271–280 of 889 posts
Just for context it seems The guy he bribed (i.e. the one who actually did the stuffing) was convicted in March 2020. So this isn’t exactly fresh news.
Quoted post unavailable.
I'm also not sure what you are stating is racist conspiracy nonsense - I only see one comment from OP at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even changing the outcome of a Presidential election doesn't require any kind of sweeping, nationwide fraud campaign. Just enough well-placed ones where the vote will be close enough that the fraud doesn't have to be too large. This only looks true when viewed retroactively. It would have taken roughly 80k votes to switch the 2016 election from Trump to Clinton. However people had no idea of that beforehand. That 80…
>It would have taken roughly 80k votes to switch the 2016 election from Trump to Clinton. However people had no idea of that beforehand. What if they paused ballot counting on the night of Election Day, assessed how many votes they needed, and worked overnight to get the votes needed, reporting new totals the next day? Wouldn’t that solve the issue you raise here?
Most places in the country are positively starved for judges of elections (who are local administrators, one per polling location) and the rest of the elections team (who both manage the mechanics of the election and serve as an observer / check-on-power for the judge). If you want to help, it is a two-day time commitment per year, and the job and responsibilities are extremely straightforward.
You can often get yourself elected (in most states, these positions are elected but nobody runs for them so you can write yourself into the job). You can also reach out to the county elections office and volunteer; the positions are so chronically under-staffed that they're usually extremely thankful for volunteers, and when nobody is elected to the position in a given voting location, the county has to pull from volunteers to appoint people to the task.
You get a chance to meet all your neighbors, and there's no better way to ensure your vote isn't stolen or compromised than to secure it yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has a perpetually low rate of voter turnout. Seems like that would give a pretty big margin to play around in.
And updating voter rolls to capture only active voters is a contentious issue.
These voters were "active voters". They voted in the past like 6 years! Sure, it wasn't them and instead an impersonator but whatever step you want to use to only ensure active voters are on the rolls, one can do as an insider.
Need a signature? Grab the one on file. Need something mailed back? Just fill it out and drop it off in outgoing of their post office. Need them to vote? No problem, "they've" been doing that already.
> After receiving payments ranging from between $300 to $5,000 per election from Myers, Demuro would add fraudulent votes on the voting machine The most staggering thing for me is how _tiny_ the payments are
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was done by the election officials in charge of certifying the count. Read the article and it explains the whole thing. They went to great lengths to keep it "within the bounds" of the existing system, to make it harder to detect.
The US has a perpetually low rate of voter turnout. Seems like that would give a pretty big margin to play around in.
It's weird that you can bribe individual EJ's in Philadelphia like this. In Chicagoland, every polling place has a team of 4-5 judges, and they all have to sign off on the final election result, and all the procedural steps that arrive at that number; every individual vote is recorded in the pollbook. I don't even know how you'd generate fake votes in the first place, even if you bought off all 4 EJs. You can't just…
There's two steps to the process: Step one, check the signature, the voter roles, and remove the envelope. Throw the ballot into the bin to be counted. Step two, count the ballot. This ballot now has no identifiable information on it at all. There's no way to verify that a person's ballot was correctly tallied. So if you wanted to ballot stuff, you could do so prior to step two. Recounts wouldn't identify fraud, you'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The qualification was device ids that went to 10+ dropboxes, comparing the routes and stops, not the location point by itself. For your explanation to be valid they would have to have stopped at 10 specific locations each by a dropbox. Those devices did those routes 30~ times each on avg. Those routes include exiting off of highways, going down specific streets, then going to the next dropbox in a specific area. All…
I haven't seen the video myself, but I'm interested in knowing more. Can you point to the timestamp where it makes these claims and how the analysis was conducted? Maybe there's something I'm missing.
The location analysis is explained throughout the film, but it's mainly after the intro and before going into the state security camera footage / general discussions.
The main point I was making it the location path and frequency of dropbox points is how they filtered people out. They only took people that went from one dropbox location to another dropbox location, at least 10 times. Then they analyzed how many times those devices went on those routes and how many devices met that criteria in total.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me put this in different terms. What algorithm should they have ran to detect this? If we have such a infallible algorithm why isn't it always used? If it's not a algorithm but instead more of a handy wavy "analysis" by "experts" how do you know for an empirical certainty they didn't just actually fill a room full of monkeys, waited a week and said the results are good?
You asked "Why didn't that sort of analysis find fraud in Philadelphia in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018?" And I answered it. Is that a sufficient answer or not? To your new questions, yes, there are well-established ways to detect monkey business from machine-maniputation or ballot-stuffing. Basically, you make sure that the results line up between the paper ballots and the machine counts, and that the number of p…
They have some interesting footage of those boxes, and a lot of the footage is apparently conspicuously missing. However nothing concrete, so take this as a thought experiment.
How do you prove they didn't do that from the raw ballot counts and voter roles in a way that I don't have to take someone else's word for it?