3 ms·

Seems trivial to 'randomly' sample a select subset of the votes. And that does nothing to guard against vote dumps. Non existent voters cannot validate their

by yters 6y ago

Seems trivial to 'randomly' sample a select subset of the votes. And that does nothing to guard against vote dumps. Non existent voters cannot validate their votes. Do you know where the Dominion validation process is clearly documented so it is easy to see whether it is easily subverted? I will bet the answer is no, and the software and hardware are all trade secrets and impossible for voters to verify :D. Sounds like a totally trustworthy system to me.

JshWright 6y ago
It is not "Dominion's" process, it is the local board of election's process. All Dominion supplies are fancy printers and optical scanners. The verification process in Georgia involved physically counting all of the paper ballots. The Dominion machines were totally uninvolved in the hand-recount (and, unsurprisingly, the hand-recount found that the original machine tally was extremely accurate) Again, I think it's pretty clear you don't understand what role the machines actually play in the voting process.
- yters 6y ago
  Perhaps what you say is correct, but I have no way to verify the vote records myself. All I can do is trust the vote counters, and at this point that is the very matter under dispute. Someone in the know really should do an in depth write-up of why it is we can trust this election result. As it is the third Peter Navarro report appears very suspicious and it is hard to believe there is absolutely no reason to doubt the election results. On the contrary the election could very well have been the steal of the century.
  - JshWright 6y ago
    This is very "conspiracy theory" type thinking you're engaging in... There is no evidence supporting any of the claims of fraud, any evidence that doesn't support your position is automatically dismissed as untrustworthy. Your claim seems to be that the Georgia Secretary of State (a staunch Republican and Trump supporter) along with the governor managed to pull off a huge operation to secretly change the results of the election (which would have involved hundreds of people and require that none of them speak out). That's a really outlandish claim, and requires supporting evidence, of which you have none.
    - yters 6y ago
      Isn't a stolen election precisely a conspiracy? I would prefer not to believe the election was stolen. I wanted Trump out, and Biden seems a reasonable replacement. I also debunked a number of the fallacious statistical 'proofs' the election was stolen. Believe me I would like nothing better than to believe everything is fine. But especially Navarro's report makes me unable to dismiss the allegations off hand with a clean conscience. I've also looked into the PA court's reasons for dismissing Trump's lawsuit from back in Sept, and the reasoning is all based on technicalities and does not address the substance of the concern that the loosening of the rules has opened the door to major fraud. The fact all the coverage of the lawsuits is frivolous dismissal or even in some cases the courts rule in favor does nothing to set my mind at ease.
      - JshWright 6y ago
        Peter Navarro is a _highly_ partisan source, and not someone you should assume to be arguing in good faith. Are there other, more credible, sources that are influencing your thinking? There is zero evidence supporting the claim of widespread fraud. Unless you have some evidence of some kind, it really seems like you would prefer to believe there is some vast conspiracy and you are writing off all the evidence to the contrary.
        yters 6y ago
