4 ms·

The problem is that if you look with an inquisitive eye without having a preference on the outcome there's no way to tell because of the margins in just a few d

The problem is that if you look with an inquisitive eye without having a preference on the outcome there's no way to tell because of the margins in just a few districts, all that is sure is that the Constitution was followed and the valid electors chose the President (which is a major reason why it is designed that way).

wat10000 3mo ago
Despite what people say, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if you've gone looking for the evidence and it's something that you should find if the claim is true. There's a bunch of evidence we'd expect to see if there was enough cheating to swing the election, and we don't see it. All we have is evidence of some pathetic attempts by the actual loser to overturn things.
epistasis 3mo ago
What do you mean "there's no way to tell because of the margins in a few districts"? Anybody looking with an inquisitive eye and no preference for the outcome reaches an extremely strong concision, that there was no voter fraud that could have influenced the outcome.
- luxuryballs 3mo ago
  I can't tell because there's not enough evidence either way, it's OK to have a third opinion of "I can't know", that's actually the default position.
FireBeyond 3mo ago
The very right wing Heritage Foundation spent millions looking for voter fraud, and found that, at -most-, 1 in 700,000 votes was fraudulent, in Wisconsin (69 out of 45 million votes cast over 20 years). Generally the number is higher than 1 in a million, up to 1 in 3 million. You'd think, if anything, a right wing organization would be trying to prop up Trump's claims... but yet...
- epistasis 3mo ago
  Exactly, it is in fact very informative to look through their examples, because it shows a very robust system that's catching very very rare cases, and if there were more widespread fraud it would be very evident through the same mechanisms used to catch these very very rare cases: https://electionfraud.heritage.org/ https://electionfraud.heritage.org/ Every case I checked was something like this, here are two that I randomly clicked on from my state right now: > Alex Campbell, Republican city councilman and mayor pro tem of Crescent City, California, falsely claimed his residence was within city limits when submitting his candidacy for councilman. Campbell was charged with two felony counts of perjury and one count of false declaration of his candidacy and pleaded guilty to one count of making a false declaration of candidacy. He faces up to two years of probation and $20,000 in fines for his charge. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200148 https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200148 > Nickey Huntley was involved in a scheme that offered cigarettes and money to homeless people on Skid Row in exchange for fake signatures on ballot initiatives and voter registration forms. This resulted in hundreds of fraudulent signatures. He pleaded no contest to one felony count of circulating an initiative or petition containing false, forged or fictitious names. Huntley was sentenced to 3 years’ probation. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/201251 https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/201251

wat10000 3mo ago

Despite what people say, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if you've gone looking for the evidence and it's something that you should find if the claim is true. There's a bunch of evidence we'd expect to see if there was enough cheating to swing the election, and we don't see it. All we have is evidence of some pathetic attempts by the actual loser to overturn things.

epistasis 3mo ago

What do you mean "there's no way to tell because of the margins in a few districts"? Anybody looking with an inquisitive eye and no preference for the outcome reaches an extremely strong concision, that there was no voter fraud that could have influenced the outcome.

luxuryballs 3mo ago
I can't tell because there's not enough evidence either way, it's OK to have a third opinion of "I can't know", that's actually the default position.

FireBeyond 3mo ago

The very right wing Heritage Foundation spent millions looking for voter fraud, and found that, at -most-, 1 in 700,000 votes was fraudulent, in Wisconsin (69 out of 45 million votes cast over 20 years). Generally the number is higher than 1 in a million, up to 1 in 3 million. You'd think, if anything, a right wing organization would be trying to prop up Trump's claims... but yet...

epistasis 3mo ago
Exactly, it is in fact very informative to look through their examples, because it shows a very robust system that's catching very very rare cases, and if there were more widespread fraud it would be very evident through the same mechanisms used to catch these very very rare cases: https://electionfraud.heritage.org/ https://electionfraud.heritage.org/ Every case I checked was something like this, here are two that I randomly clicked on from my state right now: > Alex Campbell, Republican city councilman and mayor pro tem of Crescent City, California, falsely claimed his residence was within city limits when submitting his candidacy for councilman. Campbell was charged with two felony counts of perjury and one count of false declaration of his candidacy and pleaded guilty to one count of making a false declaration of candidacy. He faces up to two years of probation and $20,000 in fines for his charge. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200148 https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200148 > Nickey Huntley was involved in a scheme that offered cigarettes and money to homeless people on Skid Row in exchange for fake signatures on ballot initiatives and voter registration forms. This resulted in hundreds of fraudulent signatures. He pleaded no contest to one felony count of circulating an initiative or petition containing false, forged or fictitious names. Huntley was sentenced to 3 years’ probation. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/201251 https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/201251