewide elections, 100k is probably noise. In competitive U.S. House races, <1k. But what cost to get <1kj? And what cost to allow invalid votes (mens rea notwithstanding)?
And that is even before talking about net valid votes disqualified. The thing is, we don't really know what the overall expected value of the voting errors is. If it were approximately 0, then we are probably okay. But 'both sides' are focusing on different error terms (invalid votes cast vs. valid votes discarded) in an attempt to eitehr get the rror ot 0, or make sure the error is in their favor.
For the record, I am perfectly okay with trying to reduce both error terms.
None of this matters since Trump's supporters' belief that the election was stolen is based upon faith. No amount of evidence can ever sway them because their belief isn't based on any evidence. It's like trying to get a Fundamentalist Christian to believe in evolution. You can show them piles and piles of evidence but they will never budge. Same with the believers in The Big Steal. Evidence doesn't matter.
Precisely.
They'll never admit they were completely and utterly wrong. They're in too deep and being a Trump supporter is far too much of their identity, however sad that is.
It is a bit ironic, that the same crowd which is now saying WHY WON'T YOU ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT COVID LOCKDOWNS, digs in its heels on election fraud claims even as the overwhelming mountain of evidence against massive fraud keeps getting higher.
The evidence that lockdowns stop COVID is frankly stronger than the evidence than the 2020 election was stolen, but hey whatevs.
You were WRONG about covid lockdowns. YOU, not us.
And you're WRONG about the election.
See how that works? The people who are right about covid and lockdowns and masks and all the ways you've screwed up the economy, when THEY question something, THEY should be listened to.
But you guys? You were wrong about covid and lockdowns and masks and all the ways you're screwing up the economy. You can't even tell a man from a woman. When you guys question something, well, to be honest, we all laugh.
But we're amazed as well--amazed that you managed to form actual intelligible -if idiotic- sentences.
They lied about Hillary's violations of national security.
They lied about Hillary's foundation not taking bribes.
They lied about "Russian collusion".
They lied about committing fraud to spy on political opponents.
They lied about communications being tapped.
They lied about Mike Flynn.
They lied about Charlottesville.
They lied about Kavanaugh.
They lied about Jussie Smollett.
They lied about Nick Sandman.
They lied about Biden's bribe to Ukraine.
They lied about covid's origin.
They lied about Whitmer's kidnapping plot.
They lied about covid deaths.
They lied about mask effectiveness.
They lied about vaccines.
They lied about the definitions of words.
They lied about the legitimacy of procedural changes.
These are just a small sample of what they've lied about. They continue to lie. But we're supposed to trust that this time the Party/government/leftists/media are telling the truth...
Nardz, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
And Jeffy white knighted ALL of those lying narratives, but he’s totally not a leftist democrat.
The evidence that lockdowns stop COVID is frankly stronger than the evidence than the 2020 election was stolen, but hey whatevs.
That's not true. Evidence is mounting that lockdowns caused more harm than good.
It is still stronger evidence that there was MASSIVE FRAUD that threw the election.
Any evidence is stronger than no evidence, so I guess you're right.
There were many anomalies and questionable occurrences in the election. Why is it any attempt to investigate and show it was legitimate is fought tooth and nail?
Because there's a grand conspiracy at all levels of government to steal the election from Trump?
Time agrees with you.
Pretty much. Leftists are generally sociopathic scum.
Not everyone that thinks there were shenanigans is a Trump supporter.
Arizona legislators seem to think something was fishy. Georgia also found a pretty good handful of fraudulent votes. How many other places changed election laws, illegally, at the 11th hour to coincidentally have a stunning outpouring of Biden votes at the last minute?
Worst of all, it's been a knock-down fight just to ask the questions.
https://rsbnetwork.com/news/arizona-lawmakers-introduce-resolution-to-decertify-the-2020-election-in-three-counties/
Republicans made assertions about fraud without evidence?
*yawn*
Didn't you have me muted, you drunk piece of lefty shit?
You got your desired result, so why not just admit the truth. The election isn’t being und9me. Although the democrats might have really gotten the ball rolling for an eventual revolution.
I disagree. It's like trying to get a Covid Karen to believe that masks don't work. 😉
I believe the video evidence of ballot harvesting is not considered faith.
