It is very strange that the swing state votes take so long to count

[NerdGirl]

I'll leave you all to your name-calling and "conspiracy" obsession. Goodnight!

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That is very interesting. Have you seen this video? Maybe it is evidence of the rumoured QFS code designed to catch those who are forging ballots. If you set the playback quality to maximum (720p), you can just make out some micro dots. Every ballot would have a different code, so forged ballots with missing, wrong, or duplicated codes could be identified.

That does sound like an interesting, and potentially effective, way of catching fraud. Now we'll just have to see if:
1. the dots were added intentionally
2. it catches any fraud

 

[Triumvirate]

I'll leave you all to your name-calling and "conspiracy" obsession. Goodnight!

Ok, person who's been posting random stories and misinfo for two days

 

[Neogaia777]

"No offense", followed by such a statement

I know, and I'm sorry, but it is just that, by that statement you have just made, and other statements, that it just seems like you just do not truly understand the "math" involved, etc, sorry though...

God Bless!

 

[JustSomeBloke]

That does sound like an interesting, and potentially effective, way of catching fraud. Now we'll just have to see if:
1. the dots were added intentionally
2. it catches any fraud

If it's really true, I'd guess that Trump is almost ready to slam the door on the trap shut, but before he does that, there's one last chance for anyone involved in election fraud to frantically back pedal, before the arrests, trials and jail time begin. It would be interesting to know how those micro dots look under UV light, as I think that is the most likely method of machine-reading them.

 

[Triumvirate]

If it's really true, I'd guess that Trump is almost ready to slam the door on the trap shut, but before he does that, there's one last chance for anyone involved in election fraud to frantically back pedal, before the arrests, trials and jail time begin. It would be interesting to know how those micro dots look under UV light, as I think that is the most likely method of machine-reading them.

Ah yes, must be 2-4-6-8D chess on Twitler's part

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

If it's really true, I'd guess that Trump is almost ready to slam the door on the trap shut, but before he does that, there's one last chance for anyone involved in election fraud to frantically back pedal, before the arrests, trials and jail time begin. It would be interesting to know how those micro dots look under UV light, as I think that is the most likely method of machine-reading them.

I think you are going to be incredibly disappointed when nothing happens.

 

[Triumvirate]

I think you are going to be incredibly disappointed when nothing happens.

If he hasn't been the last few dozen times, then.....

 

[JSRG]

I witnessed with my own eyes Mississippi, Arkansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas,and Nebraska go bright "Trump already won" RED with 0% of the vote - they were already colored in when I tuned in. I was flipping between ABC 7 in and NBC 4, both in NY City.

I am not going to cry or be upset about it because it's a given that those states were going to go to Trump. Just like it's a given that my state, New Jersey, was a lock for Biden.

Your memory is selective and it's likely due to your political bias.

Yeah, I remember various states were called for Trump super quick also.

Honestly, for a good number of states you shouldn't even need to count a single ballot to know who won (e.g. California or Wyoming), but I guess they feel they need some kind of number before formally calling the winner in those states.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Yes, I know. And my opinion is not that this is new. Only that it is an inconsistent way to report, to call one state with 0% votes reported, and not call another with 95% votes reported.

That's all. Inconsistent. Not new. Not conspiracy.

Just inconsistent.

It is consistent, just not by the metric that you want it to be. "Calling" an election is based on a whole host of factors - the number of votes counted for each candidate, the number of votes expected, historical voting patterns, exit polls, pre-election polls. In some cases, this means that an election can be called before any of the votes have been officially counted. It may seem strange from the perspective of someone who doesn't necessarily have all of that data, but the data is there. And more importantly, calling an election doesn't stop the count.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Ah yes, must be 2-4-6-8D chess on Twitler's part

I think you are going to be incredibly disappointed when nothing happens.

Why put a unique identifier on every ballot, unless the objective is total traceability and total accountability for every single genuine vote, and positive identification of every single forgery. This type of micro-dot technology is probably quite expensive. On the other hand, Trump has known since before 2016 how much the opposition hated him, and once elected, he knew they would go to extreme lengths to try and prevent his re-election.

 

[Triumvirate]

Why put a unique identifier on every ballot, unless the objective is total traceability and total accountability for every single genuine vote, and positive identification of every single forgery. This type of micro-dot technology is probably quite expensive. On the other hand, Trump has known since before 2016 how much the opposition hated him, and once elected, he knew they would go to extreme lengths to try and prevent his re-election.

