|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 12, 2021 18:57:07 GMT
I'm not posting this for arguing to over turn the election. That ship has sailed. I'm concerned about the integrity of elections going forward. And I mean this as an intellectual case study into the possibility of election fraud:
The data science is interesting and I've been trying to follow along since the election. Some very glaring objective data based issues discussed above.
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 12, 2021 20:31:19 GMT
Yeah, it seems basic common sense that vote counts should not go up and down, if that indeed happened. I wonder how much fraud occurred in the 2016 election.
....
The whole thing should be automated, imo. Vote by cell phone, computer, telephone (press one for candidate A, press two for candidate B). If you want to vote in person, then the voting booth should upload your vote immediately to the master database.
No hand counting. You should get a digital receipt of your vote. Your voter registrar's office should get an encrypted digital receipt that only the voter and them can look at together. Then you should be able to login at any time to the master database and verify your vote matches the receipt.
That might help a bit. Not sure.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 13, 2021 15:34:31 GMT
We've gotta do something. I do wonder about 2016 too. Let's see if the other's are willing to look at it scientifically and set aside the Trump issue. He's gone and that's that. I think that when people focus on the end result only, it can foggy their view of the details.
Maybe a lot of this can be figured out better in the years following the election when Trump staying in office is off the table and the evidence can be examined more objectively.
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 17, 2021 11:15:51 GMT
The elections are secure.
All I keep seeing in these stories are analysis of reporting. That is to say people watched the news, the news gave a running total and those totals were "suspect." The expectation being that those totals are somehow 100% accurate or "gospel" truth. Even when folks give the (false) concession that they understand that they can accept people make mistakes and whatnot they still point back to the myriad of errors in these various (semi) real-time reports as some level of proof.
When confronted with the actual investigations and results of the recounts (sometimes multiple investigations and recounts) they still choose to point to these other anomalies as proof and that the investigations and recounts are somehow post-crime cover-ups. Indicating the election system is broken, not because the system is broken, because it has been shown to be adequately secure and functional, but because some meta-analysis of an election night reporting system seems to reveal itself to be the faulty part.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 17, 2021 20:10:25 GMT
The elections are secure. All I keep seeing in these stories are analysis of reporting. That is to say people watched the news, the news gave a running total and those totals were "suspect." The expectation being that those totals are somehow 100% accurate or "gospel" truth. Even when folks give the (false) concession that they understand that they can accept people make mistakes and whatnot they still point back to the myriad of errors in these various (semi) real-time reports as some level of proof. When confronted with the actual investigations and results of the recounts (sometimes multiple investigations and recounts) they still choose to point to these other anomalies as proof and that the investigations and recounts are somehow post-crime cover-ups. Indicating the election system is broken, not because the system is broken, because it has been shown to be adequately secure and functional, but because some meta-analysis of an election night reporting system seems to reveal itself to be the faulty part. You have run objective arguments in the previous threads. I appreciate the approach because I'm inclined to pay more attention to it than just emotionally charged responses from people. But I'm trying figure out if you are referring to the OP video specifically? And the data scientists who are interviewed about their research? Because there are some very specific examples of the errors laid out to discuss. It would be nice if you could give us your thoughts on each of the examples the data scientists discuss (there are few which seem very legit). Then consider what has happened with the recounts with some of this in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 17, 2021 21:30:40 GMT
Some bullet points of the data scientists' video would be nice.
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 18, 2021 12:06:41 GMT
That's a tall order. You're talking about a 50 minute video with a lot of claims. It would take me a lot of time and effort to do what you're asking (I'm pretty sure it would be quite a few days if I focused on it). That said, they seem to be highly focused on the adjudication process. More specifically the idea that it was said that there were 106,000 ballots that were cured, or adjudicated, and that given a certain length of time that it simply is not possible to occur. This happens round about the middle of the video (maybe 25-30 minutes in). They reason it would take about 30 seconds to adjudicate a ballot, if done very quickly, then speculate that perhaps the whole process may have been done in batches with some going to each candidate after a fashion. Okay, so this is based on the following statement (found here): I've highlighted the important part about adjudication just to make it easy to find. Now, it this seems suspicious on the surface except if you read the rules on absentee ballots ( here). These are in PDF so I suggest you go read them (they're short) but here's the important part from those rules: One week prior to the election they are allowed to open the envelopes and run the ballots through the counters, without taking a tally, and then, according the what I've posted here, adjudicate those ballots for the election night counting process when these same ballots are ran through the counters again to actually have a tally taken. The numbers from each batch must match from each run or the batch is flagged. Anyone doing an actual investigation would know this. It was easy to find. It took me maybe 20 or 30 minutes (it has taken me more time to listen to the video and write all of this than find this info). And it explains how you can adjudicate 106,000 ballots in the time frame of the election. It's a false assumption to think that all the ballots were adjudicated in committee when there are a number of a reasons for adjudication including simply fixing the ballot to scan without making any changes to the content at all (I believe that's covered in 21-2-482 (f)). So ballots that are clearly "torn, bent or other defective" (as stated above) should be able to be adjudicated very quickly while panels are only needed for ballots failing under the rules contained in those other documents (also short reads).
