Election Conspiracy Theory

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Election Conspiracy Theory
 
One might think I am going to debunk presidential  election conspiracy theories as a sudden reversal of my known thinking with regard to this presidential election season. No. I have thought, still think, and will continue to think Joe Biden is the worst presidential candidate since Hillaryous Balloon Girl. Neither one are anything to shout about, truth be told. Neither had the sense to conduct an expected campaign, and it is hard to tell which had more absurd ideas on running the country.
While, with Hillaryous, I merely shook my head for the stupidity of putting your opponent’s name smack in the middle of your campaign [remember Love Trumps Hate?], I laughed constantly at Hiden’ Biden’s forced, repetitive faux pas, even avowing, at one point, twice, that he was running for U.S. Senate, not to mention the also twice-repeated mantra that he was to be in the Harris administration. Another killer was his claim that he would beat Joe Biden. Of course, the MSM quickly came to his defense: he did not say “beat Joe Biden,” but said he would “be Joe Biden.” I thought that was worse; who was he, then, if he was not Joe Biden? The Grinch? The amalgam of the Three Stooges? Something like that.
 
But, no, that’s not it, either. I tire of Joe’s continuous demonstration of his listless mind. I accept it: Hidin’ Biden is senile, at best.
 
First election conspiracy theory is simple: No one can describe why, in the string of the last 14 presidential elections [back to FDR in 1944] Ohio has backed the elected President in all but 2 elections [remember, Ford was never directly elected; he took over when Nixon resigned from his 1972 re-election in 1974 – so he was never directly elected, and lost to Carter in 1976], FDR to Trump’s re-election, Ohio backed the loser only twice: Nixon in 1960, and Trump in 2020. That is a remarkable string of predictable election behavior that baffles statistical probability, particuarly since every state in the country has swapped blue/red often. I know; I am  Six Sigma Black Belt. I breathe statistics.
 
Second election conspiracy: In PA, 2016, there were some 200K mail-in ballots; the first time PA flirted with mail-in ballots. IN 2020, PA had 2.5M mail-in ballots, a >100-fold increase. Of course, all lazily point to Covid-19 imposed restrictions, but the same restrictions applied to OH, FL, and other states coincidentally won by Trump, and states who have longer experience with mail-in balloting, and who had not near the troubles PA had with handling their over-bearing increase in this ballot type. What makes this conspiracy particularly troubling for Democrats to explain is why, with all the troubles of PA’s novice effort, their percentage of erroneous, discarded ballots dropped significantly from 2016, which was in the 20th percentile of erroneous ballot discards, whereas 2020, with a 100-fold increase in mail-in ballots, the erroneous, discarded ballots dropped to just 3% of the total number of ballots cast. Explain that phenomenon, Democrats. It also baffles statistical probability.
 
Third election conspiracy: In PA, the count of same-day election ballots plus absentee ballots [not the same as mail-in ballots, as the mail-ins were not requested, they were just sent out] resulted in an election that Trump won at 48.2% to Hillaryous 47.5% - a 0.7% spread.  The 2020 election result of just those ballots resulted in a similar spread, also favoring Trump, wherein 95% of Republicans voted for Trump and 5% for Hillaryous. However, the mail-in ballots resulted in a much larger spread for Biden wherein we are expected to believe that 21% of registered Republicans switched their vote to Biden, and only 79% voted for Trump. Statistically, the comparison of same-day/absentee to mail-in is, as well, baffling to statistical probability.
 
Are we beginning to see a trend?  There’s more, but that’s enough for now to get you started. I am purposely leaving off my researched sources. I want you to find them yourselves. I’ll tell you now, you will not find them in MSM; not if you only read headlines, which is the extent of much of the research I see hear. No, don’t look on Fox, either. I didn’t. Nor on Newsmax, where many Former Foxers went. Sorry, it’s the truth. I’m inclined to think you will not do it anyway. It isn’t that I have more time on my hands than many of you – and I do - it’s that you don’t care to be shown the facts. Therefore, find them yourselves. Maybe then you’ll believe them. Either you care, or you don’t. 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
What makes this conspiracy particularly troubling for Democrats to explain is why, with all the troubles of PA’s novice effort, their percentage of erroneous, discarded ballots dropped significantly from 2016, which was in the 20th percentile of erroneous ballot discards, whereas 2020, with a 100-fold increase in mail-in ballots, the erroneous, discarded ballots dropped to just 3% of the total number of ballots cast. Explain that phenomenon, Democrats. It also baffles statistical probability.
there was record levels of information available about how to vote by mail correctly. There was tons of information being shared all over the place, youtube, facebook etc about how to vote correctly. Hell, Stephen Colbert had a repeating whole segment of his show about how mail in balloting worked in each state. You are surprised that with so much easy to access information about how to do it correctly that more people did it correctly?

