Election Integrity (evidence of lack)

Author: ADreamOfLiberty

Posts

Total: 204
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,256
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Take  signatures for instance. Nobody serious actually uses them for identity verification anymore. They died when handwriting became a lost art. When you sign something they don't check it, they just want it because it has value for legal precedent; your final act of consent.

That may be true, but it's just as easy to reject a ballot you don't like just because you decided the signatures do not match up perfectly. How would a person know they were getting disenfranchised? They wouldn't.

#32
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Answer the question in (B)
B) If she had not tried to vote, would the fraudulent ballot have counted?

It wasn't a fraudulent ballot, it was a clerical error.

Her roommate was a registered voter, so if she didn't go to vote her roommate's vote would have just been counted under a different name making absolutely no difference.

Moreover, the error was captured, investigated, and explained. The fact that this absurdly insignificant occurance made the news is all the proof any reasonable person needs to conclude that this isn't a real issue. If the kind of fraud you are claiming may be happening was actually happening, you would have far more serious examples to talk about.

Mail in ballots have to be sealed. You can't open them or alter the ballot without destroying them. That's what stops the fraud.
Why would the ballot need to be altered in all cases of fraud?
It doesn't, you talked about chain of custody so I figured you were pointing to the chain. If you're talking about the starting point that's where the signature comes in. And if it is the case that thousands upon thousands of ballots (which is what would be needed to alter election results) were being unknowingly filled out by the wrong people we would know this because that would wreak havoc on the system when those voters who never casted a ballot start coming out in droves to find out where it went.

The only question is how high our standards need to be
>= the standard before laws to prevent fraud were illegally nullified and ignored
Someone should have challenged that in court


Measures taken that might have prevented maybe a dozen fraudulent ballots (if any at all)
How did you come up with errors bars that small?
Because of it were significantly higher than that we wouldn't be sitting here watching a YouTube video on the story of one voter who had her ballot mixed up with her roommate due to a clerical error that was caught and rectified.

They have been executed in such a way that they cannot be proven to be valid, they are a class of high-trust interactions that must be designed and executed in such a way that they can be proven to be valid or else they should be treated as invalid, therefore they (the elections) are invalid de jure.
They are sent to registered voters who requested them and returned with a verified signature. That's enough proof.

You keep pretending proof is some all or nothing proposition, that's not how it works. It's a scale and has to be balanced with it's impact on civic participation. An election that effectively disenfranchises voters at a rate which swings the outcome is no more legitimate than an election that is swung due to fraudulent/illegal ballots.

The difference is that there is no evidence nor reason to believe fraud is taking place anywhere near the scale of the impact many of these laws are having on civic participation. In 2020 if you wanted to vote in many of the precincts around Atlanta you had to wait on line for about 12 hours. How many people were unable or reasonably unwilling to do that? Don't know, but that is a clear tangible example that doesn't take a mathematician to figure out was significant. If you don't see that as an election integrity issue then you can stop pretending this is about ensuring elections represent the will of the people.

You're not even self aware enough to admit that that nonsense about belief and proof applies to everyone including yourself.
The fact that it applies to everyone and is not escapable was the entire point.

You are the one using your own lack of trust in our elections as proof that our elections are untrustworthy. 

And yet no one invests in it.
Shifting goalposts.
No, I'm not. Your claim is that people will trust the system and my point is that people will always find a way to declare any system that doesn't benefit them as untrustworthy. I pointed out that people don't trust crypto currencies because most people aren't interested in studying blockchain technology just as most people (even many of the people screaming the loudest about voter fraud) have no idea how the process actually works or what safeguards exist to prevent/minimize fraud.

Actually there are commission reports headed by ex presidents that say mail ballots are susceptible to fraud.

If no one cared before 2020 it's probably because the absolute number of mail-ballots didn't so universally swing outcomes.
Elections are decided by the choices the voters made, not by the method for which they made them.

Topic's author
#33
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Take  signatures for instance. Nobody serious actually uses them for identity verification anymore. They died when handwriting became a lost art. When you sign something they don't check it, they just want it because it has value for legal precedent; your final act of consent.
That may be true, but it's just as easy to reject a ballot you don't like just because you decided the signatures do not match up perfectly. How would a person know they were getting disenfranchised? They wouldn't.
I was addressing the notion that signature matching is a legitimate method of authentication in general. No major private entity really believes that.

In the scenario you're talking about, a rejection due to signature, many election boards claim they will notify the voter and if there was time they would be sent another ballot so they could try again.
Topic's author
#34
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Answer the question in (B)
B) If she had not tried to vote, would the fraudulent ballot have counted?

It wasn't a fraudulent ballot, it was a clerical error.
Alright, assume one of those seven people who told me they didn't send in a mail ballot had never tried to vote in person. Would the fraudulent ballots have counted?


Her roommate was a registered voter, so if she didn't go to vote her roommate's vote would have just been counted under a different name making absolutely no difference.
The story keeps changing. Are you claiming the roommate sent in the mail ballot under a name not her own?


Moreover, the error was captured, investigated, and explained.


If the kind of fraud you are claiming may be happening was actually happening, you would have far more serious examples to talk about.
How does a lot of small scale fraud get any "more serious" than lots of examples of small scale fraud and the certain knowledge that discovered examples are the result of extreme filter?

Fraud is fraud, like the four examples of dead voters you so helpfully provided before.


Mail in ballots have to be sealed. You can't open them or alter the ballot without destroying them. That's what stops the fraud.
Why would the ballot need to be altered in all cases of fraud?
It doesn't, you talked about chain of custody so I figured you were pointing to the chain.
It was an example of a social requirement for providing high trust - via a system which proves accuracy by disproving corruption.

Of course chain of custody is also a requirement for paper ballots, and in some cases that chain was apparently broken; but that doesn't require alteration of ballots. They send them out blank, they have many extras.


And if it is the case that thousands upon thousands of ballots (which is what would be needed to alter election results) were being unknowingly filled out by the wrong people we would know this because that would wreak havoc on the system when those voters who never casted a ballot start coming out in droves to find out where it went.
You are being unclear.

"voters who never casted a ballot start coming out in droves to find out where it went."

I'm assuming you mean the people whose name is on the mail-in-form? Why would they go looking to "find out where it went"?

What is "it"? The ballot? They don't know there is a ballot in their name unless they decide to vote. The way they would find out is exactly the scenario I described witnessing: They show up, are told a ballot was mailed to them and sometimes received from them, and then they deny it and are offered the provisional ballot.


The only question is how high our standards need to be
>= the standard before laws to prevent fraud were illegally nullified and ignored
Someone should have challenged that in court
They did, many times; pseudo-judges hid under their bed. Real judges were quickly overruled by pseudo-judges.


Measures taken that might have prevented maybe a dozen fraudulent ballots (if any at all)
How did you come up with errors bars that small?
Because of it were significantly higher than that we wouldn't be sitting here watching a YouTube video on the story of one voter who had her ballot mixed up with her roommate due to a clerical error that was caught and rectified.
Why?


They are sent to registered voters who requested them and returned with a verified signature. That's enough proof.
That is an assumption.


An election that effectively disenfranchises voters at a rate which swings the outcome is no more legitimate than an election that is swung due to fraudulent/illegal ballots.
It is a false premise that a secure system must "disenfranchise" anyone. As Greyparrot pointed out and you implied the hoops you have to go through to return a mail ballot as practiced in the 2020 election could well have dissuaded people to vote. Seems like it's the worst of both worlds in that case.

There are huge social,  moral, and practical difference between voting being annoying and fraud.

Social: Cheating infuriates people and removes their notion that there is a valid social construct. People being lazy about voting doesn't, or doesn't without severe indoctrination.

Moral: Election fraud is equivalent to political coups in the same way financial fraud is equivalent to theft. An annoying voting system may have victims but it doesn't have an agenda.

Practical: People who don't wish to inconvenience themselves don't care about political questions enough. People who will cheat in elections care about political questions way too much (from the viewpoint of a democratic system).

If annoyance is the cost of accuracy (it isn't to the degree you are pretending), then it's better to have the people who believe in the system and care about the system control the outcome rather than the whims of people who would rather watch netflix and the people who hold other voters in contempt.

The most important difference though is this: When your system is vulnerable to fraud and unauditable you can't quantity the fraud. So the very premise that you can relax safeguards until the number of ballots prevented by annoyance is roughly equal to the number of fraudulent ballots cannot be evaluated. All you are doing is blindly allowing fraud and hoping it's not swinging elections more than the so called "disenfranchised" would.


The difference is that there is no evidence nor reason to believe fraud is taking place anywhere near the scale of the impact many of these laws are having on civic participation.
You continue to make assertions you can't possibly support as to scale.


In 2020 if you wanted to vote in many of the precincts around Atlanta you had to wait on line for about 12 hours. How many people were unable or reasonably unwilling to do that?
Lots, probably leaning right-tribe too.

Now is the solution for everyone to write their votes on a scrap of paper and pass it forward in the line or is it more along the lines of the nation that landed on the moon to figure out how to run an election without fraud and 12 hour lines?


You are the one using your own lack of trust in our elections as proof that our elections are untrustworthy. 
That is a strawman. I have defined an election as a procedure for reliably evaluating the will of the people accurately. A procedure which may be accurate but there is no way to tell is therefore a fake election since it is not reliably accurate. It is an election in the same way reading tea leaves is an election.


No, I'm not. Your claim is that people will trust the system and my point is that people will always find a way to declare any system that doesn't benefit them as untrustworthy.
...and people will find a way to decide that a certain food is unhealthy, but some foods are unhealthy and the fact that there will always be doubters doesn't entitle food producers to poison the food.

Bitcoin is a trustworthy system. That is an objective fact (until the questionable prediction of RSA cracking comes to pass).

Some may not believe it is trustworthy, but I can guarantee you that way way more people would think it was untrustworthy if it was untrustworthy.


I pointed out that people don't trust crypto currencies because most people aren't interested in studying blockchain technology just as most people (even many of the people screaming the loudest about voter fraud) have no idea how the process actually works or what safeguards exist to prevent/minimize fraud.
I have studied blockchain technology and I know how the elections are actually run (in theory).

I trust the blockchain. I do not trust the so called elections.

Now you can assume I represent a very small number of people, and that the vast majority would not care about the facts; but that just means the collapse of the system is inevitable. You're committing suicide because you think you'd probably die soon anyway. You respond to the risk of people not trusting election by making certain they will not trust elections.

You also assume people like me have no effect on ignorant skeptics. That is unlikely. During and after the 2020 election I explained to many people why some theories of election fraud were impossible or incoherent while those clueless (possibly planted) hacks exemplified by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood did the opposite.

More than a few conceded my points.

You have a hypothesis: Everyone who doubts elections does so out of blind worship of Donald Trump.

Because you have chosen to believe that, you don't think having secure elections would make a difference in public trust.

You are missing three very important points:
1.) You should care if the system is secure, regardless of what other think; unless you don't believe in democracy
2.) Your hypothesis is wrong. If such blind trust of DJT existed then MAGA would love vaccines which DJT refuses to disown and continues to claim credit for.
3.) Your tribe can still lose elections, and when they do they will doubt much as they have already done. So long as elections aren't secure (real) the skepticism is a ratchet. Not everyone is capable of forgetting that they doubted elections only four years previous. I guarantee that if DJT (apparently) wins 2024 MAGA might quiet down about election integrity but they won't forget. They'll mock left-tribers for changing their tune (and they will change their tune) on election integrity but ultimately they will agree the system needs to be convenient and secure. What happens when a left-triber wins 2028?

You're thinking like a conman. Honest people know the first step to convincing someone your product is genuine is to have a genuine product. You only care about perception and thereby dismiss (at your own peril) the intelligence of everyone else.


Actually there are commission reports headed by ex presidents that say mail ballots are susceptible to fraud.
The point being?

Jimmy Carter was one of the two I cited for election denial you know.