Well I mean a few reasons to doubt all this

1. Not convinced it's actually a thing

2. Hard to believe that there is simultaneously a massive Dem/Derp State conspiracy that could potentially rig an entire election in a country as big as the US to persecute Daddy Donald, but he's also managed to get unique microdots on all of the ballots without them knowing (edit: oh and this would be a consistent pattern to all ballots in a country where each state can't agree with the next on whether it's a smart idea to have both postal votes and precounting)

This is a 4chan post that's gotten out of hand again

 

[Tanj]

That is very interesting. Have you seen this video? Maybe it is evidence of the rumoured QFS code designed to catch those who are forging ballots. If you set the playback quality to maximum (720p), you can just make out some micro dots. Every ballot would have a different code, so forged ballots with missing, wrong, or duplicated codes could be identified.

Noone is forging ballots. But if they were this is an utterly useless way of catching anyone. If I forged a ballot with your microdots, how the heck does that ever get traced back to me? More importantly, what you are describing is turning a secret ballot into a public one. It means there is a way to identify exactly who every individual voted for. That's how "voting" used to work in the USSR. I am beginning to think your opinion of Trump is even lower than mine, either that or you hate the concepts of privacy and liberty.

 

[Triumvirate]

Noone is forging ballots. But if they were this is an utterly useless way of catching anyone. If I forged a ballot with your microdots, how the heck does that ever get traced back to me? More importantly, what you are describing is turning a secret ballot into a public one. It means there is a way to identify exactly who every individual voted for. That's how "voting" used to work in the USSR. I am beginning to think your opinion of Trump is even lower than mine, either that or you hate the concepts of privacy and liberty.

Yeah, the abuse potential for this is kind of terrifying, but not surprising to see the same side of the aisle not realising / caring about that.

 

[SimplyMe]

Supposedly, the ballots were secretly watermarked to deter potential counterfeiting.
If there is anything to this, then Trump might win afterall:
Intelligence Insider: President Trump Setup Democrats In “Sting Operation” To Catch Them Stealing Election! | Zero Hedge | Zero Hedge

You'll have to forgive me if I'm not willing to watch the video, largely because I find it preposterous. The issue here, each state runs their own elections -- which include their own "security features" for ballots.

Basically, if Trump somehow got people to "swap out" the ballots printed by various states with super-secret watermarked ballots, then he is guilty of ballot tampering -- it is that simple. The President and the Federal Government are not to interfere in the state's conducting their own vote.

 

[SimplyMe]

States were being called for Biden when they had 0% of their votes reported. Then you had states with 95% counted, with Trump winning, that refused to turn red.

Apparently, this is just fine.

Yes, some states were called for Biden at 0% votes, though what you are failing to understand is that other votes were called for Trump with 0% votes -- a couple of examples, Oklahoma and Utah were called essentially when the polls closed in both states. These calls are made on multiple factors, such as polling, exit polls, and (if needed) to ensure the vote count in various areas appear to match the exit polling. Some states are so solidly red or blue, they don't put much thought into them and just call them because there is no doubt how the vote will go.

Now, other states they don't call right away. In some cases, the vote appears it will be closer and they want to wait until they are sure they "know" the way the vote will go. In other cases, they just know it will be very close and, due to how close (within a few percentage points) they don't feel comfortable calling it until one side actually has a lead they feel will hold up (based on votes left and where the votes are located).

So, yes, Trump appeared to have a huge lead in Pennsylvania and they refused to call it. We see today why, they knew there were a tons of votes out there and they suspected the race would tighten, like they have. Same with Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Calling states have nothing to do with party. More to the point, calling a state is largely meaningless -- they do occasionally get it wrong. Sure, it is egg on the face of the news organization that calls it wrong but it doesn't change the vote count -- particularly since voting was already closed so no further votes were getting cast -- and it doesn't change who ultimately wins. Instead, they keep counting in the state and then, perhaps like Arizona, Fox may be embarrassed for calling it too early.

This saying "it's not fair that some states are being called early and others aren't" is a childish tantrum; it isn't any indicator of fraud. It is merely some news organization -- trying to simplify the "winning" and "losing" so we hopefully get a "final" result on election night -- stating who will win the state, to the best of their knowledge.