However, the mail-in ballots resulted in a much larger spread for Biden wherein we are expected to believe that 21% of registered Republicans switched their vote to Biden, and only 79% voted for Trump.
why would you assume that? there are large numbers of independent voters. many of whom voted for trump in 2016. Less of them did this time. As well as a statistically significant of republicans that actually care about republican values (which trump very obviously doesn't)

 Statistically, the comparison of same-day/absentee to mail-in is, as well, baffling to statistical probability.
no, not really. The republican get out the vote effort focused heavily on in-person voting. Democrats focused more on mail in balloting. Additionally, far more republicans refuse to take covid-19 seriously or even believe it exists. Therefore they were more likely to show up in person. Whereas democrats are far more likely to accept science and realize Covid is real and dangerous. So more republicans showed up in person and more democrats voted by mail. 

Are we beginning to see a trend?
not really, no. All you've shown is that people were better informed and that republicans deny covid is dangerous. Which is pretty well established fact. 

I am purposely leaving off my researched sources.
ok, but the stats you've posted don't really mean anything. so why would I want to look up your sources?


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
First election conspiracy theory: No one can describe why, in the string of the last 14 presidential elections [back to FDR in 1944] Ohio has backed the elected President in all but 2 elections....
  • The sentence is incomplete but it is not true that no one can describe why Ohio voted for Trump in 2020.  For example, The AP offered fairly succinct post-election description about why Ohio is no longer the bellweather state it once was, "Ohio’s population no longer mirrors the nation. It’s whiter, slightly older and less educated than the U.S. on whole."
    • 14  presidential elections takes us to 1968
    • 20 presidential elections takes us to 1944
      • only 10 of those 20 elections featured a candidate who was also an elected President. 
      • Ohio backed the elected President in 6 of these 10 elections.  (60% of the time)
        • 1944 Ohio voted vs. FDR
        • 1956
        • 1972
        • 1980 Ohio voted vs. Carter
        • 1984
        • 1992 Ohio voted vs. Bush
        • 1996
        • 2004
        • 2012
        • 2020 Ohio voted vs Trum
Ohio backed the loser only twice: Nixon in 1960, and Trump in 2020.
  • Of the last 20 Presidential elections Ohio backed the loser 3 times:
    • 1944 Dewey
    • 1960 Nixon
    • 2020 Trump

That is a remarkable string of predictable election behavior that baffles statistical probability, particuarly since every state in the country has swapped blue/red often. 
  • Considering that Ohio roughly modeled some of the core demographic and political dynamics of those elections and in some elections Ohio politics actually drove the national strategy, I don't find 85% agreement as baffling or improbable or remarkable as you do.  
  • I'm unclear as to the nature of your first conspiracy theory.  Are you suggesting that Trump won Ohio by corrupt means?
Second election conspiracy: In PA, 2016, there were some 200K mail-in ballots; the first time PA flirted with mail-in ballots. IN 2020, PA had 2.5M mail-in ballots, a >100-fold increase.
  • from some 200K to 2.5M is a ten-fold increase, not a > 100-fold increase
Of course, all lazily point to Covid-19 imposed restrictions, but the same restrictions applied to OH, FL, and other states coincidentally won by Trump, and states who have longer experience with mail-in balloting, and who had not near the troubles PA had with handling their over-bearing increase in this ballot typeWhat makes this conspiracy particularly troubling for Democrats to explain is
Democrats need explain fuck all in this particular. The PA election results were certified by elected Republicans.

why, with all the troubles of PA’s novice effort, their percentage of erroneous, discarded ballots dropped significantly from 2016, which was in the 20th percentile of erroneous ballot discards, whereas 2020, with a 100-fold increase
(ten fold)
in mail-in ballots, the erroneous, discarded ballots dropped to just 3% of the total number of ballots cast. Explain that phenomenon, Democrats.