"That makes doubly tragic that a report that once sought to improve the public’s faith in American democracy is now mainly used to dispel it."
rofl, back when they cared about such things. Turns out just arresting people for doubting elections works too (or so they think).

The report's purpose was to improve the accuracy of elections and as a secondary consequence of such improvement the public's faith would be improved.

The writer, Matt Ford, thinks like you: Focusing on confidence rather than substance, assuming that if a report identifies the danger of fraud the only possible purpose would be to convince people it was impossible (somehow?).

Again, the mindset of a con(fidence)man.


If no one cared before 2020 it's probably because the absolute number of mail-ballots didn't so universally swing outcomes.
Elections are decided by the choices the voters made, not by the method for which they made them.
Sometimes, sometimes they are also decided by who counts the ballots - Stalin (paraphrasing)
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,256
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You respond to the risk of people not trusting election by making certain they will not trust elections.

+!
#36
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
To you, but you have already decided the so called election was the safest and most secure in history, you have chosen to not accept proof so no proof is needed. It's just a question of what standards.
Well, you're on track. It is a question of standards, but not just a question of standards. There are all kinds of very basic questions that need to be sorted out. Things like, what is the proper default position, where does the burden of proof lie, how do we go about establishing a case for widespread fraud, what is the ultimate goal here and where does the balance been ballot count integrity and voter accessibility lie?

These are the philosophical questions that every argument you have ever made on this issue is ultimately based on, and yet when I question you about basic stuff like this and when I give you analogies and examples get deep into these concepts you dismiss the entire conversation as if it's all just mumbojumbo. It's not. You can pretend all you want that these questions don't matter, but your positions will continue to be based on them regardless.

We saw a lot. You have no basis to claim there would be more, you have made no quantitative analysis I'm quite sure.
Neither have any of these people running around claiming the fraud swung the election, at least not to my knowledge. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

Again, my position isn't just quantitative, it's also qualitative. If the fraud were enough we would have better examples to talk about, we wouldn't be wasting our time watching YouTube videos reporting on clerical errors and asking us to opine on what these clerical errors could possibly mean. We wouldn't be sitting here talking about water main breaks and trying to concoct scenarios in our minds of how it could all be a conspiracy. The fact that this seems to be the best you got in a country of over 300 million people is what tells me more than anything else that there's nothing here.

Please find one example of democrats "denying election results"
"I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win."
"You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris

"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter
Just because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.

When Trump and his followers claim Biden didn't win the election, do you honestly, seriously, think they are saying the same thing as the quotes above are saying? Do you understand how communication and context actually works?

I'll go ahead and answer that for you; No, they're saying totally, completely, entirely different things.

Trump didn't win in 2016 in the sense that the majority of American voters voted for Hillary Clinton. He also (arguably) didn't win legitimately in the sense that he did so with the welcomed help of a foreign advasary. This is not the same thing as saying Trump didn't actually win the most votes in the most states that are needed to win the electoral college, which is how we select our presidents.

You can't possibly be dumb enough to not understand the difference here. The former is merely an expression of grievance stemming from the rejection of the moral legitimacy of a system by which the person who gets the most votes doesn't win. The latter is a rejection of reality based on allegations of a massive nationwide conspiracy.

Those are not the same thing.

But the poll worker could very well have invited his friends to come in and pretend to be other people, making the ID check irrelevant. This could happen, therefore ID checks are irrelevant.
You mean name and address checks?  Why would that make them irrelevant?
Because they can be susceptible to fraud. That's your standard isn't it?

They are validated by the fact that the individual submitting the ballot is a real, legal, registered voter, whose signature matches
Matches a voter registry database (maybe, lots of iffyness there), but if the voter registration was done by the fraudster?
Then I guess we no longer trust voter registration either.

You think there aren't a lot of cases of identity theft? https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/victims-identity-theft-2021

9%... in one year? That sounds high even to me. 22% over their lifetime sounds right.
No one is going through the trouble of stealing your identity and ending up in jail just so they can cast a single fraudulent ballot in your name.

This is another major part of the conversation we haven't even gotten to yet - the risk vs the reward. In all seriousness, why do you think anyone would risk jail time to cast one ballot that won't make any difference at all?
Topic's author
#37
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Things like, what is the proper default position
The government has a duty to have elections, elections must be legitimate which means either auditable or invulnerable (preferably both).


where does the burden of proof lie
The government.


how do we go about establishing a case for widespread fraud
If you can't make a system invulnerable it at least needs to be auditable. If the answer to the above question is *shrug* that means it wasn't auditable.


what is the ultimate goal here
Managed Democracy! (watching too many helldiver memes)

Democracy.


and where does the balance been ballot count integrity and voter accessibility lie?
Make election day a paid national holiday, when it becomes so troublesome that 1% of the population can't vote with a full day off its not accessible enough. Choosing to go to the beach instead of voting does not mean it's not accessible enough.

If it's not accessible enough, the solution is to make it accessible; not to reduce integrity. Invulnerability may be sacrificed but the cost is providing of auditability of the affected totals.

We can take risks, but only if we can quantify the damage.


Neither have any of these people running around claiming the fraud swung the election, at least not to my knowledge. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.
We don't need to. The inability of anyone to put error bars on it means we win the debate.


If the fraud were enough we would have better examples to talk about
Why?


Please find one example of democrats "denying election results"
"I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win."
"You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris

"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter
Just because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.
I think that just about sums up your whole ethos. Double standards of behavior protected by double standards of logic and evidence. I'm saving this one.


Do you understand how communication and context actually works?
Context is back to save the day huh? Your excuses here can't be taken seriously, and I won't dignify them  by doing so. They have denied elections. Their reasons and theories can't change that.


The latter is a rejection of reality based on allegations of a massive nationwide conspiracy.
Does it have to be a massive nationwide conspiracy to steal an election?


The idea that it's outcome swinging accuracy is your conspiracy claim. There is no evidence for that.
There need only be evidence that the process could have allowed it. There is.
The process when someone shows up to vote is to have their ID checked. But the poll worker could very well have invited his friends to come in and pretend to be other people, making the ID check irrelevant. This could happen, therefore ID checks are irrelevant.
You mean name and address checks?  Why would that make them irrelevant?

That just means cameras should be running in poll locations and there should be a rule that people are randomly distributed to different poll book operators.
Because they can be susceptible to fraud. That's your standard isn't it?
Full context restored.

I'm not sure what you mean by "irrelevant".

It sounds like you're saying unnecessary or pointless, which is quite different from 'insufficient in isolation'. It would definitely be a problem to hand out pollbooks (they verify names and addresses exist in the voter registry) and let people come back in a week with a bunch of ballots and names they claimed to have collected them from.

People with the name and address of someone they know is registered to vote can pretend to be that person at a polling station since photo IDs are not required (being racist and all, blacks can't find the MVA). However a risk exists because you show your face. If there are cameras you could be seen entering multiple poll locations. People could remember your face. In practice has become a small risk in recent years since auditing elections is now considered treasonous behavior.

That certainly doesn't mean checks are irrelevant, it means we need better checks.


They are validated by the fact that the individual submitting the ballot is a real, legal, registered voter, whose signature matches
Matches a voter registry database (maybe, lots of iffyness there), but if the voter registration was done by the fraudster?
Then I guess we no longer trust voter registration either.
Not if you are reasonable. It should have been obvious to you when there are actual human beings who object when somebody tries to remove the dead voters from the voter rolls.


You think there aren't a lot of cases of identity theft? https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/victims-identity-theft-2021

9%... in one year? That sounds high even to me. 22% over their lifetime sounds right.
No one is going through the trouble of stealing your identity and ending up in jail just so they can cast a single fraudulent ballot in your name.
Nobody is ending up in jail because there is no way to trace the fraudulent ballot to the fraudster (if they know what they are doing), and especially nobody is going to jail because that kind of investigation would be branded racist anti-democratic voter-suppression, something only an Ultra-MAGA traitor could even conceive of.

Which is back to the point of this thread.


This is another major part of the conversation we haven't even gotten to yet - the risk vs the reward. In all seriousness, why do you think anyone would risk jail time to cast one ballot that won't make any difference at all?
Mail in balloting as practiced in 2020 and 2022 removes all the risk. That's why its susceptible to fraud.

There is no reason that they can only send in one fraudulent ballots, they're only physically limited by the number of ballots they can collect from defunct or rarely used addresses during the period when mail ballots are sent out which is often 30-45 days before the election.

The only information they are limited by is PII to register unlikely voters or existing registered voters who are unlikely to vote (sometimes because they are as dead as a door knob, or have moved away).

Identifying existing but unlikely voter registrations could be as simple as checking social media to see if they mention political topics or have tweet about having voted last election.

A teenager with python could write the code to choose likely candidates, anyone with a couple thousand dollars can get huge lists of basic PII (such as social security and drivers license number) which are sold on the dark web.

Most states (and as far as I know all swing states) allow you to register to vote with a single button through a web interface providing only your driver's license or social security number.


Even if all of these guesses and plans come to nothing there is no significant risk. The information they receive can't be traced to them. They are choosing where to pickup the ballots (or which mailboxes to raid) which means unless there were cameras on every place ballots are delivered to it's simply a matter of choosing safe targets to physically be at.

Similarly mail pickup is not traceable. Despite all of that there are still people who object to having cameras watching ballot drop boxes. As if that woefully insufficient measure to prevent the most idiotic of cheaters was too much democracy for them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-eNJIafS48

Democrats are allowed to question elections though, so that time a new election was ordered.
#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It wasn't a fraudulent ballot, it was a clerical error.
Alright, assume one of those seven people who told me they didn't send in a mail ballot had never tried to vote in person. Would the fraudulent ballots have counted?
Another perfect example of the problem here.

You have no idea what the actual story is with any of these claims, yet you already assume the ballot supposedly received in their name was fraudulent.

If one of those 7 people didn't show up to vote then there would be one less dispute to investigate.

The story keeps changing. Are you claiming the roommate sent in the mail ballot under a name not her own?
I'm saying that the example provided doesn't even qualify as an anecdotal example of fraud.

If the kind of fraud you are claiming may be happening was actually happening, you would have far more serious examples to talk about.
How does a lot of small scale fraud get any "more serious" than lots of examples of small scale fraud and the certain knowledge that discovered examples are the result of extreme filter?
Because what actually matters is data, not anecdotes.

I am just as convinced by your anecdotes of alleged voter fraud as you would be convinced that the police are mistreating black people if I provided you as bunch of videos of it happening.

The way they would find out is exactly the scenario I described witnessing: They show up, are told a ballot was mailed to them and sometimes received from them, and then they deny it and are offered the provisional ballot.
And then those provisional ballots are investigated for validity, and if what you suspect to be happening was actually happening then the system would be inundated with examples of mail in ballots being wrongly cast. But yet despite years and years of right wingers searching for any hint they could find, nothing.

The one time this did happen was in 2018 when a congressional race in NC had to be redone because of actual fraud, which coincidentally was done by republicans (no wonder you guys believe so strongly that fraud is happening; projection).

Someone should have challenged that in court
They did, many times; pseudo-judges hid under their bed. Real judges were quickly overruled by pseudo-judges.
Exactly my point.

Any judge you don't agree with is a fake judge, any judge you agree with is a real judge. So when you say they didn't follow their laws all you're saying is they didn't do what you think they should have done, regardless of whether the legal system already decided otherwise.

It is a false premise that a secure system must "disenfranchise" anyone.
And a strawman to assert that as my position.

We're talking about the balance between increasing security and ensuring accessibility. We don't have to pick one.

This is about trade offs. If you require a particular type of ID to vote you have to ask, how much will this improve ballot security and how will this affect people who don't have that type of ID? You need to decide based on whether the trade off is worth it. The problem is that you seem to care nothing about the people part of the equation, which is why our conversation will continue to go no where.

The most important difference though is this: When your system is vulnerable to fraud and unauditable you can't quantity the fraud.
We quantify the fraud the same way we quantify anything else which we don't have precise numbers for; we estimate based on known examples. There is no way to quantify the exact number of people who would have voted but didn't because of twelve hour lines, that doesn't mean we cannot make reasonable estimates.