In truth, counting in most states goes on for days. Often they have recounts, for various reasons. Then the Secretary of State (in most states) certifies the results of the election -- a week or even a month after the election. Then, on Dec. 14, the Electors (for the Electoral College) meet in the state and certify their votes for President. By Dec. 23 those votes are to be received in Washington, D.C. Finally, on Jan. 6, the Electors votes are counted in a Joint Session of Congress and Congress votes to validate the results of the Election. Calling the "states" for one candidate, as I stated, is just to make election results quick and easily understandable, rather than waiting to find out who is elected President when the results are counted and made official on Jan. 6.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Noone is forging ballots. But if they were this is an utterly useless way of catching anyone. If I forged a ballot with your microdots, how the heck does that ever get traced back to me? More importantly, what you are describing is turning a secret ballot into a public one. It means there is a way to identify exactly who every individual voted for. That's how "voting" used to work in the USSR. I am beginning to think your opinion of Trump is even lower than mine, either that or you hate the concepts of privacy and liberty.

Your response suggests that you don't understand how this type of traceability and cryptography works, and how it would be used to uncover fraud. The Feds would issue ballot materials to each state, so the Feds know which codes are valid and which state they went to, but not what code each voter got. They don't need to know how each citizen voted or what their code was, they only need to know whether each ballot was genuine by checking that it has a valid code. And I think it's being targeted anyway, so that only areas with suspected voting irregularities in 2016 (results that fell far outside the normal distribution) will receive uniquely identifiable ballots.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm not willing to watch the video, largely because I find it preposterous. The issue here, each state runs their own elections -- which include their own "security features" for ballots.

I think this hinges on every state printing their own ballots using federally supplied materials (uniquely identifiable ballot papers and ballot printing machines). I can't really help you if you refuse to watch relevant media. If you do watch it you'll see micro dots clearly arranged in rows and columns, so it's definitely not specks of dust.

Basically, if Trump somehow got people to "swap out" the ballots printed by various states with super-secret watermarked ballots, then he is guilty of ballot tampering -- it is that simple. The President and the Federal Government are not to interfere in the state's conducting their own vote.

There wouldn't be any swapping or interference. The traceability would already be there before any state started their own election procedures.

Well I mean a few reasons to doubt all this

1. Not convinced it's actually a thing

2. Hard to believe that there is simultaneously a massive Dem/Derp State conspiracy that could potentially rig an entire election in a country as big as the US to persecute Daddy Donald, but he's also managed to get unique microdots on all of the ballots without them knowing (edit: oh and this would be a consistent pattern to all ballots in a country where each state can't agree with the next on whether it's a smart idea to have both postal votes and precounting)

This is a 4chan post that's gotten out of hand again

Maybe you need to think about it a bit more. Feel free to take your time.

 

[Paulos23]

I saw Washington, Oregon, and California turn blue all at once at 11pm (when the west coast polls closed; I am on the east coast), all at 0% votes reported. Not "light" contested "we're still counting" blue, but dark "Biden wins these electoral votes" blue.

There. You can stop waiting now. You're welcome.

I was miffed when they did call the whole west coast blue without counting. But that has held true through the counting so I guess they were right to call it. I will note that most new organizations have taken back calling Arizona for Biden. The distance between Trump and Biden is less than the remaining votes and Biden is losing his lead. We will see if he keeps it.

But that is the point. The news organizations call them but they are sometimes wrong. And they are not the final say, the states counting the votes are.

 

[Sparagmos]

Yes, I know. And my opinion is not that this is new. Only that it is an inconsistent way to report, to call one state with 0% votes reported, and not call another with 95% votes reported.

That's all. Inconsistent. Not new. Not conspiracy.

Just inconsistent.

But we’ve explained to you why it occurs this way, and you don’t seem to acknowledge that or aren’t responding with a rebuttal. The “calls” are predictions. It should be obvious why a media source would be confident predicting Oregon to go blue or Mississippi to go red but wait until all votes are counted to predict the winner in a swing state. It’s all about probabilities. And they have been consistent, with the exception of Fox News calling AZ.

 

[Sparagmos]

Your response suggests that you don't understand how this type of traceability and cryptography works, and how it would be used to uncover fraud. The Feds would issue ballot materials to each state, so the Feds know which codes are valid and which state they went to, but not what code each voter got. They don't need to know how each citizen voted or what their code was, they only need to know whether each ballot was genuine by checking that it has a valid code. And I think it's being targeted anyway, so that only areas with suspected voting irregularities in 2016 (results that fell far outside the normal distribution) will receive uniquely identifiable ballots.


I think this hinges on every state printing their own ballots using federally supplied materials (uniquely identifiable ballot papers and ballot printing machines). I can't really help you if you refuse to watch relevant media. If you do watch it you'll see micro dots clearly arranged in rows and columns, so it's definitely not specks of dust.


There wouldn't be any swapping or interference. The traceability would already be there before any state started their own election procedures.


Maybe you need to think about it a bit more. Feel free to take your time.

The feds don’t produce ballots, the states do. So your theory ends there.