3 ms·

I would say those claims based on the absence of evidence, or evidence that was proven fraudulent or incorrect would be baseless. It's impossible to prove some

I would say those claims based on the absence of evidence, or evidence that was proven fraudulent or incorrect would be baseless. It's impossible to prove something didn't happen, so we need proof something did happen. None was provided, just look at all the lawsuits.

linuxftw 6y ago
In the case of ballots, each ballot should have a recorded chain of custody, so it's actually not 'impossible' to prove something didn't happen. If the accusations are "There are a bunch of ballots that were entered into the counts without proper chain of custody" that can be easily proven or disproven. If the accusation is "Signatures were required to be verified and bipartisan representatives were legally supposed to witness the process" which apparently is the case in many jurisdictions, that too would be easy to prove or disprove. There will be records associated with those observations and chain of custody records of those ballots. Unfortunately, some ballot envelopes have already been 'thrown away' so they cannot be audited to see if counts match, to see how many ballots were indeed signed (sometimes a witness is required), or be able to be verified against other controls (such as numbering, ensuring the name on the ballot matches who it was sent to, etc). The law says you must hold an election, and exactly what steps you need to take to hold such an election. If you didn't follow the steps, there wasn't a lawful election. That's more or less what some of the lawsuits are about. Are these claims 'baseless'? I don't think so. There's no shortage of sworn affidavits and statements from election officials about how the processes weren't followed. There's also court cases (such as in Georgia) where the executive branch possibly unlawfully struck an agreement with Democrats to relax certain requirements. The only remaining question is, how heavily should this evidence be weighed, and is it enough to affect the outcome of the process. TBD.
- jrs235 6y ago
  >"There are a bunch of ballots that were entered into the counts without proper chain of custody" that can be easily proven or disproven." And unfortunately due to the amount of bad faith in play, I would be concerned of the party hoping that there was a break in the chain of custody to employ an insider to perform a break in the chain of custody in order to get the result they want... throwing everything out in hopes of getting a different outcome. The conspiracies will never end. Sigh.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    In some cases, the chain of custody records (allegedly) aren't even available, so what are you supposed to do about that situation? In my mind, that begs the question, how can these elections even be 'certified?' What due diligence did election officials perform to ensure everything was fair and square? In Georgia, I believe, there were reports of multiple USB drives found that weren't initially counted during the recount. Did anyone know how many people voted in those precincts and who was in charge of ensuring the numbers were square? It seems like a complete circus.
    - disgrunt 6y ago
      If there is a truth to be gleamed here, it's that U.S. elections as they're presently conducted are a train wreck. Even the parties seeking to prove a fair election took place are being thwarted by incompetence.
      - linuxftw 6y ago
        That's really the entire point, IMO. If the people holding the election can't prove they did everything by the letter, how do they know they did everything by the letter? You're talking 100's or 1000's of different precincts across an entire state.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    In PA at least, they could have not kicked out GOP observers, literally cheering as they were thrown out. In other counties, observers had to stand far away for "COVID" reasons, while dozens or counters of DEM observers were crammed together at tables. In Georgia, observers were told to go home, and then people continued to count behind closed doors, unobserved. There is video and no matter how many news sources yell "debunked" ... there is no reasonable explanation for it. There was no water pipe burst. It was a lie and it LOOKS TERRIBLE. If you want an honest election, then people have to not make up this shit. But everyone sees every single GOP/Republican as some evil racist Nazi, so some of these things could have been totally on the books, but people threw out observers due to media fueled hate. The trouble is ... it's impossible to tell. The percentage of rejected mail-in ballots due to signatures is far far below what is has been before. It looks bad. It stinks. Anyone who is in the center and is truly looking at everything is likely going to make the judgement, even if their party won, the election was shady as fuck.

linuxftw 6y ago

In the case of ballots, each ballot should have a recorded chain of custody, so it's actually not 'impossible' to prove something didn't happen. If the accusations are "There are a bunch of ballots that were entered into the counts without proper chain of custody" that can be easily proven or disproven. If the accusation is "Signatures were required to be verified and bipartisan representatives were legally supposed to witness the process" which apparently is the case in many jurisdictions, that too would be easy to prove or disprove. There will be records associated with those observations and chain of custody records of those ballots. Unfortunately, some ballot envelopes have already been 'thrown away' so they cannot be audited to see if counts match, to see how many ballots were indeed signed (sometimes a witness is required), or be able to be verified against other controls (such as numbering, ensuring the name on the ballot matches who it was sent to, etc). The law says you must hold an election, and exactly what steps you need to take to hold such an election. If you didn't follow the steps, there wasn't a lawful election. That's more or less what some of the lawsuits are about. Are these claims 'baseless'? I don't think so. There's no shortage of sworn affidavits and statements from election officials about how the processes weren't followed. There's also court cases (such as in Georgia) where the executive branch possibly unlawfully struck an agreement with Democrats to relax certain requirements. The only remaining question is, how heavily should this evidence be weighed, and is it enough to affect the outcome of the process. TBD.

jrs235 6y ago
>"There are a bunch of ballots that were entered into the counts without proper chain of custody" that can be easily proven or disproven." And unfortunately due to the amount of bad faith in play, I would be concerned of the party hoping that there was a break in the chain of custody to employ an insider to perform a break in the chain of custody in order to get the result they want... throwing everything out in hopes of getting a different outcome. The conspiracies will never end. Sigh.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  In some cases, the chain of custody records (allegedly) aren't even available, so what are you supposed to do about that situation? In my mind, that begs the question, how can these elections even be 'certified?' What due diligence did election officials perform to ensure everything was fair and square? In Georgia, I believe, there were reports of multiple USB drives found that weren't initially counted during the recount. Did anyone know how many people voted in those precincts and who was in charge of ensuring the numbers were square? It seems like a complete circus.
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    If there is a truth to be gleamed here, it's that U.S. elections as they're presently conducted are a train wreck. Even the parties seeking to prove a fair election took place are being thwarted by incompetence.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      That's really the entire point, IMO. If the people holding the election can't prove they did everything by the letter, how do they know they did everything by the letter? You're talking 100's or 1000's of different precincts across an entire state.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  In PA at least, they could have not kicked out GOP observers, literally cheering as they were thrown out. In other counties, observers had to stand far away for "COVID" reasons, while dozens or counters of DEM observers were crammed together at tables. In Georgia, observers were told to go home, and then people continued to count behind closed doors, unobserved. There is video and no matter how many news sources yell "debunked" ... there is no reasonable explanation for it. There was no water pipe burst. It was a lie and it LOOKS TERRIBLE. If you want an honest election, then people have to not make up this shit. But everyone sees every single GOP/Republican as some evil racist Nazi, so some of these things could have been totally on the books, but people threw out observers due to media fueled hate. The trouble is ... it's impossible to tell. The percentage of rejected mail-in ballots due to signatures is far far below what is has been before. It looks bad. It stinks. Anyone who is in the center and is truly looking at everything is likely going to make the judgement, even if their party won, the election was shady as fuck.