Pennsylvania has 90,000 more votes than voters for the 2020 election, audit finds

Author: Public-Choice

Posts

Total: 118
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
if you didn't open up the report yourself, how do you know if they didn't include write-ins?
As I already explained, the number they gave as representing the total ballots cast matches up almost exactly to the total for the three candidates whose names were on the ballot (6,914,556 vs 6,915,283). So if they were including write ins and those who left the top of the ticket blank that number would have been higher, probably closer to about 6,954,485 - which is almost exactly the actual total number of ballots cast.

But as I said before, I haven't seen their report and it appears you haven't either so it seems neither of us really know where they're getting any of their information from. The difference is that I'm not the one posting their findings and implying to the rest of us that we should be concerned about what they found. I have yet to see anything that warrants taking their claims seriously.

Therefore the claim that there were more ballots cast than eligible voters is ludicrously false
Who claimed this? I didn't and neither did my source.
Here is what you said at the end of post 76:

In the 2020 election, there were 90,000 more ballots than eligible voters in PA according to the SURE system. This is a fact.
It may not have been what you meant but it is certainly what you said. The language here is not complicated. A ballot is a piece of paper. A voter is a person who turned in that piece of paper. An eligible voter would be a person who is registered. So your claim was that there were 90,000 more pieces of paper containing a vote than people who were registered, but both of these numbers is easily verifiable and it's false.

Perhaps you meant something else?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
The website linked is here:

The numbers were: 4,216,030 in-person ballots + 2,637,065 mail-in ballots +126,573 provisional ballots, which totals... 6,979,668 votes.

But the official number from the PA website is 76.5% of 9,090,962 ehich equals: 6,954,586 voters, or a deficit, FROM PA'S OWN FUCKING STATS of 

A DEFICIT OF 25,082 VOTERS.

Not 90,000 but still enough to warrant an audit.
Read your own sources:

Provisional ballots cast for the 2020 general election, as reported by counties. This figure includes those counted (97,982), partially counted (7,474) and rejected (21,117).
There's your deficit.
buttmaggot15
buttmaggot15's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11
0
0
1
buttmaggot15's avatar
buttmaggot15
0
0
1
-->
@Best.Korea
Don't you have a home to go to?

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@buttmaggot15
No?
buttmaggot15
buttmaggot15's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11
0
0
1
buttmaggot15's avatar
buttmaggot15
0
0
1
-->
@Best.Korea
Trump is better. He will win.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@buttmaggot15
Yes, Biden will win.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
so it seems neither of us really know where they're getting any of their information from.
They tell us... in the abstract...

"After all counties closed the election in SURE, only 6,914,556 voters were credited with participation in the 2020 General Election. This reveals a voter deficit of 121,240."
They get their data from SURE itself.

You said:
There's your deficit.
No. That still doesn't explain the discrepancy of voters. We don't know if they removed the discarded voters with the ballots or not.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Regardless of what the DoS says anyways, they did not give public access to sure, so we don't even know these numbers are real or not.

That being said, I can accept that that website states there are around 3-4k more ballots than voters. But it still isn't the SURE data, if you understand what I am saying.

I am unsure (pun not intended) ehy the DoS put a participation rate instead of the raw voter number anyways. Seems sus.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice

Do you have a source proving "democrats don't participate"? Because the actual fucking commonwealth of PA disagrees with you. In a June 30, 2023 annual report to the Pennsylvania General Assembly, the PA Department of State said:

"Through the SURE system, the county voter registration commissions maintain a complete list of all eligible registered voters in the Commonwealth. As of December 2022, there were 8,700,826 registered voters. The charts in this section represent a high-level snapshot of the change in voter registration over both the previous calendar year and the four-year period since the end of 2018. Details broken down by county and party can be found in Appendices A and B."

Pennsylvania Dept of State Press Release:

We are unclear as to exactly what data and what the legislators actually did to offer this socalled “analysis.” But what we do know is some counties have not yet finished entering into theSURE system what are called voter histories. Each history is tied to the record of the individualvoter who cast a ballot, including regular or provisional ballots. At the time of the legislators’release, these counties included Philadelphia, Allegheny, Butler and Cambria, which wouldaccount for a significant number of voters, and other provisional voter histories in a number ofother counties are also not yet complete. It is however the vote counts certified by the counties,not the uploading of voter histories into the SURE system, that determines the ultimate2certification of an election by the counties to the Department, and then in turn, by the secretarybased on the county certifications.

This obvious misinformation put forth by the Republican legislators is the hallmark of so many ofthe claims made about this year’s presidential election. When exposed to even the simplestexamination, courts at every level have found these and similar conspiratorial claims to bewholly without basis.To put it simply, this so-called analysis was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.