It also baffles statistical probability.
  • So- your interpretation is that a 20% error rate in voting is not an unacceptable anomaly that must improved upon in any second effort but rather the norm from which a 3% discard rate is suspiciously over-improved?  I don't find that very convincing.
  • I've looked on pa.gov's and fec.gov and I don't find any recorded discard numbers...can you give a source for these stats?


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Your overriding bias defeats your objective in the first sentence.

The good sensible people of  the U.S.A simply voted to get rid of the most inept and intellectually challenged President we have seen in recent times.

Next time select yourselves a candidate who can at least string together a coherent sentence...And for goodness sake don't reselect Buffoon Boy.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Third election conspiracy: In PA, the count of same-day election ballots plus absentee ballots [not the same as mail-in ballots, as the mail-ins were not requested, they were just sent out] resulted in an election that Trump won at 48.2% to Hillaryous 47.5% - a 0.7% spread.  The 2020 election result of just those ballots resulted in a similar spread, also favoring Trump, wherein 95% of Republicans voted for Trump and 5% for Hillaryous. However, the mail-in ballots resulted in a much larger spread for Biden wherein we are expected to believe that 21% of registered Republicans switched their vote to Biden, and only 79% voted for Trump. Statistically, the comparison of same-day/absentee to mail-in is, as well, baffling to statistical probability.

  • Because Trump actively discouraged mail-in voting,  I don't find it at all baffling that mail-in voters skewed heavy against Trump.  A Republican likely to vote for Trump was also far more likely to wait until election day. 
  • The NY TImes reported a 78/21 split in mail in ballots overall but I can't find a party breakdown for mail-in (and I'm skeptical that the Republican breakdown is the same as the overall stat- what is the source for the Republican numbers?
Are we beginning to see a trend?  
Yes, you are frequently baffled by stats that aren't all that surprising.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
You are surprised that with so much easy to access information about how to do it correctly that more people did it correctly?
I thought that argument would be tried. It's an easy assumption, but, unfortunately, it won't wash. 2016 had very careful instructions sent to every registered voter in 2016, and yet, the 2016 error rate was 7x the 2020 error rate.

However, the mail-in ballots resulted in a much larger spread for Biden
Nope. Blatantly wrong. Not an assumption. We have the numbers available to anyone who wants to see them Look. I did.

far more republicans refuse to take covid-19 seriously or even believe it exists.
nope. Lame excuse. You've ignored that that pattern of voting for Biden vs Trump includes the fact that mail-in republican votes has 21% of republicans voting for Biden, compared to 5% with in-person voting. You really believe that difference is real? Just because of mail-in v. in person? Pardon my laugh machine.

why would I want to look up your sources?
I predicted ypu would not want to do that. But I also invited you to look it yourself. You have not. That's on you.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Next time select yourselves a candidate who can at least string together a coherent sentence...
Do I even need to say anything here?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
  • Ohio backed the elected President in 6 of these 10 elections.  (60% of the time)
    • 1944 Ohio voted vs. FDR
  • Of the last 20 Presidential elections Ohio backed the loser 3 times:
    • 1944 Dewey
Ohio backed both the winner and the loser???? Nope. 

  • only 10 of those 20 elections featured a candidate who was also an elected President.  
  • Ohio backed the elected President in 6 of these 10 elections.  (60% of the time)
    • 1944 Ohio voted vs. FDR
    • 1956
    • 1972
    • 1980 Ohio voted vs. Carter
    • 1984
    • 1992 Ohio voted vs. Bush
    • 1996
    • 2004
    • 2012
    • 2020 Ohio voted vs Trum
Don't know where that came from. Here's the reality of OH consistency of voting for the President:

