Frankly, it's an intellectually dishonest stance - unless you are just trolling me. I'll assume for now that you are not. You proposed that bad actors could work in a decentralized manner. Fine... sure, it doesn't require centralization. Whether coordinated or decentralized, the likelihood for Biden supporters to have pulled off election fraud without anyone being caught in the act given the logistics required is arguably next to nothing. It would mean that every nefarious actor brilliantly executed their part and every MAGA supporter watching for the inevitable fraud, buffoonishly and miserably failed at their primary objective.

And now... without any credible evidence to date, Trump's supporters are demanding that state's legislatures overrule the will of the people because they would rather believe a fantastical version of events over the overwhelmingly likely version of events... and for what? So their guy wins?

Trump's supporters choose to believe anecdotal and circumstantial evidence as fact - even though it has yet to stand up to scrutiny in court - and, yes, nearly all of the cases have been dismissed, but nearly all of them included the judge's opinions on the merits of the evidence presented and not one of them found it credible. Not one. The NV case thrown out yesterday included, 10 (I think) deposed witnesses who testified under oath and under cross examination admitted they did not see fraud. They had expert witnesses that under oath testified that the election was conducted properly. Trump's witnesses, Trump's experts. It was not even close. However, the RWM says that the case was dismissed and not heard on its merits and that is false. It was dismissed, because it had no merit.

You have shared well thought out and cogent points of view. I can't imagine you don't see this for what it is... I actually hope you're just trolling me.

So what ballots were verified just the same in front of both republican and democrats poll workers @Corndog

Im absolutely not trolling. I will read the rest of this later.

I don’t understand your question. Can you rephrase that?

You just appealed to covid restrictions so I have no idea what you are talking about specifically @Corndog

That's why they increased the barriers to catching people in the act.

Looks like the dems case lost has trump v raffen original petition. I dont know if something there you can refer back to but it's got the guts https://www.democracydocket.com/state/georgia/

I believe 7 states now send ballots to all registered voters. It worked really well here in CA. I highly recommend it.

Ok. I don’t know how else to help. I said they elections of the past are not comparable because Covid restrictions and ramifications. It should be looked into and they should be compared prior to appealing to the historical integrity of elections. I don’t see how they are the same cases, the closest one I could see is the Bush election. There are significant differences in how that election was ran. Poll watcher limitations, yes some mail in voting, and margins for example are not the same.

Here's a copy of the main document but it's not the filed document for me to grab a case number on it. https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/verified-petition-to-contest-georgia-election.pdf

What safeguards are in place to ensure that ballots aren't being mailed to addresses where people no longer live

This is unjustified faith in our criminal justice and investigative efficacy.

Are they active or passive measures

@Corndog yeah that’s what I said. You didn’t give any of the differences in this election that cause the need to question its authenticity.

How many people know what the 50 cent army is

?

The margins were closer in trumps win @Corndog

If drugs can be a $100 billion industry when we have a militarized leo department dedicated to it's eradication, ballot and election fraud with mail in ballots is a cake walk

Supreme Court just ruled on this. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-supreme-court-is-protecting-the-rights-of-the-faithful?utm_source=smartnews&utm_medium=feed

Personally based on my understanding of decentralized systems and based on what we know I think it is equally intellectually dishonest at this point to hold either view. Now there are some key dates coming up that will allow us to lean one way or the other but I find the conjecture on the left just as appealing and that from the right. I disagree that we can know the likelihood of something or even if that likelihood holds any weight in determining an election. What we do know is very little. There is not much to compare to due the extenuating circumstances of this year. The reality is that there are reasonable arguments on both sides so currently withholding votes in those states is the most reasonable and prudent solution until those are resolved, if they ever are.

They rely on a number of factors, as I understand it. The USPS NCOA, death records, etc.

Should mail-in ballots be delivered to every residence, or should they be requested first? Just pitching as an idea of extra security.

So they take active measures in order to update the data set?

I'm of the opinion they should be requested first. It's an extra layer of security.

I just gave you 3. Margins were different, covid limited numbers of observers and the method, and caused mail in voting to increase.

That's actually a good point

@Adam135 in states in which they did it for decades if you are registered you get a ballot.

Speculative but interesting

@Corndog I addressed mail in in my first post and then you said that wasn’t what you were talking about.

And the other 3

I'm talking about absentee, under which in certain states you must present a plausible claim for why you cannot arrive to the polls in person, outside the pandemic of course.

That they are difference between in the elections yes. Not that they are evidence supporting my claim. 🙂

Basically do claim that the 2000 election is comparable enough the 2020 election to rule off of precedent alone despite these things? I think we must exercise prudence and caution giving the benefit of both sides to compare claims.

@Corndog you would still start at the neutral position not the prove there wasn’t fraud position. There is no both sides. There is just the nurtural position and the side claiming mass fraud

What is mass fraud?

One disenfranchised voter is too much?

I disagree, but if we want to move on you will need answer that question. I am open to hearing your evidence.

The burden isn’t on me @Corndog

One thing I never understood, was that why the case was named Bush V Gore, but wasn't Al Gore the plaintiff?

@Adam135, you just advanced to level 17!

470 votes in the county of millions? Is that Mass?