Finding Six: A combination of a lack of cooperation by certain county election offices and PennDOT, as well as source documents not being available for seventy percent of our test sample, resulted in our inability to form any conclusions as to the accuracy of the entire population of voter records maintained in the SURE system


Diamond expressed satisfaction with Anderson’s explanations of the counting and reconciliation process, the distinction between counting votes to determine a winner and seeing who voted for registration verification, and why updating SURE system data might be delayed.
“I understand that there is somewhat of a lagging nature of the SURE system,” he conceded. And, “I have always had great faith in the people of Lebanon County to count the votes accurately, and I’m not questioning that.”
Diamond had a specific concern about two county precincts where the difference between votes actually cast and the SURE total was unusually large.
Anderson said provisional ballots played a roll at these precincts. Provisional ballots are issued when a voter shows up to vote, but there is a question about his or her eligibility. The ballot is reviewed by the Board of Elections after election day, and either accepted and counted, or rejected.

Anderson explained that the two precincts cited by Diamond were newly split, and now had two polling places, where before there had been one. For example, the old Swatara Township precinct was now Swatara North and Swatara South. Instead of everyone voting at the township building, half still voted there, but half now voted at a fire company.
Some Swatara voters didn’t know this, and showed up where they voted in years gone by – at the township building – when they should have gone to the fire company. They were then given a provisional ballot and filled it out there, at the “wrong” polling place.
Those provisional ballots were ultimately approved and counted, but credited to the “wrong” polling place’s totals, because that’s where the provisional ballot was issued. As a result, the “wrong” polling place showed more votes cast than it had registered voters, but the total number of votes cast didn’t change.
Anderson added that often a voter will fill out a provisional ballot, but also mistakenly sign the poll book. So until the error is caught, there will be one less ballot than shown in the poll book totals.

He also said that, during the tedious two week process of manually scanning polls books and envelopes for SURE statistics, some ballots don’t scan, and a few manual errors are inadvertently made by overworked election workers.

In addition to having counted and reconciled every ballot cast in the Nov. 3, 2020 election, Anderson said that the county, along with 63 others, [ PA has 67 counties]  is voluntarily participating in a statewide “risk limiting audit.”


 However, the apparent reference to SURE (Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors) in Pennsylvania points to state data on the voting history of registered voters, which some large counties have not finished uploading yet.

“These counties, which include Philadelphia, Allegheny, Butler and Cambria, would account for a significant number of voters,” Murren told The Associated Press in an emailed statement. “The numbers certified by the counties, not the uploading of voter histories into the SURE system, determines the ultimate certification of an election by the secretary.”



Their about page says:
  • Yeah, but like the rest of Ms. Honey's blog, that page is a lot of bullshit

In the 2020 election, there were 90,000 more ballots than eligible voters in PA according to the SURE system. This is a fact. 
  • You are the last sad bastard to still believe that desperate lie.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@oromagi
You are the last sad bastard to still believe that desperate lie
Nice!
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
They tell us... in the abstract... 

"After all counties closed the election in SURE, only 6,914,556 voters were credited with participation in the 2020 General Election. This reveals a voter deficit of 121,240."
They get their data from SURE itself.
I don't care what they tell us, these are verifiable claims that they made after allegedly verifying the numbers themselves. So if they are going to allege that the numbers are so egregiously off to the point where only nefarious intentions could explain it, they have placed a very high burden of proof on themselves to show their receipts to the general public. A burden they seem to not care about taking seriously, therefore the correct response for any rational observer is to not take their claims seriously, so I don't. The question I have is; why do you?

Moreover, I've already explained why their numbers do not tell the story they are telling. Do you have anything to say about that? Is there something I am misunderstanding? Do tell.

No. That still doesn't explain the discrepancy of voters. We don't know if they removed the discarded voters with the ballots or not.
What discrepancy?
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
I don't care what they tell us
So... I am seeing a soecisl pleading case developing here. You are quick to trust the PA government as an unbiased factual authority without questioning where they get their data from, but are questioning anf distrustful to an audit that plainly lists their sources.

Why does one side have to prove their claims but not the other?

Moreover, I've already explained why their numbers do not tell the story they are telling. Do you have anything to say about that? 
No you haven't. You simply did a bait-and-switch. You switched one source for another without putting in any effort to justify why YOUR source has the data. This isn't "explaining" anything. It is denialism.

I also already said I am happy to admit the PA DoS fact sheet on the 2020 election lowers the missing ballots to just 3-4k. But this isn't SURE data. They don't publicly release such analyses to the general public, so who knows if it us the real story.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
You are the last sad bastard to still believe that desperate lie.
Is it proper conduct for moderators to insult people without cause?