1944 FDR over Dewey                                 but OH voted for Dewey                                                         
1948 Truman over Dewey                          you missed this one                                     
1952 Eisenhower over Stevenson          you missed this one
1956 Eisenhower over Stevenson
1960 Kennedy of Nixon                              but OH voted for Nixon
1964 Johnson over Goldwater                you missed this one
1968 Nixon over Humphrey                     you missed this one
1972 Nixon over McGovern        
1976 Carter over Ford
1980 Reagan over Carter by 500K        [this review does not include variation of incumbent v non-incumbent, just that OH voted for the successful candidate, or not.        
1984 Reagan over Mondale
1988 Bush over Dukakis.                         you missed this one    
1992 Clinton over Bush
1996 Clinton over Dole
2000 Bush over Gore                                you missed this one
2004 Bush over Kerry
2008 Obama over McCain                     you missed this one
2012 Obama over  Romney
2016 Trump over Clinton                      you missed this one
2020 Trump over Biden                          but OH voted for Trump

Since, and including 1944, there have been 20 presidential elections. OH voted for the elected president in 17 of them, that's 85%, not 60%. Yes, you missed a few elections; 8 of them

 I don't find 85% agreement as baffling or improbable or remarkable as you do.   
But your string of elections determined that OPH accuracy was only 60%, not 85, and no, you've misinterpreted. I find 85% a pretty accurate result, and remarkable considering OH's political ups and downs, as you noted.

not a > 100-fold increase 
Yes. I slipped a decimal, but that makes it worse. I four years, a 21% error rate fell to 3%, with a 10X increase in number of ballots? And that makes sense to you? AS I told HistoryBuff, there were detailed instructions in the 2016 election, too, so there's no valid justification for a 10X improvement. Ignoring condition of ballots, ignoring signature verification, and changing voting rules without the benefit of the state legislature make more sense, and all that happened.

certified by elected Republicans.
Yeah, never-Trumpers. Might as well be Democrats.


HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
I thought that argument would be tried. It's an easy assumption, but, unfortunately, it won't wash. 2016 had very careful instructions sent to every registered voter in 2016, and yet, the 2016 error rate was 7x the 2020 error rate.
ok, but as you said, it was the 1st time PA had done mail in ballots. no one was familiar with the process. And most people don't fully read things that are mailed to them. This time, mail in balloting had already been done before. Also, the information wasn't just on some written thing most people wouldn't fully read. It was everywhere. You could see videos showing exactly how to do it on every media platform. Those 2 factors seem to easily explain a significantly improved success rate. If you believe there is another explanation, please provide evidence for it. 



However, the mail-in ballots resulted in a much larger spread for Biden
Nope. Blatantly wrong. Not an assumption. We have the numbers available to anyone who wants to see them Look. I did.
Your response doesn't seem to be connected to what I said. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. 

far more republicans refuse to take covid-19 seriously or even believe it exists.
nope. Lame excuse. You've ignored that that pattern of voting for Biden vs Trump includes the fact that mail-in republican votes has 21% of republicans voting for Biden, compared to 5% with in-person voting. You really believe that difference is real? Just because of mail-in v. in person? Pardon my laugh machine.
that would also make perfect sense. The chunk of the republican party that actually takes covid seriously would be much more likely to vote against trump given his colossal failure at handling the covid crisis. Since mail in ballots in most cycles are older people and in this cycle it is also alot more people who take covid seriously, those groups have excellent reason to vote against trump. 

why would I want to look up your sources?
I predicted ypu would not want to do that. But I also invited you to look it yourself. You have not. That's on you.
ok, but nothing you have said is suspicious. It is all perfectly logical. That's like you telling me that the sun is yellow and then expecting me to check your sources. Why would I? I know the sun is yellow. You have thrown out stats and seem to think they are evidence of something, but so far they are all perfectly reasonable and in line with the expected trends. 
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
Another killer was his claim that he would beat Joe Biden. Of course, the MSM quickly came to his defense: he did not say “beat Joe Biden,” but said he would “be Joe Biden.” I thought that was worse; who was he, then, if he was not Joe Biden? The Grinch? The amalgam of the Three Stooges? Something like that.

First election conspiracy theory is simple: No one can describe why, in the string of the last 14 presidential elections [back to FDR in 1944] Ohio has backed the elected President in all but 2 elections
No theory has been presented here. What is this supposed to be? If Ohio didn't vote for the winner, then the election was not legitimate?

