Election fraud

[Belk]

You mean a ballot can have non-zero boxes checked?

Surprise!

 

[Sparagmos]

Going to look into this:


View attachment 288441

Wow I just discovered Disclose.TV . interesting...

 

[JustSomeBloke]

No it is not a mathematical impossibility. Math has nothing to do with it. Every ballot in existence could only have one box checked and it would be possible.

From a statistical point of view, it would be highly improbable, to the extent that it is reasonable to assume that in a court of law, such a result would be considered to only be possible if there was some kind of manipulation of the votes. Researchers will be able to use previous election results data to demonstrate whether the 2020 result was abnormal.

Statistics and statistical analysis has everything to do with it. Some people consider Statistics to be a branch of Mathematics, while others consider Statistics to be a discipline in its own right. Maybe you should read up on probability distributions and standard deviations, and then you can see the Mathematics in Statistics.

Be sure to let us know when you file your "mathematics" based law suit and I'll head right down.

If you want to argue about whether this law suit would be based on Mathematics or Statistics, I don't think you'll find many takers. I think most people who understand what a probability distribution is, and how it can be used to prove that there was a high likelihood that election fraud took place, would probably just roll their eyes at you and walk away.

 

[Tanj]

From a statistical point of view, it would be highly improbable, to the extent that it is reasonable to assume that in a court of law, such a result would be considered to only be possible if there was some kind of manipulation of the votes. Researchers will be able to use previous election results data to demonstrate whether the 2020 result was abnormal.

Statistics and statistical analysis has everything to do with it. Some people consider Statistics to be a branch of Mathematics, while others consider Statistics to be a discipline in its own right. Maybe you should read up on probability distributions and standard deviations, and then you can see the Mathematics in Statistics.


If you want to argue about whether this law suit would be based on Mathematics or Statistics, I don't think you'll find many takers. I think most people who understand what a probability distribution is, and how it can be used to prove that there was a high likelihood that election fraud took place, would probably just roll their eyes at you and walk away.

Pretty close. I am a statistician, and I am indeed rolling my eyes at you and walking way. No decent data scientist with an ounce of integrity would look to model the ballot counting patterns from this election and compare to previous ones and declare any discrepancies as evidence of fraud.

Not one.

 

[Belk]

From a statistical point of view, it would be highly improbable, to the extent that it is reasonable to assume that in a court of law, such a result would be considered to only be possible if there was some kind of manipulation of the votes.

According to what statistician?

Researchers will be able to use previous election results data to demonstrate whether the 2020 result was abnormal.

Oh? How would that work exactly?

Statistics and statistical analysis has everything to do with it. Some people consider Statistics to be a branch of Mathematics, while others consider Statistics to be a discipline in its own right. Maybe you should read up on probability distributions and standard deviations, and then you can see the Mathematics in Statistics.

Perhaps you should learn what "Mathematically impossible" means so you would know that this is not one of those things?

If you want to argue about whether this law suit would be based on Mathematics or Statistics, I don't think you'll find many takers. I think most people who understand what a probability distribution is, and how it can be used to prove that there was a high likelihood that election fraud took place, would probably just roll their eyes at you and walk away.

Aw darn. Then I can't tell them how they would require actual evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

According to what statistician?



Oh? How would that work exactly?



Perhaps you should learn what "Mathematically impossible" means so you would know that this is not one of those things?



Aw darn. Then I can't tell them how they would require actual evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

I never used the term 'mathematically impossible'. And I'm afraid I can't be bothered to argue with you. There's plenty of information online if you wish to view it.

No decent data scientist with an ounce of integrity would look to model the ballot counting patterns from this election and compare to previous ones and declare any discrepancies as evidence of fraud.

I've no idea what you are talking about. I can only assume that you're ignorant of some of the highly improbable results that have been discovered in the 2020 election data. And I can't be bothered to invest the time explaining it, seeing as it's all available online.

 

[Belk]

I never used the term 'mathematically impossible'.

Those I was replying to in the response you quoted did.

And I'm afraid I can't be bothered to argue with you.