The difference is that there is no evidence nor reason to believe fraud is taking place anywhere near the scale of the impact many of these laws are having on civic participation.
You continue to make assertions you can't possibly support as to scale.
Quantifying voters who have been practically disenfranchised is not difficult to quantify at all and plenty of studies have done on this. If you pass a new voter ID law that requires particular ID types, you can easily see how many people don't have that ID and follow up to see how many of them ended up without it. If you get rid of mail in ballots you can easily find out how many people were unable to cast ballots as a result.

Alleged voter fraud is entirely different, because you have no evidence that the thing you're alleging to be happening is actually happening. So you're advocating for changes that will make tangible and measurable differences in civic participation all to prevent something you can't even show is occurring in the first place and in fact a common sense look at the issue says it's not. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Bitcoin is a trustworthy system. That is an objective fact (until the questionable prediction of RSA cracking comes to pass).

Some may not believe it is trustworthy
So we agree that people believing a system to be untrustworthy doesn't make it untrustworthy. Glad to hear it.

You have a hypothesis: Everyone who doubts elections does so out of blind worship of Donald Trump.
Wrong. My hypothesis, along with this entire conversation, has nothing to do with the individual. This is all about looking at the big picture, and the fact of the matter is that what public officials say, particularly when that official is the president of the United States, and especially when that President has the kind of devoted following Donald Trump has - tells the public that the election results cannot be trusted, it would be absurd to expect any other result than for the public trust in elections to take a significant hit.

There is a reason why conceding the race and congratulating your opponent has always been a proud and sacred tradition in American politics. It's because everyone including and since the founding fathers understood this "hypothesis" as nothing less than common sense.

Because you have chosen to believe that, you don't think having secure elections would make a difference in public trust.
I've never suggested we should strive for anything other than secure elections, my point is that they are secure by any reasonable assessment.

I also think by the biggest issue isn't the actual vulnerabilities in our system, it's the politicians and right wing propaganda outlets who have decided they can benefit from this, like Fox news repeatedly broadcasting knowingly false stories about Domion and others. When nonsense is spread people will believe it, so none of this is the least bit surprising.

The point being that even the authors of the report you are citing to support your case agree with me.

Did you even read the report? The main concern they had with mail in balloting wasn't even the threat of fraud, it was the concern that many of these ballots are being filled out in the presence of others which they argued that could result in ballots being heavily influenced. The concerns that they did make about security have mostly been addressed (the report is 20 years old).

So again, this tells me everything I need to know. I don't get knee deep in all these conspiracy claims because I don't have to, the truth is if elections were as insecure as you claim and if fraud was happening on the scale you suspect you would have better points to bring to the table than an anecdotal story of a clerical error and a misrepresentation of a 20 year old report.
Topic's author
#39
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
It wasn't a fraudulent ballot, it was a clerical error.
Alright, assume one of those seven people who told me they didn't send in a mail ballot had never tried to vote in person. Would the fraudulent ballots have counted?
Another perfect example of the problem here.

You have no idea what the actual story is with any of these claims, yet you already assume the ballot supposedly received in their name was fraudulent.
There is no doubt that it is fraudulent. If they sent it in and then tried to vote in person that is an attempt to commit election fraud. If someone else sent in a ballot in their name... that's fraud.

It was fraud that was prevented from affecting the ballot total, which is not the problem.


If one of those 7 people didn't show up to vote then there would be one less dispute to investigate.
That's true, undetected fraud is really easy on the election workers. You can take a break, get some coffee, talk about sports instead of going through all that provisional ballot mess (which really takes a while, like 25 minutes per ballot).

Let's streamline things further by not even checking if they sent in a ballot. You really are making GP a prophet in this thread.

I'm going to assume you would eventually admit (after wasting a lot of time) "There would be undetected fraud" and move on to the next question:

If we did not know that the ballot was fraudulent until they showed up, how do we know how many other ballots are fraudulent?


The story keeps changing. Are you claiming the roommate sent in the mail ballot under a name not her own?
I'm saying that the example provided doesn't even qualify as an anecdotal example of fraud.
I'm saying if you say that you're ignoring evidence, which means you claiming "there is no evidence" really doesn't hit that hard since you can't recognize evidence.


If the kind of fraud you are claiming may be happening was actually happening, you would have far more serious examples to talk about.
How does a lot of small scale fraud get any "more serious" than lots of examples of small scale fraud and the certain knowledge that discovered examples are the result of extreme filter?
Because what actually matters is data, not anecdotes.
You have failed to answer the question. Here it is again:

How does a lot of small scale fraud get any "more serious" than lots of examples of small scale fraud and the certain knowledge that discovered examples are the result of extreme filter?


I am just as convinced by your anecdotes of alleged voter fraud as you would be convinced that the police are mistreating black people if I provided you as bunch of videos of it happening.
Well that should be very convinced because videos of mistreatment are proof of mistreatment. In fact if you went farther and said the system is failing to remedy or prevent police misconduct I would also agree with that.

To put me in the same position you hold on elections I would have to claim police misconduct almost never happens and we don't need police body cams (which would allow us to quantify and remedy it when it happens) because it almost never happens.

That is very very far from my position on police or elections. They are both high-trust institutions and anyone who even hints at opposing any possible measure to improve or maintain trust is attacking the stability of our society and probably secretly in favor of abuses.

If you had been paying attention I said there is a myth of racist cops. That is a totally different matter from establishing trust. That's like saying "They're cheating in the elections because they are evil and want satan to rule the Earth"

If police beat someone up it's most likely because they're petty tyrants with no emotional regulation. If left-tribers cheat in an election it's probably because they think they're saving American democracy from an imminent fascist dictatorship (which is peak irony).


alleged voter fraud
Let's not forget you provided for examples of confirmed voter fraud and there are plenty more.


if what you suspect to be happening was actually happening then the system would be inundated with examples of mail in ballots being wrongly cast.
You're making more than one assumption there.

Let's call "Mail ballot target inaccuracy" = MBTI = the ratio of persons (or former persons) whose name was used on a fraudulent ballot envelope who did try to vote in person or by mail divided by those who didn't.

If MBTI was 100% then everyone whose identity was stolen for mail ballot fraud would try to vote and have the double balloting investigated (in theory). If every single one of them insisted on going on to fill out a provisional ballot lets say that is "fraud challenging ratio" (FCR) = 1.0. In that case the number of provisional ballots issued for potential fraud (PBPF) would be approximately equal to the number of fraudulent ballots.

Number of mail ballot frauds from stolen identity = MBF_SI

MBF_SI * MBTI* FCR = PBPF

You are assuming MBTI* FCR is close to one and therefore PBPF is close to MBF_SI, insignificant number of PBPF means there was insignificant MBF_SI.

let's assume those investigations are real and they actually use the correct ballot in the end. In that the fraudulent swing (FS) due to MBF_SI is MBF_SI - PBPF.

If MBF_SI ~= PBPF then FS ~= 0

First of all there were real audits and real investigations then PBPF would be a number you can look up. What is it? You say we would be inundated with them so were we?

I don't know. All I can find publicly is the admission that there were a hell of a lot of provisional  ballots to count.

If PBPF = 10,000 and the margin of victory (MV) is 11,000 (sound familiar?) then what does MBTI* FCR need to be in order to make the result fraudulent?

FS >= MV
MBF_SI - PBPF >= MV
(PBPF/MBTI* FCR) - PBPF >= MV
PBPF( 1/(MBTI* FCR) - 1 ) >= MV
1/(MBTI* FCR) - 1 >= MV/PBPF
1/(MBTI* FCR)  >=  MV/PBPF + 1
1/(MV/PBPF + 1)  >=  MBTI* FCR

MBTI* FCR <= 1/(11,000/10,000+ 1)

MBTI* FCR <= 0.47

That means that if half of the people whose identities were stolen didn't vote, and that out of those who tried 6% didn't correct it (out of disgust or apathy) then the fraudulent count would be greater than the margin of victory.

The PBPF I personally saw was (again) ~6%. These swing states were decided by margins much smaller than that. More than a few within 2%. If PBPF is three times as a large as the margin of victory then only 25% of people whose identities were stolen need to try to vote and challenge the fraudulent ballot.

Based on simple statistics if I was trying to cheat I think I could get a MBTI < 10%. The easiest group to target would be people who had moved to a different address, such a list can be compiled by cross referencing address forwarding with voter rolls. It goes without saying that if you fraudulently register as them, they are very unlikely to vote (having not even registered).


We quantify the fraud the same way we quantify anything else which we don't have precise numbers for; we estimate based on known examples.
I hope no one pays you to do any statistics.

Statistics revolves around the ratio between the sample and the sample space. If you can't quantify the sample space you can't do statistics.

Observe: How many planets in the galaxy currently have life on them, we have an example, extrapolate

Here is another example that the mathematically illiterate put out from time to time: Only 15% of rapes are actually reported to the police. How do you  know about the ones not reported to police?

The answer? A survey. Usually anonymous. You can't do statistics about a crime that can't be confirmed in any meaningful sense except by conviction.

It's different for murder. You can count the number of murdered bodies (assuming the ones which were never found are negligible). If you get 50 convictions and there are a 100 murdered bodies you can now do statistics: Only 50% of murders are solved.

We have no bodies for these elections because they ARE UNAUDITABLE.


There is no way to quantify the exact number of people who would have voted but didn't because of twelve hour lines, that doesn't mean we cannot make reasonable estimates.
Yes, we can make reasonable estimates. My reasonable estimate is MBTI < 10%, FCR ~ 6/7


Quantifying voters who have been practically disenfranchised is not difficult to quantify at all and plenty of studies have done on this. If you pass a new voter ID law that requires particular ID types, you can easily see how many people don't have that ID and follow up to see how many of them ended up without it.
You mean didn't get it for the election? That doesn't prove "disenfranchisement" since an equally valid explanation is that they just didn't give a shit.

If you started from an election system where you have to hop over a ballot touch screen in front of your door everyday or else you voted for someone; and go to something sane; the "voter turnout" will go down. Not because voting is now too hard, but because people who didn't give a shit were doing it.


If you get rid of mail in ballots you can easily find out how many people were unable to cast ballots as a result.
I would ask how, but I really don't care. Remote voting isn't a problem that is impossible to solve and I don't care about banning it. I only care about the slim chance to prevent the ascendant digital fascist state via democracy.

A measure as simple as requiring a phone number (not some throwaway dark web number) and then texting each person who purportedly sent in a mail-in-ballot to confirm that they did indeed do such a thing before counting the ballot would have created a level of auditability which would have severely limited those reasonable estimates about potential fraud.


Alleged voter fraud is entirely different, because you have no evidence that the thing you're alleging to be happening is actually happening.
Other than the evidence you've chosen to ignore, yes.


It's a solution in search of a problem.
Trust is a problem, and I think it's going to be harder to ignore that one as time goes on.


Bitcoin is a trustworthy system. That is an objective fact (until the questionable prediction of RSA cracking comes to pass).

Some may not believe it is trustworthy
So we agree that people believing a system to be untrustworthy doesn't make it untrustworthy. Glad to hear it.
It was never contested... I said the perception of untrustworthiness is a problem in of itself and the single indispensable mitigation of that problem is to be in fact trustworthy.


You have a hypothesis: Everyone who doubts elections does so out of blind worship of Donald Trump.
Wrong. My hypothesis, along with this entire conversation, has nothing to do with the individual. This is all about looking at the big picture, and the fact of the matter is that what public officials say, particularly when that official is the president of the United States, and especially when that President has the kind of devoted following Donald Trump has - tells the public that the election results cannot be trusted, it would be absurd to expect any other result than for the public trust in elections to take a significant hit.
So when Nancy Pelosi and Maxene Waters doubts elections public trust also takes a hit. Ceded.