Oh, and the earth is round - just in case you still believed it was flat.
If it is alleged that X number of votes were simply created, those votes still must be attributed to individual voters, right? So, while you can't audit who that supposed voter voted for, you could - if you wanted - ask a sample of supposed voters if they did, in fact, vote in 2021. If, say, a political operative filled in 1,000 ballots after 8pm from a list of registered voters who hadn't shown up, then conducting a sample should show that some portion of those supposed 1,000 voters would say "Hell, no, I didn't vote. Someone used my name." Statistical extrapolation might show either massive or minor or no fraud.
The reason you're seeing all these articles right now about the election and the J6 stuff is because very soon the other side will be in charge of the investigations, and the GoP the runs congress in 2023 is not going to be McConnell's appeasement bunch.
They think having a mountain of articles to use a 'proof' of their point is going to work--because it did with the appeasers.
What's Fauci gonna do when the election gives Paul some teeth?
The leftist doomsday clock is seconds from midnight--and they know it.
I would love to see Fauci, along with hundreds of other prominent democrats, die in prison.
"So, while you can't audit who that supposed voter voted for, you could - if you wanted - ask a sample of supposed voters if they did, in fact, vote in 2021."
The audit in Arizona proposed to do such a "did you actually vote" sampling but the U.S. Department of Justice threatened to sue if that were done on the grounds that it was an attempt at voter intimidation (after the fact, oddly.) Even though there was no intent to ask who they voted for, just if they voted (and to determine if the voter actually resided at the claimed address.) So basically the Biden DoJ was attempting to deny the use of a valuable tool for detecting fraudulently submitted ballots.
LOL. You think the Cyberninjas should have been allowed to go door to door? We all know how reliable they turned out to be right....?
The county's 93-page review found that the final report issued by the Senate's contractors in late September was littered with false and inaccurate statements about the election that former President Donald Trump continues to falsely claim that he won.
"(W)e determined that nearly every finding included faulty analysis, inaccurate claims, misleading conclusions, and a lack of understanding of federal and state election laws," the county report said.
In total, the county found that the contractors working for the GOP-led Senate - Cyber Ninjas, CYFIR, EchoMail, and Senate liaisons - made nearly 80 false claims in its report last fall.
The county broke down the faulty claims into three different categories and found the contractors made 22 misleading statements, 41 inaccurate claims and 13 outright falsehoods.
"Statistical extrapolation might show either massive or minor or no fraud."
Statistical extrapolation of just the result itself show massive fraud.
That might be interesting, but it's still not proof. A waste of time for anyone except academics and researches, probably.
All you need to do to ensure that you don't get into a situation where 1,000 votes makes a difference is to win decisively. Just a margin of 1% will do it.
2000: We will keep counting until Al Gore wins!
2020: We will keep investigating until Trump wins!
Also 2020: we changed all these laws and mailed everyone ballots! No, you cannot ask questions. We have the most inclusive voter fraud organization ever!
The incumbent Trump improved his performance by at least 17% in 2020 over 2021, but the unstoppable force that was Biden, who barely campaigned and drew almost nobody to rallies, overcame a sizeable vote day deficit to become the most popular candidate in American history on the backs of ballots counted secretly in the middle of the night days after polling had closed.
*improved in 2020 over 2016
Time Magazine dude. sorry.
My problem was there was ample evidence of something being wrong in multiple states and instead of saying ok, investigate away the principals involved pushed every avenue to keep the vote count from being investigated…why? If there was no irregularity then have at it, but when you take every request to court to block even looking at the evidence is there any wonder the average person believes there was fraud? We are talking about a group of people who time and again proved they would do anything to thwart President Trump from making up a demonstrably false story to attempt to block a supreme court nominee, lying about troop movements, contents of a phone call to a world leader… the list goes on and on. Why would we not believe they would commit voter fraud to unseat him? You have to ask yourself who is the deluded one in this scenario?
If there was no irregularity then have at it, but when you take every request to court to block even looking at the evidence is there any wonder the average person believes there was fraud?
