Of course there is zero evidence of Voter fraud. States don’t even check for dead voters or voters who moved out of state. Diebold designs black box systems that aren’t audited by hackers.
Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.
Not sure what you're talking about, there was definitely evidence of voter fraud.
Not on a large scale, but still voter fraud.
It just happened to be from the party that complains about voter fraud non-stop, ironically projection, and gets zero media coverage.
In the event it does get media coverage, it's typically presented in skewed or twisted way.
For example, an Arizona audit found 99 non-counted votes for the current president, and 261 falsified votes for the challenger.
Instead of stating this outright, the number one cable news channel in the United States briefly mentioned it as "360 votes found for the current president" - no mention of the falsified votes of the loser.
Do you have any direct refutations to my allegations? Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I am willing to change my opinion if there is evidence to suggest credible voter fraud audits happen, but so far I have not been able to find any.
CA: https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registratio... (this one is particularly detailed on the methods used, including "The Registrar of Voters office checks the obituaries listed in the newspapers daily" and "a list of deceased voters provided by the California Secretary of State’s office multiple times per year")
Yeah, 15 seconds of the slightest search efforts can bring any of this up.
I've found time and time again that anybody who believes there is or ever has been even the slightest issue with "dead voters" is somebody who simply can't be reasoned with, and engagement just isn't worth the effort.
They're completely lost and engulfed in a sea of "their own research"
The problem with all of this is that it's complicated, people misstate things, and everybody is eager to prove that "their side" is right.
So then you get excessive claims like "no state purges voter rolls" which is just easily falsifiable, and then it gets falsified and leads one side to believe that to be the end of it.
Whereas what really happens is that a state goes to purge its voter rolls, they have a list of 100,000 "dead people" and the list is erroneous and contains hundreds of live people, because government databases are full of dung. So then they get sued, often right before the election, to prevent any of the names from being purged, including any of the 99,000+ who were actually dead.
Another thing that happens is that someone dies between the last purge and the election. Then either they submitted their ballot before they died (but were ineligible to vote because they weren't alive on election day), or they were sent a ballot after they died and a member of their family submitted it. So there are always a few dead people in every election who voted after they died, and some of these are actually fraud (in the second case), and others aren't "fraud" but they're still invalid votes that shouldn't be counted. Rarely if ever does this, alone, change the outcome; but the ballots are there.
Which results in the over-claim on the other side. "There are zero dead people voting." Also easily falsifiable.
Then each side gets to declare the other side wrong and biased and hidebound and irrational.
What you say is true, but at the same time there was a voter fraud commission started in 2017, formed with the explicit charter of investigating such claims. This commission was disbanded after they couldn’t make progress showing that “thousands and thousands” of people fraudulently voted in 2016, causing then President Trump to lose the national popular vote. He made very specific claims about people being bussed around New England to vote across state lines, which is why he claims he lost New Hampshire that year.
The claim is perpetually that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Literally millions of dollars and an entire political party has set out to answer this question in the affirmative, but they can’t even prove their claims in a court of law. The most telling instance if this in the last year was Rudy Giuliani refusing to make a claim of “fraud” in front of any judge after the 2020 election, but claiming “fraud” as often as he could in front of any TV camera.
So yes, both sides have overstated their case at times. But only one side is perpetually making a very strong case that they will never take to court where they have to provide specific evidence of their claims. It’s very notable and telling that the extreme case they say is the status quo (rampant voter fraud that stole the election from Trump not once but twice) has never been proven by them or anyone else.
> Then each side gets to declare the other side wrong and biased and hidebound and irrational.
Here is where we are right now. A team of auditors in Arizona spent months trying to show fraud occurred there that tipped the scales in Joe Biden’s favor. The result of their audit was that Joe Biden won a slightly larger margin than originally counted. How was this result spun by Trump?
“We won on the Arizona forensic audit yesterday at a level that you wouldn’t believe … They had headlines that Biden wins in Arizona when they know it’s not true … He didn’t win in Arizona. He lost in Arizona based on the forensic audit."
Did you get that? Trump loses Arizona, demands a recount, gets the recount, recount determines Trump did in fact lose, Trump claims exact opposite, and millions of people follow his lead and repeat this lie.
That is the level of reality denial and irrationality coming out one particular party. This is a mind bending level of denial and delusion.
So when you say things like the above, that “each side gets to declare the other wrong” it really serves to blur the context and normalize this insanity, making it seem like the two sides are the equally deluded. Yea maybe if you look only at the extremes, but this is the main stream GOP party leadership pushing this, not the fringe. The two sides are not the same on this issue.
Let me see if I can try to make the case for the other side here.
> Did you get that? Trump loses Arizona, demands a recount, gets the recount, recount determines Trump did in fact lose, Trump claims exact opposite, and millions of people follow his lead and repeat this lie.