There is a reason why conceding the race and congratulating your opponent has always been a proud and sacred tradition in American politics. It's because everyone including and since the founding fathers understood this "hypothesis" as nothing less than common sense.
Well except for the confederacy, the contingent election after that, Al Gore, and Stacey Abrams.


Because you have chosen to believe that, you don't think having secure elections would make a difference in public trust.
I've never suggested we should strive for anything other than secure elections, my point is that they are secure by any reasonable assessment.
If they were secure then I could not present a fraud strategy, ask what the maximum possible extent of its practice is, and the answer is "shut up insurrectionist, we have your name now".

Topic's author
#40
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R

The point being that even the authors of the report you are citing to support your case agree with me.
Well one, and that only proves he is a CNN puppet like every other ancient democrat. It doesn't change what the report found.

I did not rely on the assertions of the report at all, I was merely pointing out you're misrepresenting history.


Did you even read the report?
Part of it. Long before now.


The main concern they had with mail in balloting wasn't even the threat of fraud, it was the concern that many of these ballots are being filled out in the presence of others which they argued that could result in ballots being heavily influenced.
Also a concern (and it did identify the identity theft issue), and there is evidence that people were paid for "blank check" ballot mailers in 2020 and 2022.

The reason this doesn't happen for in-person-polls is that you can pay people whatever you want, but when they go into the booths you can't look over their shoulders to see if they delivered on what you paid for. That's also why secret voting dissuades intimidation and threats, you can just say "Oh yea I vote Biden, I'm black don't worry" and vote for Trump anyway.

A mailed ballot, that's free in the wild; people can snap photos or show the ballot filled out before they mail it as proof. (again this was alleged, with evidence, in Arizona)


So again, this tells me everything I need to know.
You need to know a lot more than you currently appear to know.


a misrepresentation of a 20 year old report.
What misrepresentation? The fact that the report discussed more than susceptibility to fraud does not mean it did not discuss susceptibility to fraud.
Topic's author
#41
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
#42
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Things like, what is the proper default position
The government has a duty to have elections, elections must be legitimate which means either auditable or invulnerable (preferably both).
No. The default position is that we presume honesty until we have a legitimate reason to suspect dishonesty (fraud).

where does the burden of proof lie
The government.
Wrong. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim.

So if you are, for example, claiming fraud, then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that fraud.

how do we go about establishing a case for widespread fraud
If you can't make a system invulnerable it at least needs to be auditable. If the answer to the above question is *shrug* that means it wasn't auditable.
This answer has nothing to do with the question. All you're saying here is "these are some things I think we should do to improve the system. Ok, that's great. Until you start conflating your personal dissatisfaction with how far the system goes to prevent fraud with the election itself being illegitimate.

what is the ultimate goal here
Managed Democracy!
Not an answer. The ultimate goal for me is an election everyone can participate in first and foremost, while ensuring ballot integrity.

We can take risks, but only if we can quantify the damage.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that we have to be able to count every instance of fraud?

Neither have any of these people running around claiming the fraud swung the election, at least not to my knowledge. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.
We don't need to. The inability of anyone to put error bars on it means we win the debate.
Wrong. You lose by default because you have provided no evidence to support your claims.

"I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win."
"You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris

"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter
Just because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.
I think that just about sums up your whole ethos. Double standards of behavior protected by double standards of logic and evidence. I'm saving this one.
lol.

Yes believe it or not words can have more than one meaning, especially when spoken in completely different contexts. I would provide basic examples to demonstrate this but you will ignore them just like you did the last few I gave.

Do you understand how communication and context actually works?
Context is back to save the day huh?
Yes, context is still a very important part of human communication. That didn't change since our last thread.

The latter is a rejection of reality based on allegations of a massive nationwide conspiracy. 
Does it have to be a massive nationwide conspiracy to steal an election?
It depends on what's being alleged. The word "steal" can have multiple applications. You can for example say the visiting team stole the game in the final minutes when they ran back two fumbles for touchdowns. In that example there is no wrongdoing being alleged, they're just pointing out that the home team had it and should have won.

That's the context the democrats you cited we're talking about. No one was saying Donald Trump didn't get the most votes through the proper application of the electoral college, they were saying that the system sucks and the way things work is antithetical to the very ideas we're supposed to stand for, and also that Trump played dirty by happily accepting Putin's help.

That's not what Trump supporters are saying at all. They're not saying Biden didn't win the right way, they're saying he didn't win. These aren't the same thing. 

I've pointed this out at least twice now and could point it out a hundred more times and you will just keep repeating the same debunked nonsense as if you really don't understand the most basic ideas of how English works.

Then I guess we no longer trust voter registration either.
Not if you are reasonable. It should have been obvious to you when there are actual human beings who object when somebody tries to remove the dead voters from the voter rolls.
No one objects to removing dead voters, you're just lying. The objection is at the way many of the states have carried this out which would objectively result in large numbers of legal voters also being thrown off the roles and the burden being placed on them to get themselves back on. If you care about democracy, which means everyone's voice counts, them that is not an acceptable trade off especially when dead people do not cast ballots says every audit that's been done (and yes, this is easily auditable).


No one is going through the trouble of stealing your identity and ending up in jail just so they can cast a single fraudulent ballot in your name.
Nobody is ending up in jail because there is no way to trace the fraudulent ballot to the fraudster
People do end up in jail because of this, and everytime it's a monumentally stupid decision given the risk vs reward ratio. Hey few people are stupid enough to try this, and most of those that do are republicans because they've been so brainwashed by this nonsense.

Mail in balloting as practiced in 2020 and 2022 removes all the risk. That's why its susceptible to fraud.

There is no reason that they can only send in one fraudulent ballots, they're only physically limited by the number of ballots they can collect from defunct or rarely used addresses during the period when mail ballots are sent out which is often 30-45 days before the election.
Are you even listening to yourself? Who do you think is doing this? Who is going door and doing oppo research on their neighbors stealing people's mail in ballots and do you really think no one's going to catch on when ballot after ballot in the same neighborhoods end up missing? And for what?

Nobody votes because they really think their one ballot is going to decide the election. People vote because they want to make their voice heard. Voter fraud of this type would need to be done on a massive scale to make any difference at all. Even if you were successful in flipping an entire state (Georgia's razor thin margin was still 12k votes), there are still 49 others so you're chance of swinging the election would still be marginal at best. No one is going to go through all this trouble and risk to not make a difference.
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,256
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
So if you are, for example, claiming fraud, then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that fraud.
Wrong. If you want votes, you need to give a reason for that vote. Not demand from voters proof why you won't vote for more government.
Intimidation only gets you so far. The default position is a vote is earned (proof), and the voter doesn't need a reason (proof) to not vote.


Topic's author
#44
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Things like, what is the proper default position
The government has a duty to have elections, elections must be legitimate which means either auditable or invulnerable (preferably both).
No. The default position is that we presume honesty until we have a legitimate reason to suspect dishonesty (fraud).
Refusal to establish trust is a reason to suspect dishonesty.

Just like a bank that doesn't keep records.

Just like a cop who won't wear a camera.



where does the burden of proof lie
The government.
Wrong. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim.
Rejected.


So if you are, for example, claiming fraud, then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that fraud.
You owe me ten billion dollars as you previously agreed.

Now where does the burden of proof lay? Surely you wouldn't claim that I don't have a contract signed by you without evidence would you?


We can take risks, but only if we can quantify the damage.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that we have to be able to count every instance of fraud?
We need to have a maximum count for the fraud that is established beyond reasonable doubt.


Neither have any of these people running around claiming the fraud swung the election, at least not to my knowledge. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.
We don't need to. The inability of anyone to put error bars on it means we win the debate.
Wrong. You lose by default because you have provided no evidence to support your claims.
Well I say Trump wins, I counted the ballots with my invisible alien friends. You can't prove I didn't QED.


They're not saying Biden didn't win the right way, they're saying he didn't win.
Trump didn't actually win - Jimmy Carter

Cue the BS, if you're predicting I'll ignore it I will. The plain English remains.


Then I guess we no longer trust voter registration either.
Not if you are reasonable. It should have been obvious to you when there are actual human beings who object when somebody tries to remove the dead voters from the voter rolls.
No one objects to removing dead voters


The objection is at the way many of the states have carried this out which would objectively result in large numbers of legal voters also being thrown off the roles and the burden being placed on them to get themselves back on.
The only way that could be true is if they had no way to objectively determine who is an eligible voter. Again proving non-auditability.


If you care about democracy, which means everyone's voice counts
Democracy means everyone's voice counts once. There is no requirement for it to be easier than breathing air.


especially when dead people do not cast ballots says every audit that's been done (and yes, this is easily auditable).
No zombies or vampires, that's good to know. People do commit election fraud by casting ballots pretending to be dead people though:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9760/posts/408140


No one is going through the trouble of stealing your identity and ending up in jail just so they can cast a single fraudulent ballot in your name.
Nobody is ending up in jail because there is no way to trace the fraudulent ballot to the fraudster
People do end up in jail because of this, and everytime it's a monumentally stupid decision given the risk vs reward ratio. Hey few people are stupid enough to try this, and most of those that do are republicans because they've been so brainwashed by this nonsense.
Non-responsive.


Mail in balloting as practiced in 2020 and 2022 removes all the risk. That's why its susceptible to fraud.

There is no reason that they can only send in one fraudulent ballots, they're only physically limited by the number of ballots they can collect from defunct or rarely used addresses during the period when mail ballots are sent out which is often 30-45 days before the election.
Are you even listening to yourself? Who do you think is doing this? Who is going door and doing oppo research on their neighbors stealing people's mail in ballots and do you really think no one's going to catch on when ballot after ballot in the same neighborhoods end up missing? And for what?
It is clear you aren't even reading.

Who would miss ballots they didn't request delivered to addresses they don't live at?


Voter fraud of this type would need to be done on a massive scale to make any difference at all.
If <2% of the ballots is a "massive scale" yes.


there are still 49 others so you're chance of swinging the election would still be marginal at best. No one is going to go through all this trouble and risk to not make a difference.
It is intolerable to stake democracy itself upon your poor judgement in the range of motivations possible to people you don't know. There is almost no risk to weigh against. Everything before and since has proven to rational observers that there is very little the TDS zombies won't try to stop Trump. I'd believe IWRA would cheat in a heartbeat if there was no risk (and there wouldn't be if he knew what he was doing and was given the information needed)

It also not as if there wasn't plenty of cash to pay people to do footwork. Enormous sums were being dumped from the usual suspects including silicon valley.
Topic's author
#45
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Not only have they failed to do audits and publish the results and data, not only have they hidden the data from the public (illegally), they physically attack people for soliciting audits:


"U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya on Tuesday ordered, opens new tab Lambert and Byrne to stop sharing Dominion records with others."

Ignore pseudo-judges. Release all information of public interest. The enemies of democracy and traitors to the constitution are disqualified under the 14th amendment. Their orders have no force of law. They are armed assailants, and should be treated as such.

Use force when persons impersonating officers of the law attempt to impede your exercise of constitutional rights.
#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You have no idea what the actual story is with any of these claims, yet you already assume the ballot supposedly received in their name was fraudulent.
There is no doubt that it is fraudulent. If they sent it in and then tried to vote in person that is an attempt to commit election fraud. If someone else sent in a ballot in their name... that's fraud.
Yes... *If*

Hence: You have no idea what the actual story is with any of these claims, yet you already assume the ballot supposedly received in their name was fraudulent.

You have failed to answer the question. Here it is again:

How does a lot of small scale fraud get any "more serious" than lots of examples of small scale fraud and the certain knowledge that discovered examples are the result of extreme filter?
If I skipped over this question before it's probably because it's unclear what you're asking. Please rephrase.

Let's not forget you provided for examples of confirmed voter fraud and there are plenty more.
I didn't forget it, it's one of the data points that proves my case. Dead voters is a very easy thing to audit, yet in the entire state of Georgia they found only 4 examples. If the fraud you are claiming to be happening were actually happening there would be thousands of examples. There are not.

