I see this being pushed on Twitter as a proof of election fraud in 2020 but aren't the votes still being counted?
Reporting appears to be %87 at this moment, expect the numbers to add up when it's %100.
Don't you register to vote anyway? You can't be counting unaccounted for ballots, are you? You probably have a paperwork for for every vote, it's not like counting the cash after busking.
Eventually You will have Total Number of Registered to Vote = Total Ballots + Total Absentees.
This will also give you the turnout. You can't have the turnout first unless you keep track of number of votes casted and in that case you will be able to tell if there were fake votes by comparing the final ballots counted and the number of votes you counted when casting.
This is all very basic, can someone explain what I'm missing here? Why people are pushing for this thing that doesn't make sense whatsoever?
> This is all very basic, can someone explain what I'm missing here? Why people are pushing for this thing that doesn't make sense whatsoever?
You're assuming that the election fraud narrative is pushed by people who care about whether it's true or not. The goal isn't truth-seeking, it's disenfranchisement; any data point is either used in service of the narrative, or it's discarded as irrelevant.
It doesn’t seem like very good evidence that there was fraud in 2020, in the sense they even if (and it is an if) we end up with a decrease in turnout this year, there’s no particular reason to believe that people didn’t just… vote more when the pandemic was happening, they had more time to sit around, and mail in voting was easier. Is it possible that the people pushing this idea are just engaging in motivated reasoning?
It's not fraud. It's people for whatever reason not voting. The US population grew by 4m IIRC in 4 years, and even the projections of the remaining ballots seems to suggest that 6-8m less people voted.
>Eventually You will have Total Number of Registered to Vote = Total Ballots + Total Absentees.
Yes, all people are saying is that absentees increased and ballots decreased.
Not everyone who is registered to vote actually votes (as in they do not mail in their ballot nor do they go in to physically vote). Which is I think the more likely case here.
I believe most of the accusations about 2020 were centered in places where the Democrats were in power like Philadelphia and its suburbs.
Control of the WH is immaterial because all voting is controlled by the states or local municipalities.
Another part is that the Republicans were much more prepared this time to stop the alleged fraud before it happened. They had lawyers ready to protest immediately when election judges were locked out of counting rooms or when counting stopped. They made sure they had enough election judges for all precincts and sometimes they set up cameras to count the number of voters entering the site.
Perhaps your point about polling is still the best answer
Sure, but the FBI and DOJ still have the authority (and mandate) to detect and prevent election fraud, and certainly to the scale that was alleged.
Deciding between the effort required for a political opponent to run a massive multi-state voter fraud conspiracy under your nose and the effort required for an over-the-top personality to make a wild accusation that was never proven in court, I think we can consult Occam’s Razor.
I believe that many of the court battles revolved around issues like "standing", not whether there was any substance to the matter. So it's not really fair to put any value in whether the accusations were "proven in court" because the courts never focused on the accusations themselves.
I have no real desire to work through all of this again. It was 4 years ago. Alas, all of your numbers aren't so convincing to me. As we saw with this last go around, you could find numbers from pollsters that predicted either outcome. So I don't know where you got them and I'm not interested in parsing whatever you have to say.
I do know that many of the "merits" you cite were never litigated. Were there any cases where the court granted discovery? So how can anyone guess at what a court would decide about the matter? Many of the news articles I read at the time suggested that the courts were just not interested in opening up cans of worms.
Similar story for Wisconsin, (Harris polls 49 and 48; result: 48.9% and Trump polls 50 and 49; result: 49.7%) and Michigan (Harris polls 48 and 48; result: 48.3% and Trump polls 50 and 50; result: 49.8%)
Despite the end result, it was really was a minor polling error away from a Harris victory.
Also, FWIW, the total 3rd party vote in WI and MI was greater than the margin of victory for Trump in those states.
Reporting appears to be %87 at this moment, expect the numbers to add up when it's %100.
Don't you register to vote anyway? You can't be counting unaccounted for ballots, are you? You probably have a paperwork for for every vote, it's not like counting the cash after busking.
Eventually You will have Total Number of Registered to Vote = Total Ballots + Total Absentees.
This will also give you the turnout. You can't have the turnout first unless you keep track of number of votes casted and in that case you will be able to tell if there were fake votes by comparing the final ballots counted and the number of votes you counted when casting.
This is all very basic, can someone explain what I'm missing here? Why people are pushing for this thing that doesn't make sense whatsoever?