Also of note in this regard, this is a case of The Government vs. The Government in the court of public opinion about an Executive election. The presumption of innocence is more applicative in a dog fight. The government owes every last voter at least an air of legitimacy. Pragmatism may dictate that they can only serve an overwhelming majority. But to dismiss it a priori and out of hand, they might as well have just said, "We can't afford to investigate, there's no money left to spend." Even that being the obvious lie that it is, at least that would've rebutted with a legitimate public/government interest rather than just a vague "We don't wanna!"
"We don't wanna!"
I believe you mean: "Ignore the man behind the curtain or you're a Russian agent"
>>keep the vote count from being investigated…why?
massive voter fraud.
There was ample opportunity to present evidence to a court. The fact is that there was no evidence. How many claims did Trump's lawyers make in public and then turned around an told the courts they had no evidence to present. How many people promised to sign affidavits and testify in public, but then never showed up in courts.
Your evidence of innocence is the disappearance of witnesses? Mobs4ever
Paging Vince Foster.
dude was a hell of a shot.
Or, 'we'd love to show you those ballots we were supposed to keep following the election but somehow, someway, they are just gone, man. Sorry.'
Are you arguing absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Please explain how one would gather evidence without an investigation?
The courts were presented with many strange anomalies, the majority rules lack of jurisdiction or the lawsuit was too late (a mere 2 weeks after the election).
All investigations have been been stonewalled and fought against. Why?
"Are you arguing absence of evidence is evidence of absence? "
What I am saying is that if you have evidence of fraud then present that evidence. Trumps lawyers were quick to talk about fraud in public where there are no repercussions, but did not want to present that evidence to a court. They talked about people signing affidavits and had one of those persons speaking in public. But they did not provide any of these people to speak in court under oath.
As for investigations, there have been plenty. When the Az audit showed that Trump lost he simple denied the results.
Your fellow party members were threatening the witnesses. This is well known.
I don't think that's an accurate description of what happened, though. Some 64 lawsuits were filed, nationally. All but a literal handful of these were summarily dismissed.
Some of those suits were dismissed for lack of evidence, but a lot of them IMHO were dismissed because they weren't filed at the right time. You can't file a lawsuit over election procedure DURING the election. You have to do it before or after. Once the game starts, the rules is the rules.
In the world of Magic that is called miss direction, I said nothing about the lawsuits filed by Trump and supporters but by concentrating on that you are attempting to take attention away from what I was talking about and that is the after the election attempts, still going on to stop any investigations into evidence of wrong doing in the election and especially the counting. If you can point me to one instance where an attempt to investigate allegations made where allowed to occur without the local authorities fighting tooth and nail to keep the evidence out of their hands I will concede. From Arizona where a supposed Republican county board refused to comply with multiple orders to cooperate with a state ordered investigation to Georgia to Pennsylvania and Michigan and even Minnesota. If they have nothing to hide then bring the evidence out, insist on a public hearing or investigation like they did in Arizona then I will be happy to say I was wrong. Just don’t bring out the tired old trope about the all the lawsuits that were dismissed between the election and January.
You need evidence in court. They had none. Like Judge Judy says when someone claims they have proof but they didn't bring it. "Where'd you think you were coming today...the beach?"
Jonathan Goldstein, the Hatfield-based attorney representing the Trump campaign, did his best to make some sort of logical argument in front of the judge hearing the case, referring to what the board was doing as a “scheme.” But the judge seemed confused as to whether the campaign was actually claiming voter fraud.
“In your petition, which is right before me — and I read it several times — you don’t claim that any electors or the Board of the County were guilty of fraud, correct?” asked the judge. “That’s correct?”
“Your Honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step,” Goldstein replied. “And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the DNC or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The DNC is coming with good faith. We’re all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not be counted.”
Given that Goldstein tried to dodge the exact question about voter fraud, the judge restated it.
“I understand,” he told Goldstein. “I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?”
“To my knowledge at present, no,” Goldstein said.
“Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots,” queried the judge.
“To my knowledge at present, no,” was Goldstein’s reply.