FS >= MV
MBF_SI - PBPF >= MV
(PBPF/MBTI* FCR) - PBPF >= MV
PBPF( 1/(MBTI* FCR) - 1 ) >= MV
1/(MBTI* FCR) - 1 >= MV/PBPF
1/(MBTI* FCR)  >=  MV/PBPF + 1
1/(MV/PBPF + 1)  >=  MBTI* FCR

MBTI* FCR <= 1/(11,000/10,000+ 1)

MBTI* FCR <= 0.47
Um. Ok.

That means that if half of the people whose identities were stolen didn't vote, and that out of those who tried 6% didn't correct it (out of disgust or apathy) then the fraudulent count would be greater than the margin of victory.
You are still presuming that every provisional ballot is the result of an attempt at fraud which is nonsense. Most provisional ballots are due to registration issues. In my case I had to fill one out because I unknowingly showed up at the wrong precinct which is another large chunk of them.

If you're going to start with the default position that every ballot which was questionable in any way must have been fraudulent until proven otherwise then of course you are going to see fraud everywhere. That's not a problem with the system, that's a you problem.

I hope no one pays you to do any statistics.
Actually, providing numbers is a very big part of my job, and I make 6 figures doing it

If you get 50 convictions and there are a 100 murdered bodies you can now do statistics: Only 50% of murders are solved.

We have no bodies for these elections because they ARE UNAUDITABLE.
In person fraud cannot be audited either yet you have so issue with that, so what is your point?

Quantifying voters who have been practically disenfranchised is not difficult to quantify at all and plenty of studies have done on this. If you pass a new voter ID law that requires particular ID types, you can easily see how many people don't have that ID and follow up to see how many of them ended up without it.
You mean didn't get it for the election? That doesn't prove "disenfranchisement" since an equally valid explanation is that they just didn't give a shit.
You know these are real people you can talk to right now, right?

Many of them are living in poverty and don't have the means to get these ID's. In some cases they need multiple documents and have to pay multiple fees, not to mention the transportation costs of they don't live anywhere near these places.

The right wing ethos is that none of this matters, which is my point. It's easy when you already have a job, a car and a license. For many people it's not easy despite the fact that we're talking about something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.

There is a reason I keep using the term practical disenfranchisement. No, they're not actually being told they don't have the right to vote, but voting is no different than anything else in life in the sense that it's a cost benefit analysis. The more we have to sacrifice to participate the less likely we are to participate. So any law that makes it harder means less people participate.

I know right wingers love this because the less people vote the better they do, but this is where I think the real difference between all of us is. I think a society who's people vote for their own representatives is better than a society where representatives are only picked by a handful who were willing to jump through the hoops. You can write that off as being purely partisan motivated of you want, you can't argue that on this one point my priority is far more aligned with the basic concept of democracy than the point that it doesn't matter if these people get to vote if they weren't willing to jump through these hoops.

Alleged voter fraud is entirely different, because you have no evidence that the thing you're alleging to be happening is actually happening.
Other than the evidence you've chosen to ignore, yes.
I haven't ignored it, only pointed out that it isn't sufficient to justify your claims.

I said the perception of untrustworthiness is a problem in of itself and the single indispensable mitigation of that problem is to be in fact trustworthy.
The only reason it's a problem is because people like you and Trump are out there telling people it's a problem. Turns out people will believe whatever they're told, I know shocker.

But while I agree with you that either way, it is a problem, what it is certainly not is an argument. You don't get to tell people mail in ballots are rigged and then point to the fact that people believe you as a valid reason to now have to get rid of them.

So when Nancy Pelosi and Maxene Waters doubts elections public trust also takes a hit. Ceded...
 
Well except for the confederacy, the contingent election after that, Al Gore, and Stacey Abrams.
They never claimed the results were fraudulent genius.

Refusal to establish trust is a reason to suspect dishonesty.
Circular logic. 'I don't trust elections therefore my distrust in elections is validated'

Wrong. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim.
[Logic 101] Rejected.
Fixed.

Google philosophic burden of proof.

So if you are, for example, claiming fraud, then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that fraud.
You owe me ten billion dollars as you previously agreed.

Now where does the burden of proof lay? Surely you wouldn't claim that I don't have a contract signed by you without evidence would you?
I don't have to. You claimed I owe you ten billion dollars, so provide the evidence to support that claim or it will rightly be dismissed in any legal setting, anywhere.

Well I say Trump wins, I counted the ballots with my invisible alien friends. You can't prove I didn't QED.
I don't have to, that's why the burden of proof is a real thing. You made the claim, so prove it. And if you fail take your burden seriously then you relieve the rest of us of the burden of having to take you're claim seriously.

They're not saying Biden didn't win the right way, they're saying he didn't win.
Trump didn't actually win - Jimmy Carter

Cue the BS, if you're predicting I'll ignore it I will. The plain English remains.
"there's no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election. And I think the interference although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf."

I know you struggle with context, bit he is clearly saying Trump only won because of Russia. He's not claiming ballots were stolen by illegals and recorded in the name of dead people.

These are not the same thing. Says English.

Who would miss ballots they didn't request delivered to addresses they don't live at?
Show me how many times this has happened.

there is very little the TDS zombies won't try to stop Trump. I'd believe IWRA would cheat in a heartbeat if there was no risk
I know, the projection is strong.

Topic's author
#47
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
You have no idea what the actual story is with any of these claims, yet you already assume the ballot supposedly received in their name was fraudulent.
There is no doubt that it is fraudulent. If they sent it in and then tried to vote in person that is an attempt to commit election fraud. If someone else sent in a ballot in their name... that's fraud.
Yes... *If*

Hence: You have no idea what the actual story is with any of these claims, yet you already assume the ballot supposedly received in their name was fraudulent.
Well I could assume you're they were all lying when I saw their faces and emotions, or I could assume your blind trust in tens of thousands of people who you don't know is warranted.

I know which I'm choosing, and I know I'm the reasonable one.



If I skipped over this question before it's probably because it's unclear what you're asking. Please rephrase.
It was a request to explain your statement. If you don't know what makes fraud "serious" then your previously attempted point is void.


Let's not forget you provided for examples of confirmed voter fraud and there are plenty more.
I didn't forget it, it's one of the data points that proves my case. Dead voters is a very easy thing to audit, yet in the entire state of Georgia they found only 4 examples.
You claim there was an audit. Show me the audit.


If the fraud you are claiming to be happening were actually happening there would be thousands of examples.
Depends on how many mistakes the fraudsters made.


There are not.
You trust. I don't.


That means that if half of the people whose identities were stolen didn't vote, and that out of those who tried 6% didn't correct it (out of disgust or apathy) then the fraudulent count would be greater than the margin of victory.
You are still presuming that every provisional ballot is the result of an attempt at fraud which is nonsense.
I defined PBPF as the number of provisional ballots issued for potential fraud. If they really did audits and didn't hide data then we would have a number for that.


If you're going to start with the default position that every ballot which was questionable in any way must have been fraudulent until proven otherwise then of course you are going to see fraud everywhere. That's not a problem with the system, that's a you problem.
Jan 6, an enormous spike in support for secession, Trump getting railroaded leading to a complete collapse of trust in the federal and opposition state legal systems; and the very real probability of Trump getting back in come 2024 says it's a "us" problem.


I hope no one pays you to do any statistics.
Actually, providing numbers is a very big part of my job, and I make 6 figures doing it
...and we wonder why things are getting worse....


If you get 50 convictions and there are a 100 murdered bodies you can now do statistics: Only 50% of murders are solved.

We have no bodies for these elections because they ARE UNAUDITABLE.
In person fraud cannot be audited either yet you have so issue with that, so what is your point?
There are two options: invulnerability or auditability. The first is better, but the latter is tolerable so long as the response to discovered fraud is a new election.

Vulnerabilities for in-person voting are just as much of a problem as any other vulnerability, but there is reason to believe the scope of such fraud is limited because there exists risks of being recognized. Despite that cameras and photo ID should be required in the unfortunate scenario that we don't instantly switch to bio-metric blockchain voting.

There is no risk for committing mail fraud, it is untraceable.


Quantifying voters who have been practically disenfranchised is not difficult to quantify at all and plenty of studies have done on this. If you pass a new voter ID law that requires particular ID types, you can easily see how many people don't have that ID and follow up to see how many of them ended up without it.
You mean didn't get it for the election? That doesn't prove "disenfranchisement" since an equally valid explanation is that they just didn't give a shit.
You know these are real people you can talk to right now, right?

Many of them are living in poverty and don't have the means to get these ID's. In some cases they need multiple documents and have to pay multiple fees, not to mention the transportation costs of they don't live anywhere near these places.
Therefore remote voter registration without ID verification allowing for mail ballots sent from people whose faces have never been seen nor address even confirmed to be an occupied residence is the solution.

I don't think so. Not in a real democracy.


For many people it's not easy despite the fact that we're talking about something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.
You lost any basis to talk about constitutional rights when you discarded the 2nd amendment. "well regulated milita" means you can do whatever the hell you want in your mind. Therefore "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" means I can do whatever the hell I want.


you can't argue that on this one point my priority is far more aligned with the basic concept of democracy than the point that it doesn't matter if these people get to vote if they weren't willing to jump through these hoops.
Democracy with hoops is still democracy. The first democracies required physical presence and had hoops to prevent fraud BECAUSE when fraud can change the outcome it's not democracy anymore. So no, your priorities are wrong. There is no balance. Fraud must be eliminated as a factor so that democracy exists, and any proposal for convenience must not change that fact.


Alleged voter fraud is entirely different, because you have no evidence that the thing you're alleging to be happening is actually happening.
Other than the evidence you've chosen to ignore, yes.
I haven't ignored it
Emphasis added


I said the perception of untrustworthiness is a problem in of itself and the single indispensable mitigation of that problem is to be in fact trustworthy.
The only reason it's a problem is because people like you and Trump are out there telling people it's a problem. Turns out people will believe whatever they're told, I know shocker.
They've been told (hilariously and constantly) that the 2020 election was the safest and most secure in history.

If people believed whatever they were told they would believe the 2020 election was perfect. i.e. democrats. There are people who remember everything they're told and try to integrate it into a cohesive worldview.

Those people remembered they were also told that the Russians "somehow" changed the outcome of the 2016 election causing Trump to be the unduly elected POTUS. They have chosen not to believe everything they are told because they have a problem with contradictions.


You don't get to tell people mail in ballots are rigged and then point to the fact that people believe you as a valid reason to now have to get rid of them.
Sure I can, if they can be rigged.


So when Nancy Pelosi and Maxene Waters doubts elections public trust also takes a hit. Ceded...
 
Well except for the confederacy, the contingent election after that, Al Gore, and Stacey Abrams.
They never claimed the results were fraudulent genius.
Yes they did. I'd post the evidence again if I hadn't done it more than three times.


Refusal to establish trust is a reason to suspect dishonesty.
Circular logic. 'I don't trust elections therefore my distrust in elections is validated'
Circular logic 'I don't trust cops, therefore my distrust in cops is validated'

Forgot to mention the part where a trust-proving mechanism was inexplicably rejected didn't ya?


Google philosophic burden of proof.
Google appeal to ignorance and then think about what the original positive claim must be.


So if you are, for example, claiming fraud, then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that fraud.
You owe me ten billion dollars as you previously agreed.

Now where does the burden of proof lay? Surely you wouldn't claim that I don't have a contract signed by you without evidence would you?
I don't have to. You claimed I owe you ten billion dollars, so provide the evidence to support that claim or it will rightly be dismissed in any legal setting, anywhere.
It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?


Well I say Trump wins, I counted the ballots with my invisible alien friends. You can't prove I didn't QED.
I don't have to, that's why the burden of proof is a real thing. You made the claim, so prove it.
Is that so? I made the original claim?

What was the claim?


And if you fail take your burden seriously then you relieve the rest of us of the burden of having to take you're claim seriously.
Yes indeed.


He's not claiming ballots were stolen by illegals and recorded in the name of dead people.
Then he's claiming those are not the only ways for the officially reported result to be wrong.