> Official Canvass has 3,432 more ballots cast than the list of people who show as having cast a vote (VM55)
> 9,041 mail-in voters show returning more ballots (EV33) than they were sent (EV32).
> 277 Precincts show in the Official Canvass as having more ballots cast than people who showed up to vote (VM55) for a total of 1,551 excess votes.
> There are 2,472 ballots shown in EV33 that don’t have corresponding entries in the VM55, and only 2,042 ballots show as rejected in the Official Canvas for a discrepancy of 430.
> 397 mail-in ballots show as received (EV33) that never show as sent (EV32).
> 255,326 Early Votes show in the VM55 that do not have a corresponding EV33 entry.
The trouble with this is that you can find that the numbers don't add up, but then what? You don't know which ballots were the extra ones. All you can do is count them again and then you get the same count from before.
There was one category of irregularity where they could actually redo the count. Ballots that were in some way messed up get "duplicated," i.e. copied onto clean ones. But they still had both the originals and the duplicates. The counts didn't match, which is bad. They had more duplicates than originals. But they could redo them.
The assumption in doing this was that the "extra" duplicates should be discarded, rather than that some of the originals had been lost. Under that assumption, Trump lost a few hundred votes. Naturally this is the only part of the report of any significance to media outlets on the blue team.
Trump goes the other way. Declares that all of the remaining irregularities would have been votes in his favor.
There is apparently no way of proving it one way or the other at this point; the information is not available. We don't know which ballots were the "extra" ones in the other cases. Which means he can't prove it. Because nobody can prove it one way or the other. But something went wrong.
Having a number of unexplained irregularities that exceeds the margin of victory for the state is bad. "Undermines confidence in the election," as they say. If nothing else we need to make sure this doesn't happen again by figuring out how it happened this time and keeping better records going forward.
> The most telling instance if this in the last year was Rudy Giuliani refusing to make a claim of “fraud” in front of any judge after the 2020 election, but claiming “fraud” as often as he could in front of any TV camera.
This is why the media is such a trash fire.
After the election they were filing a zillion lawsuits all over the country. Some of them were alleging fraud. IIRC one in particular was about something like the state violating its state constitution, or violating election laws, something like that. So he says it on camera in court; that particular case wasn't about fraud. The media picks it up like he's made a confession of wrongdoing.
All of the coverage was like this. One side: Massive fraud unprecedented mountains of evidence! Other side: There is no fraud whatsoever stop looking immediately STFU!
As far as I can tell what actually happened was something like this.
Most elections are pretty messed up. There is some fraud here and there, and a vast sea of incompetence. The 2020 election was like that on meth, because of COVID.
Then it all mostly just cancels out. If each party commits a similar amount of fraud, and the effects of incompetence are random, it doesn't change the outcome. Also, most elections aren't close enough for it to matter.
Then Trump figured out you can challenge individual districts. If you go into a district that went 80% for Biden and find all of the problems that actually did happen there, you might invalidate enough ballots to matter, and probably the same 80% of them went for Biden.
This is kind of a dick move, but in theory it's a valid thing to do and the response from the other side should be to go into a district that went 80% for Trump and find all the problems there. Then if the problems cancel out it doesn't change the outcome and all you're doing is excluding all the ballots that actually ought to be excluded.
In practice there are two reasons Democrats didn't want to do that. First, it would have taken a long time and they wanted to be able to declare victory. This isn't really a legitimate reason but you can see why they would want to do this.
Second, mail-in ballots. If a higher percentage of mail-in ballots were messed up than in-person ballots, and more of the mail-in ballots went for Biden, uh oh. You don't know that's going to happen before you look, but it could, so do you really want to look?
So then it's a media war. Trump sucks. He's making a zillion fraud claims and most of them are crap because he's just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. But if they just let him, something might stick. Maybe not, but "maybe" is a big risk. So the other side decides that they want to suck too. If a report comes out, it's bad for Trump. It doesn't matter what it says; strip out anything that helps him, remove all context, find some excerpt that sounds like it's bad for him, whatever it takes.
Then everybody is doing the Big Lie. Mischaracterizing everything the other says, acting as political operatives instead of journalists. It's not the truth vs. the lie; everybody's lying. The other side is evil. They must be stopped.
Come on. The other side is the guy sitting next to you on the subway.
There is an obvious flaw, which is that someone could die between the time voter registration for the election is finalized and when ballot is submitted. The fact that you ignore this suggests that you are not discussing this in good faith.
> Snodgrass was busted after a Delaware County election worker questioned the signature on his father’s ballot. A subsequent investigation revealed the ballot had been mailed to H. Edward Snodgrass on Oct. 6 — a day after the 78-year-old retired businessman died.
Voter registration isn't "finalized"; quite a few states have same-day registration or provisional balloting. There's verification steps that happen on and after election day.
Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.