As I replied to DaveM above:
In the world of Magic that is called miss direction, I said nothing about the lawsuits filed by Trump and supporters but by concentrating on that you are attempting to take attention away from what I was talking about and that is the after the election attempts, still going on to stop any investigations into evidence of wrong doing in the election and especially the counting. If you can point me to one instance where an attempt to investigate allegations made where allowed to occur without the local authorities fighting tooth and nail to keep the evidence out of their hands I will concede. From Arizona where a supposed Republican county board refused to comply with multiple orders to cooperate with a state ordered investigation to Georgia to Pennsylvania and Michigan and even Minnesota. If they have nothing to hide then bring the evidence out, insist on a public hearing or investigation like they did in Arizona then I will be happy to say I was wrong. Just don’t bring out the tired old trope about the all the lawsuits that were dismissed between the election and January.
Raffensperger has done everything within his power to deny ballot review access to anyone. He has stated things publicly that belie his actual actions.
Four separate witnesses swore they saw what appeared to be pristine ballots without folds during the count of mail-in ballots in Fulton County Georgia. The possible number of ballots in question in just that county could exceed the margin of victory for the whole state of Georgia. But Raffensperger has refused to allow access to the actual ballots. The lawsuit by voterga.org managed to secure access to scanned ballot images and found hundreds of obvious duplicates and the candidate's vote counts within each batch of ~100 reported by the state didn't match the counts in the ballot images. And the number of votes allegedly counted exceeded the number of scanned ballots (even including duplicates!) When the governor's office was persuaded to look into it, after weeks of tedious work they independently confirmed all these errors.
Reason.com is exercising selective reporting on this subject - it has not reported the significant news of the Georgia's governor's office finding, nor the earlier voterga.org's findings. It does appear to be exercising considerable and emotionally-charged confirmation bias in its reporting of voting problems.
After months of litigation and managing to get the judge in the case to release access to the ballot images to voterga.org, the judge suddenly ruled that the litigants had no basis in standing and dismissed the case. Standing is something that should be decided very early on for obvious reasons. Naturally voterga.org has appealed the ruling, but it may be weeks before the appeal can be scheduled for adjudication. Meanwhile, the ballots sit in a warehouse and come November of this year can be disposed of.
Standing is something that should be decided very early on for obvious reasons.
Also, reiterating what I said above (and then adding some). A judicial ruling of 'voters in an election don't have standing to know if their votes counted' is far more blatantly detrimental to democracy than 'fraud!'. Especially after the judicial 'no standing up to the nanosecond the vote is counted/moot point the nanosecond it is' BS that was pulled on Trump.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Tuesday that in response to requests for information about the investigation, the secretary of state's office indicated that only around 300 cases of double-voting were ultimately substantiated, "almost always because of mistakes by confused voters and poll workers."
Excellent. I'm taking at face value that the investigation itself was thorough. Why was there so much resistance to investigating?
Here's what probably changed the outcome of the election: (1) collusion between big tech, corporate media, and the Democrats (suppression of stories, false accusations, ...), (2) disregard for voting procedures mandated by the state legislature, and (3) fraud committed by less than a handful of election officials in key positions, together with destruction of the audit trail.
(1) and (2) were probably sufficient. (3) is something that is exceedingly hard to prove.
The idea that individual voters committing "voter fraud" changed the outcome of the election is a straw man put up by leftists to distract from the actual problems with US elections.
It's almost like the legitimacy of a democracy, or any government, is derived more from a free and independent media and an informed populace than it is by independently verifying each and every last vote. Who, besides Putin, Hussein, Xi, Il, Hitler, Stalin, etc., etc. knew?
Akin to showing that Enron execs didn’t cheat on their company vehicle tax reporting.
Do you think if people *just knew* about Hunter’s laptop that would make them choose Trump, who had just spent four years proving every day over and over what a childish, incompetent, corrupt ass he is, over lesser evil, Biden?
People knew about Hunter’s laptop.
Bullshit, you fucking see-lyin'.
Every MSM outlet except Fox was running full cover for the Bidens. It was only AFTER the election that it was, very briefly, acknowledged that the laptop was real and Hunter was a drug addicted incestuous grifting pederast like his old man.
Just like those Russian collisions, eh?
I think if the full extent of Biden’s incompetence, senility, dishonesty, and corruption has been truthfully reported by the media, he would have lost in a landslide.
You just have to look at his approval ratings to see what people actually think of Biden now that they have to live under his regime and are getting to know the man.