Who would miss ballots they didn't request delivered to addresses they don't live at?
Show me how many times this has happened.
Give me surveillance footage of every ballot being delivered and the photos of everyone who lives at every house.

Woops, you can't. That means it's unauditable.

That doesn't mean *shrug* don't worry about it, it means that the people who decided it was time to send out ballots by mail (a completely untraceable system) wasted a lot of effort because democracy not achieved.

Topic's author
#48
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
An example of the kind of things I heard as an election judge: https://twitter.com/i/status/1770499421479784544

People like Double_R would call this "anecdotal" and suggest that you assume these people are lying since no one would be dishonest enough to impersonate someone else for "just one vote". <- can you spot the contradiction?
#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well I could assume you're they were all lying when I saw their faces and emotions, or I could assume your blind trust in tens of thousands of people who you don't know is warranted.
Or... You could recognize that there are more potential explanations than "they were trying to commit fraud" or "someone else was trying to commit fraud".

If you don't know what makes fraud "serious" then your previously attempted point is void.
Another example of how disingenuous you are. Nothing I've said implied in any way that "fraud" is not serious. We're not talking about the vague concept of fraud, we're talking about the scale of fraud in relation to the total. 4 dead voters in an entire state is not a serious issue when that state was decided by the razor thin margin of 12k votes. 

If you didn't have strawman arguments you'd have no arguments at all.

You claim there was an audit. Show me the audit.
Ask the pro Trump republican officials who performed it.

If they really did audits and didn't hide data then we would have a number for that.
Funny how every state, including those run by republicans all hide the data showing massive fraud which swings elections towards the democrats.

That's not a problem with the system, that's a you problem.
Jan 6, an enormous spike in support for secession, Trump getting railroaded leading to a complete collapse of trust in the federal and opposition state legal systems; and the very real probability of Trump getting back in come 2024 says it's a "us" problem.
Oh it's definitely an us problem - Republicans are idiots and are bringing the rest of us down with them. I remember a time when someone being indicted on 91 felony counts used to make them less viable, not more. I remember a time when stealing nuclear secrets and lying to the FBI about them would make someone less viable, not more. I remember a time when someone using Hitler's rhetoric when talking about immigrants would make them less viable, not more.

But this is half the country now. God help us.

We have no bodies for these elections because they ARE UNAUDITABLE.
In person fraud cannot be audited either yet you have so issue with that, so what is your point?
There are two options: invulnerability or auditability. The first is better, but the latter is tolerable so long as the response to discovered fraud is a new election.

Vulnerabilities for in-person voting are just as much of a problem as any other vulnerability, but there is reason to believe the scope of such fraud is limited because there exists risks of being recognized.
And yet it's still UNAUDITABLE

You lost any basis to talk about constitutional rights when you discarded the 2nd amendment.
Strawman then deflect, same ole...

My arguments have nothing to do with your made up conception of anything I've said in the past. Your position is either valid and defensible, or it's not. If it was, you would spend more time focusing on that rather than making shit up about me to deflect to.

when fraud can change the outcome it's not democracy anymore. So no, your priorities are wrong. There is no balance. Fraud must be eliminated as a factor so that democracy exists, and any proposal for convenience must not change that fact.
Fraud can still be committed via in person voting, yet you are fine with it.

You do not follow your own logic.

You don't get to tell people mail in ballots are rigged and then point to the fact that people believe you as a valid reason to now have to get rid of them.
Sure I can, if they can be rigged.
Mail in ballots can also be rigged, yet you are fine with them.

They never claimed the results were fraudulent genius.
Yes they did. I'd post the evidence again if I hadn't done it more than three times.
What you've posted are sounbites that completely and entirely ignored all context  which demonstrates that what you're saying is complete and utter bullshit.

I've already posted the full Jimmy Carter excerpt that includes the part you conveniently left out. He specifically and explicitly said Trump didn't win because of Russian interference. He wasn't talking about fraud, he was talking about winning the right way. These are completely different things. I'm am sorry if you cannot tell different things apart from each other.

He's not claiming ballots were stolen by illegals and recorded in the name of dead people.
Then he's claiming those are not the only ways for the officially reported result to be wrong.
Correct. The problem for you is that "wrong" is an inherently subjective term, therefore it can mean anything.

If I am claiming the result is wrong in the sense that the person who won did so in violation of the spirit of democracy (like accepting help from a foreign advasary in the form of rampant misinformation being spread with no accountability) then it's an entirely subjective opinion.

If I am claiming the result is wrong in the sense that the actual count which determines the actual winner is wrong, that is not a subjective opinion and therefore doesn't get a pass in the world of facts.

The former is bad because it reflects poorly on us as a society for choosing the candidate who violated the spirit of democracy. The latter is bad because it means we didn't choose our leader at all. The latter is objectively worse for democracy because the entire concept of democracy is that we choose our own leader.

Circular logic 'I don't trust cops, therefore my distrust in cops is validated'
Yes, that is also circular logic.

I assume you're trying to pin that logic onto me. Sure, just show me where I have ever used it and then we can both recognize that we're both using circular logic (HINT: you won't find it because I've never made that argument).

Google philosophic burden of proof.
Google appeal to ignorance and then think about what the original positive claim must be.
A default position is not a positive claim.

It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?
Yes

Well I say Trump wins, I counted the ballots with my invisible alien friends. You can't prove I didn't QED.
I don't have to, that's why the burden of proof is a real thing. You made the claim, so prove it.
Is that so? I made the original claim?

What was the claim?
Start at the top...

Show me how many times this has happened.
Give me surveillance footage of every ballot being delivered and the photos of everyone who lives at every house.

Woops, you can't. That means it's unauditable.

That doesn't mean *shrug* don't worry about it, it means that the people who decided it was time to send out ballots by mail (a completely untraceable system) wasted a lot of effort because democracy not achieved.
What it means is you have decided that only when it comes to mail in ballots, you (personally) must have names, addresses, photographs, video footage of everyone's houses in order to accept them but don't demand anything close to that before accepting in person ballots.

And of course the fact that democrats how by mail more so than republicans had absolutely nothing to do with this double standard at all.

No one cares about your unreasonable demands and misplaced burden of proof. Prove your claims or go home.
#50
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
People like Double_R would call this "anecdotal" and suggest that you assume these people are lying
No, people like Double_R would recognize that this isn't even anecdotal because we don't know anything about it.
  • Who are these people?
  • How do we know they are properly verifying the record?
  • Has any of those been looked into?
But before we even get to any of those questions, so you not find this at all strange? This woman has had someone voting in her name for years in presidential elections and even primaries, yet she says she voted for Trump. Election turnout was far higher when Trump was on the ballot, so this impersonator came out for every election... Except when Trump was on the ballot? Sounds like an ass backwards operative.

But let's set all of that aside and grant the entire story as factual... Yes, now it is, by definition, an anecdote. Provide the data showing it happening regularly and then you'll have evidence of widespread fraud.

Topic's author
#51
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Well I could assume you're they were all lying when I saw their faces and emotions, or I could assume your blind trust in tens of thousands of people who you don't know is warranted.
Or... You could recognize that there are more potential explanations than "they were trying to commit fraud" or "someone else was trying to commit fraud".
There are no other explanations. It's fraud or lying. Ballots don't accidentally get sent in under another person's name. If such a thing could happen that would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no election integrity (see thread title.)


If you don't know what makes fraud "serious" then your previously attempted point is void.
Another example of how disingenuous you are. Nothing I've said implied in any way that "fraud" is not serious.
You lie:

If the kind of fraud you are claiming may be happening was actually happening, you would have far more serious examples to talk about.


If you didn't have strawman arguments you'd have no arguments at all.
You should stop lying.


You claim there was an audit. Show me the audit.
Ask the pro Trump republican officials who performed it.
You have failed to produce an audit.


If they really did audits and didn't hide data then we would have a number for that.
Funny how every state, including those run by republicans all hide the data showing massive fraud which swings elections towards the democrats.
Funny how you can't produce that number, almost as if it hasn't been published because no substantive audits were done.


That's not a problem with the system, that's a you problem.
Jan 6, an enormous spike in support for secession, Trump getting railroaded leading to a complete collapse of trust in the federal and opposition state legal systems; and the very real probability of Trump getting back in come 2024 says it's a "us" problem.
Oh it's definitely an us problem
Then I look forward to you no longer trying to evade the debate because you don't give a shit what pro-democracy citizens think.


We have no bodies for these elections because they ARE UNAUDITABLE.
In person fraud cannot be audited either yet you have so issue with that, so what is your point?
There are two options: invulnerability or auditability. The first is better, but the latter is tolerable so long as the response to discovered fraud is a new election.

Vulnerabilities for in-person voting are just as much of a problem as any other vulnerability, but there is reason to believe the scope of such fraud is limited because there exists risks of being recognized.
And yet it's still UNAUDITABLE
Non-responsive.


You lost any basis to talk about constitutional rights when you discarded the 2nd amendment.
Strawman then deflect, same ole...
Non-responsive.


when fraud can change the outcome it's not democracy anymore. So no, your priorities are wrong. There is no balance. Fraud must be eliminated as a factor so that democracy exists, and any proposal for convenience must not change that fact.
Fraud can still be committed via in person voting, yet you are fine with it.
Strawman, you should stop lying.


You don't get to tell people mail in ballots are rigged and then point to the fact that people believe you as a valid reason to now have to get rid of them.
Sure I can, if they can be rigged.
Mail in ballots can also be rigged, yet you are fine with them.
Strawman, you should stop lying.


He wasn't talking about fraud
He was talking about election results. Specifically: denying them


HINT: you won't find it because I've never made that argument
HINT: Same here


Google philosophic burden of proof.
Google appeal to ignorance and then think about what the original positive claim must be.
A default position is not a positive claim.
I should hope not, but you apparently think I should accept a positive claim as a default position.


It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?
Yes
Therefore there is a dichotomy: Either I just committed fraud, or you signed a contract.

However since we know you have the burden of proof to show I committed fraud, I can't have a burden of proof to disprove fraud.

All that is left to you is to stew in impotence because apparently I don't have to prove my claims to be non-fraudulent and fruad is the only way they could be false.


What was the claim?
Start at the top...
Non-responsive.


What it means is you have decided that only when it comes to mail in ballots, you (personally) must have names, addresses, photographs, video footage of everyone's houses in order to accept them but don't demand anything close to that before accepting in person ballots.
You didn't ask for a number of in-person fraudulent votes.


No one cares about your unreasonable demands and misplaced burden of proof. Prove your claims or go home.
Here and I thought we agreed it was a "us" problem. Forgot about that quick, you also forgot you owe me money. You haven't proven fraud yet.


People like Double_R would call this "anecdotal" and suggest that you assume these people are lying
No, people like Double_R would recognize that this isn't even anecdotal because we don't know anything about it.
  • Who are these people?
  • How do we know they are properly verifying the record?
  • Has any of those been looked into?
Looking into things is treason and will get you locked up if you haven't heard.


so this impersonator came out for every election... Except when Trump was on the ballot? Sounds like an ass backwards operative.
How did you infer that the impersonator didn't attempt to vote in an election with Trump?


Yes, now it is, by definition, an anecdote
No it is not. It's a data point. Data points like these have been compiled but people like you alternate between dismissing the whole because you don't trust the individual examples to dismissing the example because you don't trust the whole.

Lose every point and attempt to escape it by appealing to the broader context. In the broader context you claim that you win because of the specifics in narrower contexts. This is also what you did in regards to the Ukraine Biden corruption debate and the previous election fraud debate.

In other words a gish gallop.
#52
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Or... You could recognize that there are more potential explanations than "they were trying to commit fraud" or "someone else was trying to commit fraud".
There are no other explanations.
Exactly, which is why no one takes election deniers seriously.

You lie:

If the kind of fraud you are claiming may be happening was actually happening, you would have far more serious examples to talk about.
No, you just don't understand the most basic concepts of how language and communication works.

