Message from @leftingfighter33
Discord ID: 776514516422754364
I also would say there's 2 different types of things that need to be proven in this election:
* Fraud: any specific cases of fraud must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with criminal charges against individuals
* Free and fair election: any election must prove to the body politic that it was a free and fair one; this cannot be assumed contra the ideas of the corporate media establishment. How does a Free and Fair Election prove itself? by following the law, maintaining transparency standards and bringing to light any known or suspected cases of fraud for due investigation
The first 'proof' is the one the media keep yammering about. OK, so we haven't proven fraud yet. But by 86'ing standards like signature verification, by indulging chicanery like mysterious and unwatched vote counting in the middle of the night and poll watcher ejections, this election has not proven itself valid to the body politic. If you're a rational Dem, you're crossing your fingers and hoping the media let you off on this one, as this is third world stuff.
And I know 3rd world stuff, having spent 8 years living in a 3rd world dictatorship.
> I also would say there's 2 different types of things that need to be proven in this election:
>
> * Fraud: any specific cases of fraud must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with criminal charges against individuals
> ...
@stevesirag I would point out that you don't have to prove criminal charges to get ballots throw-out or recounted or etc. Regardless of intent of those involved if certain rules weren't followed or certain standards weren't adhered to then there is the potential for a court to address it ... that being said a court is going to be very reluctant to address it if there is no potential for a change in the overall result. For example if you lost by 10k votes and you're only disputing 1k votes then the court may acknowledge a problem but not address the problem because those 1k votes can't change the outcome ... if however you lost by only 100 votes then those 1k disputed votes can change the outcome and the court would most likely address the issue
I agree, there are technical matters on which courts can decide somewhere between the 2 proofs. My point is to say there's a philosophical proof of fair election that media assume and ignore.
yes, we assume the election is fair unless proven otherwise ... and maybe the good that can come from this election is a reevaluation of that assumption ... we've known forever that every election contains some small instances of fraud or irregularities (intention or not) but we rarely institute election reform to correct for these
I've got a question that maybe someone can help me understand. With PA, I can see how SCOTUS can change the vote results of saying that PA SC was not able to change the laws, only the legislature can, and could potentially invalidate all of the ballots after Nov 3. However, lets say that Michigan and Wisconsin it is determined that there was some sort of fraud, such as ballots being requested/received/counted for people that are deceased. What could SCOTUS do in that aspect? I can see that they would rule that it's illegal to do that and that those ballots are not valid, but would those ballots be segregated enough that they would be able to be identified and removed from the totals? If not, how would that be handled?
my understanding is that state courts would handle the later, I'm assuming most all states have laws/rules that say dead folks can't vote ... how the courts would handle the redress would be dependent on the circumstances
Even if it was the state/lower courts that would handle that, I guess I'm also trying to understand how that might happen. Especially if those ballots are not able to be identified other than there are xxxxxx number of ballots that are invalid. There is no way to know for sure what the results of those ballots would be other than maybe a bit of statistics of xx% went to trump and xx% went to biden of ballots of the same time, so lets remove that number from the total count. My concern is wouldn't that potentially invalidate REAL votes by going by statistics only.
They discussing remedies if enough fraud is proven
Uncivil Law is talking and explains Barnes' idea
basically 1. state legislatures are allowed to dictate what the electors should vote, even overriding the popular vote, and this is something they cannot abrogate (by ruling of the SC previously), which means that this is still currently an option (there is no state law that can stop this)
2. the federal house can also object to states' electoral votes
In case anyone is interested, here are 234 pages of sworn and notarized affidavits from Michigan https://roar-assets-auto.rbl.ms/documents/7487/3.%20EXHIBIT%201%20(affidavits)%20(compressed).pdf
@meglide I think the courts should address all of it whether it changes the outcome or not...it is possible that the 3rd party candidates had votes taken from them as well due to these glitches and if everyone just focuses on the 2 parties, they will miss those votes, which could potentially still swing the election in favor of one of the 2 party candidates. For instance in PA, about 50-60k jorgensen votes were given to Biden due to an error from their names being mistaken for the other...if this was fraudulent, and they should go back to Jorgensen, then this is enough to put Trump ahead even if his votes weren't part of the transaction.
He better have proof. Put up or shut up on something like that.
I hope he has proof
These people are Dumb, advertizing they want to commit fraud
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-senate-election-runoffs-democrats-move-there
> He better have proof. Put up or shut up on something like that.
@stevesirag The people that work with those machines have strict NDAs with the vendors and the states
> @stevesirag The people that work with those machines have strict NDAs with the vendors and the states
@WatchingYouDaily
Would whistleblower protection allow them to break an nda? If they believe wrongdoing has occurred?
@Michele411 I'm fairly sure a judge can rule to break an NDA if there is enough probably cause.
He doesn't need proof. Merely tweeting it hit exactly where he intended as the gospel. Congrats.
> He doesn't need proof. Merely tweeting it hit exactly where he intended as the gospel. Congrats.
@Zuluzeit
But if that's proven false, every other effort to increase election security is also damaged
It all becomes hoax territory
I'm not convinced he is at all concerned with election security.
I think trumps main concern is looking good. I also think if he doesn't see the support he will throw his hands up and walk alway like okay
Agreed that seems to be his main concern. I can see him walking away but I just can't see him admitting defeat. Ever. He surrounds himself in supportive voices and there will always be true believers.
> I agree, which is why this analysis is critical. If there's no manipulation, further analysis will show that. Statistics isn't useful for proving anything, it useful in showing you where to look for evidence.
@stevesirag
Indeed. The most obvious place to me is to look at Michigan. https://bitcadia.github.io/DownBallot/Outputs/CountyDownBallotDiffsByStraightCompare.html?First=MI&Second=IL%2CMN%2CWI
Plan A: Win the election outright.
Plan B: Challenge votes in the courts
Plan C: Even if you can't "Prove" in court, you can show it to be so obvious on consideration of the evidence that you force the hands of the State Legislatures to not certify the results and instead Send Delegates to vote for you.
@DrSammyD Is there a way to output the slope functions to csv?
Also, I'm not clear on what exactly the data mean... for instance OK, which voted 63% for Trump, the slope starts below the zero mark.
> @WatchingYouDaily
>
> Would whistleblower protection allow them to break an nda? If they believe wrongdoing has occurred?
@Michele411 It would depend on the state level whistle-blower laws are applied to an NDA. An NDA is part of an employment contract. For instance I have an NDA with my college and my state to be part of a project to give me continued experience as a Cybersecurity Analyst. So I cannot discuss what I witness when monitoring the state infrastructure.
> Also, I'm not clear on what exactly the data mean... for instance OK, which voted 63% for Trump, the slope starts below the zero mark.
@stevesirag
Here's the exact algorithm
https://github.com/Bitcadia/DownBallot/blob/cc42ec87d94d347f49ea0667b553e70683e18d90/Data.ts#L159
The purpose is to display the % of straight party tickets, and the % of split tickets, and then display the % each candidate got of split tickets as a function of the % they got of straight tickets.
Let me know if you see an error in my math
@DrSammyD so a downslope indicates that the more heavily partisan a county is, the more likely it is to vote a split ticket?
seems counterintuitive
No, the more heavily partisan a county is, the more likely the split voter is to vote for the opposite President