I think it's funny how much people overestimate the amount of fraud that would be necessary to overturn an election. You don't really need to cover the entire spread. For example, in an earlier career, I worked for a firm that proved in a court of law that there was sufficient fraud in a state legislature race to have reversed the election results. That one contest decided which of the two major parties controlled the legislature. In an effectively 50-50 country, you don't need to defraud every vote. Just a few closely contested races.
In the 2020 race there were results that look highly unusual (runs of 200 straight votes for Biden - even if support for Biden ran at 90% in a community, the probability of getting even a run of fifty straight votes for him would be only 0.5%). And the standards for addressing these sorts of irregularities were dramatically relaxed. And the courts made Trump's ability to seek redress something of a joke (no standing before declaring a winner and moot once the winner is declared).
Maybe Joe Biden did win the election legitimately. But, I would say it's nearly certain that the number of voters "disenfranchised" by better measures for election integrity is far outpaced by the number of fraudulent ballots enabled by the current process.
even if support for Biden ran at 90% in a community, the probability of getting even a run of fifty straight votes for him would be only 0.5%).
This type of analysis assumes that the Trump/Biden votes would be evenly distributed with that 90/10 split among those fifty votes. That was just not true in this election for the different voting methods. Trump deliberately encouraged his voters to vote in-person. Biden deliberately encouraged his voters to vote absentee. So yes, IF those 50 votes were all absentee votes, it is certainly plausible that they could all be for Biden. OR, if those 50 votes were all in-person votes, that they could all be for Trump.
That is why all those states which were leaning towards Trump on election night swung to Biden once all the votes were cast. Because the in-person votes were counted first, then the absentee votes were counted later. It was not MASSIVE FRAUD or ballot box stuffing. It was due to self-sorting of the electorate into different voting modes, encouraged by the two candidates themselves.
*once all the votes were counted
You're double filtering here. The total election results were 51.3%-46.9%. The 90-10 split is itself a recognition of possible divergences of votes. You want to goose the numbers further in favor of Biden? Okay. Let's say 95-5. That means there was only a 7.7% chance of that happening. You'd still have to be pretty credulous to think that would happen. To get to even odds that you could get a run of fifty (again, well under the 200 runs that were observed), you'd have to assume 98.6% of the vote favored Biden.
It wasn’t even that. It’s Trump conspiracists confusing (perhaps on purpose) data entry of votes for one candidate as blocks of actual votes.
Wrong again reason. Fake news headline. This does not mean there was not massive voter fraud, it means that the number of people accused of voting twice was far less than this guy initially investigated. There are still investigations underway in Georgia and there a numerous ways to have massive voter fraud other than double voting. There is smoke from the past election billowing from states across the country but reason tells us there is nothing to see here. Fucking activist journalism.
How's that biden thing working out?
Idiots.
Any day now, the Kraken will emerge. Any. Day. Now.
Hi sheep, where there is smoke there is fire.
Please enjoy your continued bleating.
Like so?
https://rsbnetwork.com/news/arizona-lawmakers-introduce-resolution-to-decertify-the-2020-election-in-three-counties/
“there a numerous ways to have massive voter fraud other than double voting”
Care to discuss any particular one of these ways?
TIME covered that already, see-lyin'.
"We investigated our selves and all looks squeaky clean"
"CIA clears itself of any wrongdoing"
and so on
Eh, no WIDESPREAD fraud.
Illegal ballot harvesting in Georgia. D'souza has a film coming out that purports to uncover massive ballot box stuffing.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/new-video-voterga-releases-video-georgia-ballot-trafficker-holding-ballots-taking-photo-dumping-ballot-dropbox/
Sure would love to get at that guy's text messages.......
Gateway Pundit? Srsly?
LOL the video shows what it shows no matter who hosts it.
Notwithstanding that if widespread GA Election fraud does exist, then Raffensperger would have to be a participant in it, so any fraud investigation run by him would be garbage to begin with...