You accused me of not thinking fraud is a serious thing. That is an abstract statement, so your words are accusing me of not caring about it as a basic concept, as if to say if elections are rife with fraud it doesn't matter. That, is a blatant lie.

What I've argued clearly and repeatedly from the start is that we're not talking about some vague notion of fraud, we're talking about the scale of fraud and whether that scale is a serious threat to the integrity of the result (because that is the only time when it would make any difference). So in that context, this one example of a clerical error is a stupid thing for us to be talking about if the allegation you're trying to support is that our elections aren't secure.

The funny thing is that much of the above was explained literally immediately after the words of mine you just quoted, yet you conveniently left those off and moved on. It's almost as if you're nothing more than a partisan hack whose not actually trying to listen to anything I'm saying and make a serious argument in response.

You claim there was an audit. Show me the audit.
Ask the pro Trump republican officials who performed it.
You have failed to produce an audit.
Right, so let's test those logic skills of yours. Double_R on debateart failed to produce an audit performed by the state of Georgia. Therefore... [?]

Funny how you can't produce that number, almost as if it hasn't been published because no substantive audits were done.
Right, no substantive audits were done, so the audits that election officials said were done, and that hundred's if not thousands of election workers took part in, is all a massive multi state conspiracy performed largely by pro Trump republicans in order to hide the cheating the democrats did to boot Trump out of office and install Joe Biden.

Ok bro. Hold onto that fantasy if you really want to. Just know that this is why no one takes election deniers seriously and never will.

He wasn't talking about fraud
He was talking about election results. Specifically: denying them
So you are just incapable of telling completely different things apart from each other and don't understand how English works. Noted.

It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?
Yes
Therefore there is a dichotomy: Either I just committed fraud, or you signed a contract.

However since we know you have the burden of proof to show I committed fraud...
No, I don't have that burden because I'm not making that allegation. In this hypothetical, you are claiming I owe you money and you are seeking to be made whole. Because you are the one bringing the allegation and because you are the one seeking for others to take action on your behalf, that places the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders. Me claiming that there was no such contact (and thus you are lying aka committing fraud) in this circumstance is not an allegation, it's a defense of your allegation. That doesn't shoulder a burden of proof.

If I were asking others to now indict you on charges of fraud, then in that case I would be shouldering the burden because I would now be expecting others to take action on my behalf.

This is all in a legal sense. Philosophically the burden is on the person who makes the claim provided that they are expecting others to accept their claims as true (this was implied in the statement "makes the claim"). It is when you expect others to come over towards your position that the burden of proof applies.

Looking into things is treason and will get you locked up if you haven't heard.
No, they're very basic questions we need to answer before we can begin to claim this was evidence of fraud even anecdotally.

How did you infer that the impersonator didn't attempt to vote in an election with Trump?
Because then the lady would have likely been told at least one of those times that she already voted.

now it is, by definition, an anecdote
No it is not. It's a data point. Data points like these have been compiled but people like you alternate between dismissing the whole because you don't trust the individual examples to dismissing the example because you don't trust the whole.
It's not a data point until we know what happened, until then it's just a claim. Data points on unverified claims are pretty useless, especially within a community that thinks everything is fraud until proven to them otherwise, so of course I would discard them.

I'm sure you're next argument will be some version of "but they're hiding the evidence" which is where we will just part ways. There are republicans all over this country in high elections offices. If you really think they're all engaging in some grand conspiracy to cover up the democrats stealing our elections there is no logic or reason that will ever get through to you.
Topic's author
#53
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Or... You could recognize that there are more potential explanations than "they were trying to commit fraud" or "someone else was trying to commit fraud".
There are no other explanations.
Exactly, which is why no one takes election deniers seriously.
Non-responsive.


You accused me of not thinking fraud is a serious thing.
You said you would expect more serious examples. I asked what would make the examples more serious. The remainder of your evasive sophistry on this point is ignored.


You claim there was an audit. Show me the audit.
Ask the pro Trump republican officials who performed it.
You have failed to produce an audit.
Right, so let's test those logic skills of yours. Double_R on debateart failed to produce an audit performed by the state of Georgia. Therefore... [?]
Therefore Double_R on debateart trusts there are audits, but cannot find them or trusts there are audits but has not even looked.

Therefore Double_R on debateart is appealing to faith and loses the argument.


Funny how you can't produce that number, almost as if it hasn't been published because no substantive audits were done.
Right, no substantive audits were done, so the audits that election officials said were done, and that hundred's if not thousands of election workers took part in, is all a massive multi state conspiracy performed largely by pro Trump republicans in order to hide the cheating the democrats did to boot Trump out of office and install Joe Biden.
You still have not produced a substantive audit.


Just know that this is why no one takes election deniers seriously and never will.
Then there is nothing to worry about is there.


It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?
Yes
Therefore there is a dichotomy: Either I just committed fraud, or you signed a contract.

However since we know you have the burden of proof to show I committed fraud...
No, I don't have that burden because I'm not making that allegation.
Denying you owe the money is making that allegation.

Denying election results is making the allegation of fraud.


In this hypothetical, you are claiming I owe you money and you are seeking to be made whole. Because you are the one bringing the allegation and because you are the one seeking for others to take action on your behalf, that places the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders.
I see, so the burden of proof for a claimed contract is on the party seeking action from others?


How did you infer that the impersonator didn't attempt to vote in an election with Trump?
Because then the lady would have likely been told at least one of those times that she already voted.
How do you know that she wasn't told of the conflict for 2020 general? She wouldn't be sitting down reviewing records if she had no clue.


now it is, by definition, an anecdote
No it is not. It's a data point. Data points like these have been compiled but people like you alternate between dismissing the whole because you don't trust the individual examples to dismissing the example because you don't trust the whole.
It's not a data point until we know what happened, until then it's just a claim.
Like EJC's accusation of rape.


so of course I would discard them.
You discard claims because you think other people take claims too seriously. Interesting epistemology you got there.


which is where we will just part ways.
Oh we parted ways a while back, when you realized you had not way to quantify the amount of mail fraud. You're just fighting a rear guard action so you can tell yourself you didn't lose.


If you really think they're all engaging in some grand conspiracy to cover up the democrats stealing our elections there is no logic or reason that will ever get through to you.
You may want to listen to the Kari Lake recording again. There are people "back east" who make people worried about car bombs.
#54
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You accused me of not thinking fraud is a serious thing.
You said you would expect more serious examples.
Correct. You are claiming there is massive widespread voter fraud, yet the example you decided to kick this thread off with was a clerical error. An error is not as serious as fraud.

I asked what would make the examples more serious. The remainder of your evasive sophistry on this point is ignored.
Evasive sophistry, lol.

Translation: "arguments I have no rebuttal for".

Double_R on debateart failed to produce an audit performed by the state of Georgia. Therefore... [?]
Therefore Double_R on debateart trusts there are audits, but cannot find them or trusts there are audits but has not even looked.

Therefore Double_R on debateart is appealing to faith and loses the argument.
This is where your lack of philosophical grounding becomes obvious.

First of all, you are the one claiming there is fraud so the burden of proof is on you to show it. Claiming victory because I can't prove there is no fraud is by definition an argument from ignorance.

Second, it's not an appeal to faith, it's a basic application of Occam's razor. The state of Georgia claims they audited the results. Therefore one of two things are true: they either audited the results or they lied. If they lied, that means hundreds if not thousands of election workers would have to be complicit in this lie. The latter requires an insane amount of assumptions while the former does not, therefore the former is by far the more reasonable presumption.

Third, it always amuses me how you love to pretend I rely on trust and you don't. Unless you are sitting there hand counting every single ballot in every single state, you too have to trust that the information given is real. When the lady claimed she never voted before Trump, you trusted her. When those people showed up and told you they hadn't cast a ballot, you trusted them. You rely on trust every bit as much as I do.

Just know that this is why no one takes election deniers seriously and never will.
Then there is nothing to worry about is there.
What I worry about is the damage being done by people who believe lies because they don't understand how to think.

When I say no one takes election deniers seriously I'm talking about the arguments which have no place in a functional and rational system. People who are educated generally know better. But the fact is that all of this propaganda is still very dangerous to the strength of our democracy. Consent of the governed (or a lack thereof) is still important regardless of whether those objections are based in reality

I see, so the burden of proof for a claimed contract is on the party seeking action from others?
The burden is on the person who makes the claim, as I explained from the start. Everything is just extrapolating from this sentence.

What is clearly implied in that sentence is that when someone is making a claim they are expecting others to move towards their position, that's the point of making a claim. Therefore the burden comes in because if you are expecting others to come towards your position, you are the one who has to provide the basis. The alternative to this would be that when someone makes a claim it is on everyone else to prove the opposite otherwise they are obligated to move towards the claimant. That leads to complete and total absurdity.

So if I told you I got kidnapped by aliens, believe me or don't. I doesn't matter. But if I tell you I got kidnapped by aliens and am now asking for you to warn others of the danger these aliens pose, then you're going to want evidence before you'd consider doing so. If I am unwilling to provide any, then you would be in the right to dismiss my claim.

In a legal setting, this translates into the party seeking judgement being the one who has to do the proving. If I file a counter claim against you seeking to be made whole by you for claiming I signed this contract, then I would be placing a burden on myself to prove we never signed one. Until then, "no I didn't" is a defense, not a claim and I have no burden while you certainly do.

When it comes to arguments, you are the person claiming our elections were stolen so that's your burden to prove. If I make a counter claim and decide not to back it up, you are free to dismiss it. But dismissing my claim doesn't prove yours, you have still failed to meet your burden. And thus, neither I nor anyone reading this thread has any obligation to take your claims seriously.

It's not a data point until we know what happened, until then it's just a claim.
Like EJC's accusation of rape.
A claim for which EJC brought the claim and was rightfully saddled with the burden to prove, and according to the jury satisfied that burden. That's how it works.

so of course I would discard them.
You discard claims because you think other people take claims too seriously. Interesting epistemology you got there.
I just explained to you why I discarded the claim. Did you read and absorb any of it? No, of course you didn't. Why respond to my actual arguments when you can just pretend I said something else?

which is where we will just part ways.
Oh we parted ways a while back, when you realized you had not way to quantify the amount of mail fraud.
You mean when you failed to support your own claim that the amount of mail in fraud was anywhere near enough to swing elections, and instead tried to place burden on me? Yes, that's where we parted.

If you really think they're all engaging in some grand conspiracy to cover up the democrats stealing our elections there is no logic or reason that will ever get through to you.
You may want to listen to the Kari Lake recording again. There are people "back east" who make people worried about car bombs.
Nothing about Kari Lake's recordings in any way support your stolen election narrative.
Topic's author
#55
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
You are claiming there is massive widespread voter fraud
I am claiming that there could be, and that the evidence which would theoretically be apparent to joe public is evident. If there isn't enough to impress you that is because the lack of election integrity takes the very form of non-auditability (and also what audits could be done were not).

You are giving license and trust to people dealing in a curtained off alley and that is not democracy.



First of all, you are the one claiming there is fraud so the burden of proof is on you to show it.
First of all, you are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.

See:
[ADOL] It would be fraud if I lied about a contractual obligation wouldn't it?
[Double_R] Yes


Claiming victory because I can't prove there is no fraud is by definition an argument from ignorance.
Which is entirely valid when ignorance is the conclusion.


Second, it's not an appeal to faith, it's a basic application of Occam's razor. The state of Georgia claims they audited the results. Therefore one of two things are true: they either audited the results or they lied. If they lied, that means hundreds if not thousands of election workers would have to be complicit in this lie. The latter requires an insane amount of assumptions while the former does not, therefore the former is by far the more reasonable presumption.
Hardly, since they can simply recount (as was mandated in a few cases) and call that "an audit". While it's a good thing to do, it is not a substantive audit.

They did not do what they could do and what they could do was already insufficient.

By playing such dishonest word games they need involve no one in any conspiracy.