You do realize this is the debate section?

There's plenty of information online if you wish to view it.

Considering the response in the thread from actual statisticians, I find this claim to be unlikely.

 

[Tanj]

I've no idea what you are talking about.

I was talking about statistics, and I agree that you have no idea what I am talking about.

 

[KCfromNC]

The Biden camp cheated and was caught. That is what we are dealing with right now.

There continues to be zero evidence presented to support these fantasies.

 

[LostMarbels]

There continues to be zero evidence presented to support these fantasies.

Oh, well... still gonna have to deal with it.

 

[Desk trauma]

Oh, well... still gonna have to deal with it.

Not pretending the election is going to be reversed or redone would be a good place to start dealing with it.

 

[LostMarbels]

Not pretending the election is going to be reversed or redone would be a good place to start dealing with it.

It is being contended. You do not get a trophy for participating, and because you tried hard. You're gonna hafta win. There is no 'pretend'... Biden hasn't won, and we are going to keep Trump in office.

 

[cow451]

From a statistical point of view, it would be highly improbable, to the extent that it is reasonable to assume that in a court of law, such a result would be considered to only be possible if there was some kind of manipulation of the votes. Researchers will be able to use previous election results data to demonstrate whether the 2020 result was abnormal.

Statistics and statistical analysis has everything to do with it. Some people consider Statistics to be a branch of Mathematics, while others consider Statistics to be a discipline in its own right. Maybe you should read up on probability distributions and standard deviations, and then you can see the Mathematics in Statistics.


If you want to argue about whether this law suit would be based on Mathematics or Statistics, I don't think you'll find many takers. I think most people who understand what a probability distribution is, and how it can be used to prove that there was a high likelihood that election fraud took place, would probably just roll their eyes at you and walk away.

IOW, you still gotta prove it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Unless... Biden can prove he won the election.

Biden doesn't have to prove anything. The states will certify their results, and the EV totals will be clear for all to see.

 

[cow451]

I have my theory, that little comes of Barr "checking into the election." Now I'm sure you'll write this off and I definitely can't prove anything. My guess though, is that Pres. Trump called AG Barr into the office yesterday about the same time he fired the Secretary of Defense.

We already know that Pres. Trump hasn't been happy with AG Barr, that AG Barr -- a week after the election -- has not been investigating the "fraud" that Pres. Trump has been talking about. My guess is that Pres. Trump told the AG that either he start investigating "all the fraud" that the President has alleged occurred, or that the AG could join the Sec. of Defense on the unemployment line.

As for this whole "watermark" claim; can we agree that the Trump campaign wouldn't be 0-5 in court had their actually been watermarks on the ballot that proved they were fraudulent? That the Trump campaign would not be going to court in Nevada with a list, which has not been verified at all, claiming illegal ballots -- but, at a minimum, there are hundreds of ballots of military personnel (who likely all voted legally) -- if they had the watermark proof that is alleged to invalidate half of the Nevada vote?

If you read what Barr released, the directive is worded in such a way as to cover his butt when nothing comes of it.

 

[LostMarbels]

Force doesn't work. Coercion doesn't work. That is a dictatorship where you 'dictate' terms and require the masses to comply with your decree. In a democracy one needs to be free and fair, open to contestation and disagreement. In a democracy you cannot just silence those voice you do not like. That isn't how this works.

Im going to go out on a limb here because I do not watch MSM, and I am going to guess the current favorite flavor is 'without evidence'. That must be the new tagline handed down from on high. 'Without evidence'.

 

[LostMarbels]

Biden has enough votes to win the Electoral College in what Trump once called “a landslide.” Trump’s crack legal team keeps whiffing every time they go to court. Im going to wait until they at least start batting the Mendoza line in court before I’m going to consider this isn’t another one of Trump’s plots to put legalese someone. Granted this time he losing to someone with a near infinite well of money, the United States.

Cool... then dont worry about it, because were not stopping.

 

[SimplyMe]

I really do not know yet. Want to know why? There has been no discovery or proceeding to watch/study yet. There is no information other that Trump is taking it to court. All this droning on is nothing but hope and sweet wishes.