        I am looking at the lawsuits and articles linked from Navarro's report. The lawsuits sound pretty credible to me. When I read the court's reason for rejecting the lawsuit it sounds like the judge is looking for technical reasons to reject the lawsuit. When I look for articles explaining why the lawsuits are rejected en mass, every article I have found is very hand wavy, stating the judges are appointed by Trump so we should expect them to be unbiased. However, no one actually dogs into the opinions or takes the reason why the election seems highly suspicious seriously. To pick out one specific piece of evidence, in PA they found 200k more votes than voters, which is more than enough to change the result for that state. The counts are all from state government databases. http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don%E2%80%99t-Add-Up,-Certification-of-Presidential-Results-Premature-and-In-Error http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmaker... Navarro has over 50 such claims linked in his report, totalling over 3M potentially fraudulent votes. Regardless of what you think of the man, the evidence itself I find hard to set aside, even though I am like you and would tend towards dismissing Navarro as a partisan hack. But when he has laid out the claimed evidence like this in detail I must at least give it a spot check and the spot checks hold up so far.
javagram 6y ago
> Seems trivial to 'randomly' sample a select subset of the votes. And that does nothing to guard against vote dumps. Non existent voters cannot validate their votes. Incorrect. Voter rolls have information about who voted, and this information is public record. You can simply call up a random sample of recorded 2020 voters in Georgia and ask them to confirm that they voted in the election. There is no way to undetectably insert additional fake paper ballots (“vote dumps”) unless you are alleging a vast conspiracy that removed the real paper ballots from storage after the election and replaced them with new fake ones, without any whistleblowers on the (Republican-run and Trump-supporting) elections staff speaking out.
- yters 6y ago
  Are the specific votes public record? If not, it is impossible to verify votes were recorded correctly. But the addresses being public record is interesting. If that information is public record then it would be easy for citizens to randomly verify enough records to ascertain whether enough votes were dumped to make a difference. If what you say is correct then I can try verifying it myself. Why has no one publicly done this? Would be an easy way to put the matter to rest. UPDATE: I just checked the GA website, and all it gives me is voter IDs and whom they voted for. No way I can verify vote fraud did not occur from that information. No addresses or names.
  - JshWright 6y ago
    No, the specifics of how people vote is not publicly available. That is important, in order to prevent voter coercion.
    - yters 6y ago
      How exactly is the possibility of vote dumping and vote flipping eliminated?
      - javagram 6y ago
        > How exactly is the possibility of vote dumping and vote flipping eliminated? You cannot simply add ballots to the election as the totals would then be incorrect. (There would be more votes than people recorded as voting) What is “Vote Dumping”? Do you mean inserting fraudulent paper ballots into the stored ballots to be counted? The election was recorded on physical paper ballots. Are you alleging a vast conspiracy of bipartisan election workers and Republican Secretary of State monitors to replace the legitimate physical ballots with fake ones? All ballots were hand counted and the initial Dominion machine count was confirmed accurate, so the allegation would be a conspiracy where Dominion scanners inaccurately counted the original paper ballots, then the paper ballots were secretly replaced with fakes to match the inaccurate Dominion counts? And this would have had to been done state-wide without a single whistleblower. It’s a ridiculous conspiracy theory if you try to write it out.