On the other hand the notion that they performed an audit and have nothing but a "no we checked" to show for it requires believers to be a drooling idiots. Denial is one thing, but if you ask for a receipt and they look under the counter and say "Oh yea, there a receipt" and you say "well give me a copy!" and they say "uh trust us" then deception is the more reasonable assumption.


When the lady claimed she never voted before Trump, you trusted her.
I considered her motivations and her duties. She was sharing what she could possibly know. If she had said she saw evidence that people voted in her name, but refused to show it I would give her the same credulity I give to your rumored claims of substantive audits.


It's not a data point until we know what happened, until then it's just a claim.
Like EJC's accusation of rape.
A claim for which EJC brought the claim and was rightfully saddled with the burden to prove, and according to the jury satisfied that burden. That's how it works.
According to reason she proved nothing. If a decades old claim is proof, then wide spread election fraud has been proven 50,000 times in the last year.



If you really think they're all engaging in some grand conspiracy to cover up the democrats stealing our elections there is no logic or reason that will ever get through to you.
You may want to listen to the Kari Lake recording again. There are people "back east" who make people worried about car bombs.
Nothing about Kari Lake's recordings in any way support your stolen election narrative.
It supports the dangerous corruption narrative, and the people who are dangerously corrupt have everything to gain by egregious apathy in this matter.
#56
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You are claiming there is massive widespread voter fraud
I am claiming that there could be, and that the evidence which would theoretically be apparent to joe public is evident. If there isn't enough to impress you that is because the lack of election integrity takes the very form of non-auditability
The fact that there could be widespread voter fraud is irrelevant. There could be lizard people infiltrating our government, our inability to disprove it doesn't justify suspecting it.

First of all, you are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.
Are you seriously still this ignorant on how the burden of proof works? I literally just explained it to you. Did you read a word of it?

Denying a claim does not a saddle one with a burden of proof. Do you understand why? Do you understand when the burden of proof comes into play? HINT: the answers to all of these questions are in my last post ^^^. Read it.


Claiming victory because I can't prove there is no fraud is by definition an argument from ignorance.
Which is entirely valid when ignorance is the conclusion.
Ignorance is by definition, not a conclusion.

Do you understand what an argument from ignorance is?

if you ask for a receipt and they look under the counter and say "Oh yea, there a receipt" and you say "well give me a copy!" and they say "uh trust us" then deception is the more reasonable assumption.
Yes, but you don't seem to have bothered to ask yourself why.

Giving you the receipt is the normal industry practice and the store policy of any store that intends to satisfy it's customers. So of course you should expect the receipt and of course a cashier attempting to withhold it from you is suspicious... Because it violates every norm we've come to expect. 

Releasing for pubic consumption every piece of data on voters, including who voted, who didn't, or whatever other data you seem to think you're entitled to is not the industry norm nor is it the law in any state in the nation. Whether it should be is an entirely different conversation, the fact is that we know before a single vote has been cast that the data you are suggesting be released is not going to be released, ever. So there is nothing at all suspicious when you later ask for it and don't get it.

To argue that the latter implies deception is to argue that the policies, procedures, and law itself was designed to be deceitful. That's absurd.

When the lady claimed she never voted before Trump, you trusted her.
I considered her motivations and her duties. She was sharing what she could possibly know. If she had said she saw evidence that people voted in her name, but refused to show it I would give her the same credulity I give to your rumored claims of substantive audits.
Right... So you trusted her.

According to reason she proved nothing. If a decades old claim is proof, then wide spread election fraud has been proven 50,000 times in the last year.
Well first off two wrongs don't make a right so you're wrong either way.

Second, I have never claimed her case was proven in my opinion and I couldn't care less about that so if you want to keep arguing about it find someone who cares.

Nothing about Kari Lake's recordings in any way support your stolen election narrative.
It supports the dangerous corruption narrative, and the people who are dangerously corrupt have everything to gain by egregious apathy in this matter.
Wow, there are corrupt people out there. Ground breaking.
Topic's author
#57
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
The fact that there could be widespread voter fraud is irrelevant.
To people who don't believe in democracy.


First of all, you are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.
Are you seriously still this ignorant on how the burden of proof works?
You are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.


Claiming victory because I can't prove there is no fraud is by definition an argument from ignorance.
Which is entirely valid when ignorance is the conclusion.
Ignorance is by definition, not a conclusion.
Tell it to the agnostics.


Yes, but you don't seem to have bothered to ask yourself why.
It doesn't matter.


Releasing for pubic consumption every piece of data on voters, including who voted, who didn't, or whatever other data you seem to think you're entitled to is not the industry norm nor is it the law in any state in the nation.
How about releasing (or even counting) PBPF?

Also it's not an industry, it's our democracy (or was). If beating up blacks was the "industry norm" for police that would not mean it's legal or legitimate policing.


the fact is that we know before a single vote has been cast that the data you are suggesting be released is not going to be released, ever
And yet some useful information was released before the election through public APIs which were quickly shut down as soon as whoever ran those things realized they were being used for citizen audits. That's how the original lists of dead voters were compiled.

That wasn't a mistake, it was public records; now hidden behind endless legal contests (illegally).


So there is nothing at all suspicious when you later ask for it and don't get it.
There is something very suspicious about hiding it when it's being used for auditing and pretending that it wasn't a public record when you literally hired a team of software developers to make it public.


To argue that the latter implies deception is to argue that the policies, procedures, and law itself was designed to be deceitful. That's absurd.
It is not absurd to argue the law is wrong, but the law is being broken by the election officials in this case. In fact they're using absurd interpretations of the law to charge people trying to do audits with the very crimes they are guilty of (tampering with election equipment for example).


Well first off two wrongs don't make a right so you're wrong either way.
A double standard is wrong regardless, so I'm right either way (with either rigorous or lax levels of proof).


Second, I have never claimed her case was proven
Then admit it's an anecdote and therefore "does not actually matter".


Wow, there are corrupt people out there. Ground breaking.
Yet a rejected theory every time you decry the possibility of a conspiracy of any size.
#58
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The fact that there could be widespread voter fraud is irrelevant.
To people who don't believe in democracy.
No, to people who believe in logic and therefore understand what a non-sequitor is. There is no such thing as a voting system where fraud could not exist, so the mere possibility of it does not support a single argument you have made.

Are you seriously still this ignorant on how the burden of proof works?
You are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.
Translation: "yes, I am still deeply ignorant on how the burden of proof works"

Here's an illustration since this is so complicated for you:

You: you signed a contract and therefore owe me money!

Me: No, I didn't.

You: Prove it!

Me: No

POP QUIZ: Now what?

Ignorance is by definition, not a conclusion.
Tell it to the agnostics.
I am an agnostic. Ignorance is still, by definition, not a conclusion.


Yes, but you don't seem to have bothered to ask yourself why.
It doesn't matter.
So not only are you incapable of telling different things apart from each other, but you don't even think different things need to be distinguished from one another. Ok.

Releasing for pubic consumption every piece of data on voters, including who voted, who didn't, or whatever other data you seem to think you're entitled to is not the industry norm nor is it the law in any state in the nation.
How about releasing (or even counting) PBPF?
Not really trying to keep up with your acronyms, but if you think something should be released which isn't that's a perfectly (potentially) reasonable debate to have. That is still irrelevant to the question of whether their decision to not release it is suspicious.

If beating up blacks was the "industry norm" for police that would not mean it's legal or legitimate policing.
Correct. And if it were the norm it would also be unreasonable to draw any kind of conclusion from it other than the fact that we as a society have allowed a repugnant norm.

the fact is that we know before a single vote has been cast that the data you are suggesting be released is not going to be released, ever
And yet some useful information was released before the election through public APIs which were quickly shut down as soon as whoever ran those things realized they were being used for citizen audits. That's how the original lists of dead voters were compiled.

That wasn't a mistake, it was public records; now hidden behind endless legal contests (illegally).
It never ceases to amuse me how you really think what is or isn't legal is up to you, not the legal system, to determine.

If information on voters was released and people were using it to perform their own amateur audits, I don't find it surprising in the least that this would be pulled back immediately. One of the core principals in our electoral system is the right to privacy, and I can only imagine the morons out there harassing people to accuse them of committing fraud or even asking them to verify their voting activities by complete strangers. The idea that our information would be put out there, especially in this country filled with MAGA lunatics is unconscionable.

To argue that the latter implies deception is to argue that the policies, procedures, and law itself was designed to be deceitful. That's absurd.
It is not absurd to argue the law is wrong
That's an entirely different conversation from "there's widespread voter fraud".

Wow, there are corrupt people out there. Ground breaking.
Yet a rejected theory every time you decry the possibility of a conspiracy of any size.
There is no conflict between accepting that there are corrupt people out there, and rejecting that those corrupt people are banding together to engage in massive criminal conspiracy against many of the groups own personal best interests... On the basis that there is no evidence to support this allegation.
Topic's author
#59
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
There is no such thing as a voting system where fraud could not exist
Without extremely unlikely premises, yes there is. They had one in Athens, read about it.



Are you seriously still this ignorant on how the burden of proof works?
You are the one claiming I committed fraud by denying that you signed a contract; so the burden of proof is on you to show it.
Translation: "yes, I am still deeply ignorant on how the burden of proof works"

Here's an illustration since this is so complicated for you:

You: you signed a contract and therefore owe me money!

Me: No, I didn't.

You: Prove it!

Me: No

POP QUIZ: Now what?
Now I apply your standard of evidence and say that since you have not proven there was any fraud there was no fraud and all assertions which would be true but for fraud are true. One of those assertions is that you owe me money.


Ignorance is by definition, not a conclusion.
Tell it to the agnostics.
I am an agnostic. Ignorance is still, by definition, not a conclusion.
What definition of "conclusion" precludes it?

/Phenomenon X can only be observed by observing correlated phenomenon B, but it does not necessarily produce correlated phenomenon B
/Phenomenon B is not present
//Therefore we cannot know whether phenomenon X is occurring

The last statement is both a conclusion, and an assertion of ignorance.


if you think something should be released which isn't that's a perfectly (potentially) reasonable debate to have.
Then by all means explain why something so basic that it would be on the front page of any honest and well executed audit seems to be nowhere?


That is still irrelevant to the question of whether their decision to not release it is suspicious.
It most certainly is not. If a doctor runs a test on you, and then claims everything is fine, but refuses to give you the test results the question of whether a doctor should reveal test results is a prerequisite and indicator as to whether it is suspicious when they refuse.

Since a doctor should absolutely not hide anything about someone's medical state from the person in question any refusal to reveal any information is suspicious.

Just because YOU don't typically ask to see test results and the people around you don't doesn't mean it isn't suspicious as hell if they are refused or hidden.


It never ceases to amuse me how you really think what is or isn't legal is up to you, not the legal system, to determine.
Your gaslighting never ceases to amaze me (not true actually). You haven't kept yourself out of legal questions and you never will because this is a shallow excuse you don't even believe.


If information on voters was released and people were using it to perform their own amateur audits, I don't find it surprising in the least that this would be pulled back immediately. One of the core principals in our electoral system is the right to privacy, and I can only imagine the morons out there harassing people to accuse them of committing fraud or even asking them to verify their voting activities by complete strangers. The idea that our information would be put out there, especially in this country filled with MAGA lunatics is unconscionable.

I thought everybody knew it wouldn't be released? But no, you didn't know it, you call it "unconscionable" but the fact is that it is this information that legislators around the country have made public on purpose to fight fraud that is now being hidden.

So no, there was no such expectation; and people wouldn't need to do their own 'amateur' audits if official audits had been done and official audits wouldn't be necessary if reprehensible people had not destroyed our democracy by instituting changes that opened massive opportunity for undetected and unquantifiable fraud.


and rejecting that those corrupt people are banding together to engage in massive criminal conspiracy against many of the groups own personal best interests
What would you know of their best interests? Are you admitting that apathy towards election integrity is a criminal conspiracy?
#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,256
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It never ceases to amuse me how you really think what is or isn't legal is up to you, not the legal system, to determine
What is the point of having a Congress or electing judges  if the people have no say in what should be legal?