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 18, 2021 14:21:21 GMT
Even though they say in the video that they will make their info available I cannot find anything, anywhere, for the "Data Integrity Group" or any variation that involves these folks. The only thing I can find is these Epoch Times articles/videos saying the same thing over and over without any sort of actual data to back it up. So, in the video they do mention Edison and elsewhere I found someone who mentions Scytl. Both of these are simply data aggregation companies used by outlets like CNN and the like. They also mention The New York Times but I don't know if they collect their own data or if they get it from an aggregator. It seems like people used several methods to gather from NYT. Some scraped the election page and other polled a JSON (pronounced jason) page. Anyhow, all of this data is simply a report of a report. In that these people contact the various precincts and type it in. I think the AP uses their own system. I don't know which outlets use which service(s) or if maybe they use multiple sources and do in-house tinkering of the numbers. My point here is I cannot find anything that allows me to actually look into their claims. Not even to get a tiny hint of what they're up to. If it's all open source, as I recall them saying, it's not easy to find. I would expect something at github and, while there are projects there, there doesn't seem to be anything from them (I admit I could simple have missed it). I also don't think there's much to find in looking at these aggregation sources. There could be any number of reasons the info would be flawed with human error being the most likely. Someone just reported the wrong numbers and they went out over the wire only to be updated later on. What matters is what got logged at the site and those numbers seemed to be consistent. The "problem" seems to be that folks want the live numbers, that were sent to these aggregators, to be error free and the fact they're not are a sign of some sort of shenanigans. I typed all that and found this which is how NBC says they work. So they, at least, seem to massage the numbers. That leads me to believe this may be a common occurrence and may happen to the data at any step along the way once it has left the actual precinct. All this means is the probability for human error to be introduced increases. For all I know the various aggregators "customize" the data for the outlet they are selling to depending on whatever variables they have chosen. This may well explain why the data is similar, even having similar errors, but is still different. Similar to how you can shop for something and it appears on multiple "stores," sometimes with different options and prices, but it's really just drop-shipping from the same warehouse.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 19, 2021 4:09:38 GMT
I found another video of the Data Integrity Group presenting to the Georgia Senate hearing. There are claims in the video. With illustrations for the presentation.
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 20, 2021 13:37:29 GMT
I found another video of the Data Integrity Group presenting to the Georgia Senate hearing. There are claims in the video. With illustrations for the presentation. They still don't link to their research or anything. It's just the same basic assertions. Here's an ABC article from awhile back describing the audit process: I highlighted a key portion. One that directly contradicts one of their assertions. That original ballots are lost and unavailable for audits once any sort of adjudication is made. This is not the case. They are saved until after the election is certified. So they can be done away with now. However, prior to certification they are kept for just such reasons. I'm not going to go through all the election rules but just from the rules I posted before, when dealing with damaged ballots: A copy is made. It's identical (except for its labelling). And the original is also retained. Nothing is lost during this adjudication process.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 20, 2021 16:25:55 GMT
I would like to believe that our election system isn't as bad as alleged. There are just so many allegations and affidavits of people witnessing misconduct. I don't believe the apologetics from the left about the security cam footage in Georgia, for instance. They should not have been counting ballots after witnesses left, regardless of the fact that they pulled them out from underneath covered tables. From the witness's end, they had already given testimonies about leaving and coming back to find that counting had continued in their absence.
I posted a video where someone filmed a woman trying to solicit money to commit voter fraud in Texas. I'll add the video of the evidence here as well.
The relevant segment starts around 13:25
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 20, 2021 17:35:47 GMT
She was soliciting $55k to produce, with a fraud team, at least 5k votes county wide. Possibly more if they can. Filmed by the person in the passenger seat holding their phone in their lap.
This is the upper ballot deal where they breeze through only casting votes for two candidates and don't waste time placing votes on the entire ballot.
So now let's imagine how blatant fraud like this plays out in the audits. Do they catch it in the audits? And if so, is it transparent for the public to see? Or do frauds like this just run through the system and then counted again when they do audits?
I get the feeling that this is pretty common, and at least part of the thousands of signed affidavits country wide alleged witness to upper ballot's which are highly suspect as fraud related, not being entirely filled out. The whole thing is very suspect in my opinion.
As to whether or not the vote would overturned, I don't know. We'd have to have knowledge enough to determine exactly how many legals votes exist and for whom, versus how many illegal votes exist and for whom. None of which we have solid objective stats for. We only know that Biden received X amount of votes and Trump received X amount of votes. Without having hard numbers of how many of which are actually legal.
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 21, 2021 13:23:31 GMT
Here's a Newsweek article that speaks to this story. Since this seems to be a fairly high-profile case I look forward to seeing how it plays out. Certainly, if she did the crime she's got to do the time.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Mar 6, 2021 3:53:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Mar 11, 2021 2:25:27 GMT
Your video was removed by the uploader.
|
|