Second election conspiracy: In PA, 2016, there were some 200K mail-in ballots; the first time PA flirted with mail-in ballots. IN 2020, PA had 2.5M mail-in ballots, a >100-fold increase.
Assuming your numbers are correct, that is a 12.5-fold increase, not a ">100-fold increase."

Of course, all lazily point to Covid-19 imposed restrictions, but the same restrictions applied to OH, FL, and other states coincidentally won by Trump, and states who have longer experience with mail-in balloting, and who had not near the troubles PA had with handling their over-bearing increase in this ballot type. What makes this conspiracy particularly troubling for Democrats to explain is why, with all the troubles of PA’s novice effort, their percentage of erroneous, discarded ballots dropped significantly from 2016, which was in the 20th percentile of erroneous ballot discards, whereas 2020,

with a 100-fold increase in mail-in ballots,
The fact that you're repeating the figure shows that it is no typo.

the erroneous, discarded ballots dropped to just 3% of the total number of ballots cast. Explain that phenomenon, Democrats. It also baffles statistical probability.
There were changes in election law, and the supreme court of PA made it so ballots could no longer be rejected for non-matching signatures. Even if the same ballot rejection rate from 2016 was applied to 2020, that would only result in ~30,000 rejected mail in ballots. Even if you add every one of those 30,000 votes to Trump (or take them away from Biden), it's not sufficient to close the gap between Trump and Biden, as Biden won PA by 81,660 votes. https://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/story/news/2020/10/15/how-many-mail-ballots-rejected-pennsylvania/3651762001/ The point is moot, and further so by the fact that Biden would still win even if PA flipped to Trump.

Are we beginning to see a trend? 
Yes, we are. Post-truth politics. Alternative facts.

I am purposely leaving off my researched sources. I want you to find them yourselves.
Great way to build trust.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw

  • Ohio backed the elected President in 6 of these 10 elections.  (60% of the time)
    • 1944 Ohio voted vs. FDR
  • Of the last 20 Presidential elections Ohio backed the loser 3 times:
    • 1944 Dewey
Ohio backed both the winner and the loser???? Nope. 
"vs." means "against."  So these items agree- vs FDR, for Dewey means the same thing

  • In your OP you claimed
    • "Ohio has backed the elected President in all but 2 elections" since 1944 and you claimed
    • "[since 1944] Ohio backed the loser only twice: Nixon in 1960, and Trump in 2020."
  • two distinct claims which you now seem to be conflating. 
    • I showed you that there have only been 10 elections since 1944 with an elected President on the ticket and Ohio voted against that elected president 4 times, not twice as you claimed.
    • I showed you that Ohio backed the losing candidate 3 times, not twice as you claimed and your long reply merely confirmed my correction of you.
 I don't find 85% agreement as baffling or improbable or remarkable as you do.   
But your string of elections determined that OPH accuracy was only 60%, not 85, and no, you've misinterpreted. I find 85% a pretty accurate result, and remarkable considering OH's political ups and downs, as you noted.
Nope, read again.  Ohio voted with the elected president 60% of the time and voted for the winning candidate 85% as I corrected you and you have now confirmed.

not a > 100-fold increase 
Yes. I slipped a decimal, but that makes it worse. I four years, a 21% error rate fell to 3%, with a 10X increase in number of ballots? And that makes sense to you? AS I told HistoryBuff, there were detailed instructions in the 2016 election, too, so there's no valid justification for a 10X improvement. Ignoring condition of ballots, ignoring signature verification, and changing voting rules without the benefit of the state legislature make more sense, and all that happened.
No it doesn't make it worse.  Try applying the common principle that many projects show great improvement in accuracy when comparing second attempts to first attempts.  Seems quite ordinary.

  • SECOND REQUEST- can you provide source for 2016/2020 mail-in ballot error rates?
certified by elected Republicans.
Yeah, never-Trumpers. Might as well be Democrats.
  • If every Republican who speaks the truth to Trump is ousted you will soon be left with an all liars party.  Perhaps you are already there.
  • SECOND REQUEST-can you provide source for 78/21 split in Republican mail-in vote?  The NY TImes reported a 78/21 split in mail in ballots overall but I can't find a party breakdown for mail-in.