I am all for a debate, but Oromagi has repeatedly barraged me for no real reason. Go over his previous statements in this thread and you will see this.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@oromagi
You are the last sad bastard to still believe that desperate lie.
I would like to state that you're better than this, but you have repeatedly demonstrated that you're not. Not only have you disrespected members whose conduct you were charged with moderating, but you've also disrespected the position that was extended to you. And for what, you disagree with a member's politics? You have to make sure they don't continue "lying" by insulting them? Why is it so difficult for you to exercise the same discipline your colleagues have demonstrated--hell, that any decent person would demonstrate?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
I reported it for unwarranted personal attacks.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

 
Shouldn't you guys be storming the Capital ?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
He cant even take an insult. He wont be storming anything. He is one of those "innocent" bystanders.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
So... I am seeing a soecisl pleading case developing here. You are quick to trust the PA government as an unbiased factual authority without questioning where they get their data from, but are questioning anf distrustful to an audit that plainly lists their sources.

Why does one side have to prove their claims but not the other?
It's not special pleading. The PA government isn't "making a claim", they're reporting on the vote totals. The same way that every government has reported on every vote total since the county's inception. Yet we've never needed to scrutinize every ballot before, only now because people like yourself are looking for conspiracy.

I do trust the PA government more that Verity. Because governments, just like every other kind of organization, are made up of people, and those people have real responsibilities and face actual accountability for getting things like this wrong. Verity does not have to deal with any of that. If they're wrong then they're wrong, so what?

But still, that's not even what's at issue here. Once again, the burden of proof is not the same here. Verity is alleging something inescapably nefarious. That requires them to show their work. They haven't done that, at least not to anyone who hasn't sent them their personal information. That gives me reason enough to ignore them. You continue to pretend it's host over person's claim vs another. That's not how this works.

And yet again, I've explained to you why their numbers don't even match their own claims. You have yet to explain what I'm getting wrong so it appears you don't understand it either. You find them trustworthy because they are telling you what you want to hear.

You switched one source for another without putting in any effort to justify why YOUR source has the data. This isn't "explaining" anything. It is denialism.
Clearly you haven't paid attention to a word I said here. I'm not telling you their source is wrong, I'm telling you the numbers they provided match to the PA results almost exactly, giving us reason to doubt that they're reporting what they said they reported. That's doesn't mean they're wrong, it means their claim is unclear. Again, if you are making the claim the burden is on you to back it up. Until they do that I'm really not interested in what they have to say. That's not denialism, it's basic critical thinking.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Public-Choice
Check out Georgia's 150,000 discarded ballots in a recent court case.
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,825
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Public-Choice
I've discussed it with him. I do agree, he should not be insulting in responses like this.

10 days later

Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@FLRW
Don't you have a Proud Boys meeting?

You notice that he didn't deny he was a Proud Boy.
In case you’re actually serious… There was a strong implicit denial via public declaration of the intent to report your earlier post.

And as a reminder, please attack ideas instead of people.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Barney

10-4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I do have proof of voter fraud but it is Republican. 
Kim Taylor, the wife of an Iowa county supervisor, was found guilty of 52 counts of voter fraud on Nov. 21 , concluding a months-long case into her interference in the 2020 election.
Federal prosecutors said Taylor attempted to “generate votes” in the 2020 primary and general elections in Iowa in order to help her husband, Woodbury County Supervisor Jeremy Taylor, win the primary for Rep. Steve King’s (R-Iowa) former seat.
Jeremy Taylor (R) lost that primary, receiving only 8 percent of the vote, but prosecutors said Kim Taylor again broke the law in assisting her husband to seek reelection as a supervisor that fall, which he did win.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Good, we can now have voter ID since fraud exists and it is no longer a left-wing conspiracy.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Good, we can now have voter ID since fraud exists and it is no longer a left-wing conspiracy.
lol. Republicans pass voter ID legislation as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, so to fix that they go out and commit voter fraud to justify it. Yeah, sounds about right.

If we're actually being serious there are over 300 million people in this country, no one is claiming there isn't a single case anywhere of voter fraud. That's obvious to any serious person. The claim is that it's nothing more than a handful of isolated instances that have no real chance of changing the results anywhere and therefore does not justify passing legislation that we know will disinfranchise millions of people who...

in a completely unrelated development that I'm sure know one advocating for this legislation is aware of...

happen to mostly be younger voters and people of color who tend to vote for democrats. Gee, I wonder why republicans care so much about this [non]issue.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Ah, more rules for thee but not for me...
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

All eligible voters should be implanted with a chip.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah, more rules for thee but not for me...
Could you please point to the part of my post that remotely resembles this?