Tens of millions of mail-in/drop-box ballots nationwide were not validated against signatures in the 2020 election. In most states, that's not even done at in-person polling places either, but at least in-person voting reduces potential fraud simply due to the time it takes to vote in person repeatedly. (Still, I have no doubt the Dimmotard Bolshevik Party has hired deadbeats to do that in every election since 1865). With 2020 absentee voting, though, the sheer volume of unvalidated votes NECESSARILY invites an exponential increase in fraud. Ah, but one must get access to the ballots to prove such fraud. In Georgia, who has had access to those ballots, other than TDS Team Raffensperger? Not Trump supporters. They were all denied discovery in every lawsuit. Strange that the every Court across numerous jurisdictions would deny something as easy to accommodate as subpoening a few thousand votes to sample. The statistical anomalies alone would provide ample probable cause. Anyway, this is why this issue remains--because the coordinated sh*t still stinks! Minitrue deflection, such as the above article, doesn't come close to covering it up the stench.
“Tens of millions of mail-in/drop-box ballots nationwide were not validated against signatures in the 2020 election.”
Where? Cite please?
Fuck off and read the thread, see-lyin'.
You've been shown all this before.
I see Brandy, Jeffy and sarc are out in force. At least a dozen posts each. Strange that they insist ever so much in carrying on and on and on and on against an argument they insist has no weight.
"people who loudly express their opinion are expressing their faith, or lack of faith"
Yes, sarcasmic. Yes you are.
Yep, I'm expressing my lack of faith in Trump's declaration of fraud.
A dozen? Get a calculator. Sheesh.
You're really disputing someone's counting claim after repeatedly posting how the government's/left's/media's counting claims are beyond question, and how the results are legitimate despite them being internally inconsistent with all the data...
Lol, hahahahaha! Hahahahaha! You! Hugo Chavez! Hahahahaha! I can't. Thank you!
Looks like it's programming has been overwhelmed
Did you read the article?
Stupid Reason comments.
Someone posted an article in this chatroom?
Don't forget those defamation lawsuits. Pillow dude is fucked. Those lawyers are fucked. Others are fucked. There's no escaping.
Well, only idiots would use their own name on ballots when they try to vote multiple times.
When you stop the counting in the middle of the night, you know pretty well who has voted and who has not. Just fill out ballots for the people who did not vote.
If you plan it in advance, you can go ahead and prepare ballots for people who did not vote in the last election, or who are unlikely to vote because they have dementia or have moved out of state. Then, when you pause the voting, you just need to pull enough ballots from your files to overcome your deficit, plus some small percentage.
The big advantage of delaying the final count release is that it gives you enough time for all sorts of shenanigans.
Even better, for a national election, you can calculate in advance how rigging a small number of counties can throw key states, and give you the desired results.
“When you stop the counting in the middle of the night”
Are you claiming that someone did this for the 2020 Presidential election?
Did you sleep through it or something?
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/11/04/americans-suspicious-and-outraged-after-key-dem-run-cities-stop-counting-votes-on-election-day-992614/
Of course I am, because it was reported live at the time. Some "fact checkers" have updated this to say that they did not stop counting, they just stopped reporting the totals, which is just as sketchy.
The system is based on trust, just like the currency. A $10 bill is only worth some measure of goods or services as long as everyone believes it is.
People will put up with a lot of legislation that they disagree with, as long as they believe the other team won this time, and we need to be better organized next time. As soon as a large percentage of citizens start to believe the counting is rigged, they will see new regulations or taxes as being imposed on them by people who are not their representatives, but who think they are rulers.
Elections need trust, and the only way they can generate it is by being transparently and obviously fair, and at least appearing to be impossible to cheat.
Right now, we are in a situation where lots of different types of sketchy stuff went on, and some obvious irregularities and illegal acts. Instead of directly addressing those things, or even fixing the system for the next election, those in charge just keep repeating "free and fair", and denouncing anyone who points out the obvious. Also, the weird new trend of "fact-checking", where they parse the language to try to dispel doubt, or just straight up denying what everyone knows to be true, and many people witnessed.
I lived in the USSR, where all this stuff was commonplace, but fooled nobody.
Totalitarian leftist faggots used covid to destroy our lives.
They, and their advocates here, are guilty of the most massive crime against humanity ever committed.
The 2020 election was a necessary step in perpetuating that crime and (ongoing) further destruction of our lives.
The posters here defending this shit have crossed the line and cannot be forgiven. It is necessary that they cease to be without undue delay.
They have declared war on us and our families, whether you want to admit it or not.