by yters 6y ago

JshWright 6y ago

It is not "Dominion's" process, it is the local board of election's process. All Dominion supplies are fancy printers and optical scanners. The verification process in Georgia involved physically counting all of the paper ballots. The Dominion machines were totally uninvolved in the hand-recount (and, unsurprisingly, the hand-recount found that the original machine tally was extremely accurate) Again, I think it's pretty clear you don't understand what role the machines actually play in the voting process.

yters 6y ago
Perhaps what you say is correct, but I have no way to verify the vote records myself. All I can do is trust the vote counters, and at this point that is the very matter under dispute. Someone in the know really should do an in depth write-up of why it is we can trust this election result. As it is the third Peter Navarro report appears very suspicious and it is hard to believe there is absolutely no reason to doubt the election results. On the contrary the election could very well have been the steal of the century.
- JshWright 6y ago
  This is very "conspiracy theory" type thinking you're engaging in... There is no evidence supporting any of the claims of fraud, any evidence that doesn't support your position is automatically dismissed as untrustworthy. Your claim seems to be that the Georgia Secretary of State (a staunch Republican and Trump supporter) along with the governor managed to pull off a huge operation to secretly change the results of the election (which would have involved hundreds of people and require that none of them speak out). That's a really outlandish claim, and requires supporting evidence, of which you have none.
  - yters 6y ago
    Isn't a stolen election precisely a conspiracy? I would prefer not to believe the election was stolen. I wanted Trump out, and Biden seems a reasonable replacement. I also debunked a number of the fallacious statistical 'proofs' the election was stolen. Believe me I would like nothing better than to believe everything is fine. But especially Navarro's report makes me unable to dismiss the allegations off hand with a clean conscience. I've also looked into the PA court's reasons for dismissing Trump's lawsuit from back in Sept, and the reasoning is all based on technicalities and does not address the substance of the concern that the loosening of the rules has opened the door to major fraud. The fact all the coverage of the lawsuits is frivolous dismissal or even in some cases the courts rule in favor does nothing to set my mind at ease.
    - JshWright 6y ago
      Peter Navarro is a _highly_ partisan source, and not someone you should assume to be arguing in good faith. Are there other, more credible, sources that are influencing your thinking? There is zero evidence supporting the claim of widespread fraud. Unless you have some evidence of some kind, it really seems like you would prefer to believe there is some vast conspiracy and you are writing off all the evidence to the contrary.
      - yters 6y ago
        I am looking at the lawsuits and articles linked from Navarro's report. The lawsuits sound pretty credible to me. When I read the court's reason for rejecting the lawsuit it sounds like the judge is looking for technical reasons to reject the lawsuit. When I look for articles explaining why the lawsuits are rejected en mass, every article I have found is very hand wavy, stating the judges are appointed by Trump so we should expect them to be unbiased. However, no one actually dogs into the opinions or takes the reason why the election seems highly suspicious seriously. To pick out one specific piece of evidence, in PA they found 200k more votes than voters, which is more than enough to change the result for that state. The counts are all from state government databases. http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don%E2%80%99t-Add-Up,-Certification-of-Presidential-Results-Premature-and-In-Error http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmaker... Navarro has over 50 such claims linked in his report, totalling over 3M potentially fraudulent votes. Regardless of what you think of the man, the evidence itself I find hard to set aside, even though I am like you and would tend towards dismissing Navarro as a partisan hack. But when he has laid out the claimed evidence like this in detail I must at least give it a spot check and the spot checks hold up so far.

javagram 6y ago

> Seems trivial to 'randomly' sample a select subset of the votes. And that does nothing to guard against vote dumps. Non existent voters cannot validate their votes. Incorrect. Voter rolls have information about who voted, and this information is public record. You can simply call up a random sample of recorded 2020 voters in Georgia and ask them to confirm that they voted in the election. There is no way to undetectably insert additional fake paper ballots (“vote dumps”) unless you are alleging a vast conspiracy that removed the real paper ballots from storage after the election and replaced them with new fake ones, without any whistleblowers on the (Republican-run and Trump-supporting) elections staff speaking out.

yters 6y ago
Are the specific votes public record? If not, it is impossible to verify votes were recorded correctly. But the addresses being public record is interesting. If that information is public record then it would be easy for citizens to randomly verify enough records to ascertain whether enough votes were dumped to make a difference. If what you say is correct then I can try verifying it myself. Why has no one publicly done this? Would be an easy way to put the matter to rest. UPDATE: I just checked the GA website, and all it gives me is voter IDs and whom they voted for. No way I can verify vote fraud did not occur from that information. No addresses or names.
- JshWright 6y ago
  No, the specifics of how people vote is not publicly available. That is important, in order to prevent voter coercion.
  - yters 6y ago
    How exactly is the possibility of vote dumping and vote flipping eliminated?
    - javagram 6y ago
      > How exactly is the possibility of vote dumping and vote flipping eliminated? You cannot simply add ballots to the election as the totals would then be incorrect. (There would be more votes than people recorded as voting) What is “Vote Dumping”? Do you mean inserting fraudulent paper ballots into the stored ballots to be counted? The election was recorded on physical paper ballots. Are you alleging a vast conspiracy of bipartisan election workers and Republican Secretary of State monitors to replace the legitimate physical ballots with fake ones? All ballots were hand counted and the initial Dominion machine count was confirmed accurate, so the allegation would be a conspiracy where Dominion scanners inaccurately counted the original paper ballots, then the paper ballots were secretly replaced with fakes to match the inaccurate Dominion counts? And this would have had to been done state-wide without a single whistleblower. It’s a ridiculous conspiracy theory if you try to write it out.