Which one of you has seen an official document, news special or what have you that states what Trump has? Who? No one. None of you. You guys get into these tangents and just keep droning. You have no factual basis for your own ascertain.

All of this... from celebrating to droning on and on and on and on and on about no evidence has been handed down to you by your overlords. You are celebrating the media. And repeating their talking points ad-nauseam. There isn't an original thought anywhere in this.

That isn't true. There have been a few suits filed and, at least five (but I've heard rumors of 10) that were dismissed by the courts. From quotes I've seen of the dismissals; the judges did not have kind words for the lawsuit presented to them. They had a lot of projection with little to no evidence to back up the claims made. Now, I'll admit, to this point I've not gone and tried to find these cases, to see if I could read the decisions (though, it can take a few days before decisions are available online).

Sure, keep up the hope. The point stands, though, and it is solid -- if the Trump campaign had anything of substance to file, in regard to voter fraud, then they wouldn't be filing these little, worthless, lawsuits. And, again, while it is unnamed sources, we have stories from partners in the law firms the Trump campaign employs, that they are about ready to quit due to these election lawsuits -- which they believe have no merit but are destroying faith in the election system -- and another story from inside the White House that claims Pres. Trump is looking for new lawyers, as his current ones aren't winning the fraud cases.

Yes, Barr has now said that the DoJ will investigate voter fraud. But, as was pointed out by @cow451, Barr's statement is not a strong statement that says fraud occurred; instead, Barr only said that investigations “may be conducted if there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.” It is further worth noting that Barr broke Justice Department policy which states, “not to conduct overt investigations, including interviews with individual voters, until after the outcome of the election allegedly affected by the fraud is certified.”

 

[Belk]

Force doesn't work. Coercion doesn't work. That is a dictatorship where you 'dictate' terms and require the masses to comply with your decree. In a democracy one needs to be free and fair, open to contestation and disagreement. In a democracy you cannot just silence those voice you do not like. That isn't how this works.

Im going to go out on a limb here because I do not watch MSM, and I am going to guess the current favorite flavor is 'without evidence'. That must be the new tagline handed down from on high. 'Without evidence'.

No, that is what the courts have said. Apparently post it notes and rumors are not going to cut it.

 

[DavidPT]

Unless you or some other degenerates are willing to take up arms and overthrow the United States government, Trump is leaving office by noon on January 20th.

There is a theory that has been floating around. It goes something like this.

-------

Here’s How The House Could Decide The Presidential Election—And Its Democratic Majority Wouldn’t Matter

-----


I'm not certain when that article was written. It was apparently sometime prior to the day of the election. With the above in mind, the following is what has been floating around just recently.

_________________________________

Ok, in a nutshell; This is going to the Supreme Court. Where they will rule that the election is invalid due to fraud or mistakes on a country wide scale. It will go one of two ways, either they will rule that all the unconstitutional mail in ballots will be removed and the states ordered to recount without them, or, they will simply rule the election is invalid due to mass voter fraud and, at that point, it will be sent to congress and the senate for a vote. This is where it gets good. The house/congress votes on who the President will be. It has nothing to do with what party that has the power. Every State gets one vote and 30 States are held by Republicans, and 19 by Democrats. They have to vote down party lines; they have no choice due to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution and the Senate votes for the Vice President where a similar event will take place. This is The Law. This is why the Democrats are so mad at Nancy Pelosi. This will all happen in January. The only way President Trump won’t be President is if he concedes the election and that will never happen. So stop watching the fake news and don’t let your heart be troubled and live your life knowing this will all work out. President Trump will remain President. I have researched all of this and it is Fact! Another fun fact; they called Gore the President Elect for 30 days in 2000 until the courts ruled against him and declared Bush the winner. And two people that were part of that decision was none other that new Supreme Court Justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Why do you think the Democrats tried so hard to keep them from being confirmed."

Caught this nugget from a boomer Trump supporter : copypasta
------------------------------------------