They will not allow you to live and let live, thus THEY have forced you into kill or be killed.
"I'll tell you what war is about: you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare
You should probably be watched by the FBI.
No Fraud???
So nothing on the video evidence of ballot harvesting?
How about the illegally removing election & count observers, only to have massive spikes in Biden votes follow?
No chain of custody for over 100,00 ballots received from ballot drop boxes?
Don't forget the Democrat Party's long history of vote fraud. They've literally made the practice into an art form. I understand Raffensberger is a Republican, but the left is the left and the good ol' boys network in Georgia obviously didn't want to end or disrupt China's investing in the state.
https://apnews.com/article/business-georgia-marietta-be14e86bf2d69ec4cc5935ced943bcc7
The concern over large scale fraud was never about large scale individual criminal behavior.
Rather, it's about five Democrat controlled counties being able to decide a presidential election. Counties where everyone involved in the election is strongly supportive of the Democratic candidate. Motivated to allow "doing more" to make sure that Trump is never re-elected. In that context, the potential number of fake votes is unlimited, and the need for strong auditing and general transparency is supreme.
It's not symmetric. There are no Republican controlled counties which have any potential to fraudulently award the national presidential decision to the Republican candidate.
There was never a problem with mail-in voting. The procedures used were put in place for years. They rules for mail-in voting were in many cases passed by Republican legislatures. The fact is that former President Trump made it an issue just for the purpose of challenging the election.
From what I see the county did look into things themselves. What are these open investigations and numerous irregularities you speak of? Seems to me the losing side just will not accept audits that don't show a Trump win.
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/68971/Final-Technical-Response-Letter-with-Exhibits-5172021
https://maricopacountyaz.medium.com/auditing-elections-equipment-in-maricopa-county-3955445c1712
Didn't Pennsylvania literally destroy he envelopes and ballots, in direct contravention of the law?
The problem with the 2020 election isn't voter fraud it is politician fraud. Ballots were mishandled and counted illegally. Partisan oversight and public count watchers were kept too far away to see details "due to Covid". We all saw the videos and have sworn eye witness statements. Millions of "ballots" could have been fraudulent. Electronic ballots were changed by hand and the audit logs were "lost". Every court found some way to duck an examination of the evidence. Just recounting the same corrupt "ballot" pool will prove nothing. With our secret ballot laws once fake ballots are in the counting system there is no way to detect them. We will never know who actually won in 2020.
Yeah funny thing about PA. Act 77 was a bipartisan deal signed in 2019. The Republicans didnt challenge any of the changes until AFTER they found out Trump lost. I am sure they would not have made a peep had Trump won. They also did withhold 10,000 ballots received after election day but postmarked on Nov 3. Biden won without them being counted. When those voters won a lawsuit to not have their votes disenfranchised and were finally counted, Biden still won.
Leftists are despicable, pathologically dishonest totalitarians who threaten us all. There can be no peace with them. There is only one way to stop them.
The little drones, like those who post here, need to be held to account. It will be ugly, but it will be uglier if they continue to exist.
One has to be as dumb as a box of hammers to think 2020 was a legitimate election.
Jesus Christ, you're facing full of shit.
Jesus Christ, you're fucking full of shit.
Jesus Christ, you're fucking full of manure.
Banana republics love mailed votes! Especially when verification standards are completely scrapped ahead of an election, illegally.
> The procedures used were put in place for years.
Other than in all of the locations where they changed the procedures without any legislation "because Covid".
Beyond the fact that they changed the rules in the middle of the game and there were major odd events in the tabulation counts, particularly when combined with the times when no counting was supposed to be occurring, it's incomprehensible how anyone would have any doubt about the way the election was conducted...
Because democrat states were going to mail in voting at the last minute with no significant quality or security controls in place. The whole thing was set up for democrat operatives to engage in fraud and ballot harvesting. And that is exactly what happened.
Except there is a motion in the works to decertify election results in 3 counties, Maricopa included.
Nothing to see here.
He really resents the day his uncle let him go as head boy from the fellatio team.
If it happens again in the mid terms, then voting is a waste of time and alternate measures become necessary.
Would they have had standing to sue prior to the election? I’ve seen judges throw out cases for reasons like that before.