Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[WrongHanded]

But ... there are so many answers required to those questions!! In a civil trial, that would qualify for a "preponderance of the evidence." The statistical probabilities these are all random occurences in the same manner in so many locations is just beyond belief.

I'm not sure it is. We'd have to compare the frequencies of these anomalies to another State's election where the race was not tight. A place where election fraud was pointless and therefore surely did not happen. How can we say Texas didn't have just as many anomalies, but no one questioned them because the election results went as expected?

It seemed to me that some of the legislature was very receptive to what was presented. So did it go to court in AZ? Did those in the legislature who were compelled by the testimonies follow up and search for solid answers to these questions?

The problem I see here is that whilst one could take all these snippets and paint a picture of election fraud around them, you could also paint a different picture quite easily. And from my perspective, the various testimonies did not necessarily intersect with each other, except under the very large banner of election fraud. Was it due to extra ballots, changed ballots, ineligable voters, voter suppression, machines over counting and under counting, ignoring signatures, mismatching signatures, Dominion employees manipulating the machines, backup data on hard drives being manipulated off site, data manipulated via internet access? It's just too many different directions to add up to a plausible conspiracy.

Think about it this way, if you could manipulate the vote remotely via internet connection, why not JUST do that? Why do all the other stuff?

If you could bring in extra ballots in batches of about 1000 and use those to change the overall vote count, why not JUST do that?

If you could have the votes read 1.3 votes for every Biden vote, why not JUST do that? And so on, and so on.

If every way to cheat was used, and had been successfully implemented, that would have turned the whole state count into a tsunami. Why complicate cheating by doing it in so many different ways? Isn't that a lot of conspiracy to manage? That's not something that could easily be tightly enough controlled to avoid skewing the final count so far as to be obvious. What a cluster f### that would be.

I'm not saying it's not possible that fraud happened. But what I saw doesn't amount to strong evidence that it did happen on a large scale.

 

[CrustyCoot]

Very simple solution to election fraud. Picture ID to vote. In the case of absentee ballot,signature verification required. And I don't give a rats ass if the bubonic plague comes back,no unsolicited ballots are to be mailed out, period. Then a thorough audit of ballots to verify that they jive with machine counts.

 

[wiscoaster]

Why complicate cheating by doing it in so many different ways? ....

I'm not saying it's not possible that fraud happened. But what I saw doesn't amount to strong evidence that it did happen on a large scale.

But large scale wasn't needed ... Biden took Wisconsin by what, 10,000 votes? Or maybe it was 20,000 at most? And Trump had a huge lead when I went to bed at 1:00 am. They were very clever. Add just enough votes to win but not enough to make it too terribly obvious. Not enough to convince people who were inclined to doubt. So many different ways at the same time so no one way stuck out. And do it in the dead of the night when no one was paying attention. Not complicated. Only the few people in charge of running things need be involved. Everybody else was just doing what they were told.

ISN'T THAT EXACTLY THE WAY YOU WOULD DO IT IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT AND GET AWAY WITH IT?

That's the way I would have done it. Exactly the way it was done. They got away with it.

 

[WrongHanded]

But large scale wasn't needed ... Biden took Wisconsin by what, 10,000 votes? Or maybe it was 20,000 at most? And Trump had a huge lead when I went to bed at 1:00 am. They were very clever. Add just enough votes to win but not enough to make it too terribly obvious. Not enough to convince people who were inclined to doubt. So many different ways at the same time so no one way stuck out. And do it in the dead of the night when no one was paying attention. Not complicated. Only the few people in charge of running things need be involved. Everybody else was just doing what they were told.

ISN'T THAT EXACTLY THE WAY YOU WOULD DO IT IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT AND GET AWAY WITH IT?

That's the way I would have done it. Exactly the way it was done. They got away with it.

Yep, I would do it by just enough. But not in multiple ways as suggested in AZ. Which is my problem with the picture painted by all the testimony in the AZ hearing.

As far as Trump having a huge lead when you went to bed: do you not think it's possible that the smaller rural counties that were Trump strongholds had an easier time counting up than the massively populated democrat stronghold counties? Did Wisconsin start counting early votes and mail-in votes before election day, or did they leave those til later? Many states counted on-the-day votes first (majority Republican votes), the early voting (mixed), and lastly mail-in and absentee (majority democrat). Why they did that I don't know.

But we both know Trump told his supporters to vote in person on the day. Biden and the democrats encouraged people to mail-in or early vote to avoid spreading Covid. So it's no surprise that on-the-day votes were majority Trump and mail-in were majority Biden.

But Trump had already established a narrative that mail-in would lead to fraud. And that if he didn't win it would be because the election is as rigged. Very clever to repeat that as much as possible and get it thoroughly stuck in the minds of his supporters. But that doesn't make it true.

 

[wiscoaster]

But ... I see that doubt in the no-fraud narrative is already cooking in your mind. Maybe you ought to watch the other hearings.

BTW, yes, WI counted the mail-in votes after the in-person votes. Wisconsin election law for mail-in votes requires that a person request a mail-in ballot. Thousands of un-requested mail-in ballots (ie illegal) were cast, and those just from the two counties in the recount.

And here's something else curious about mailed-in ballots (in another state): how is it possible that unfolded "mailed-in" ballots were "received" and tallied? Mail-in ballots are enclosed in an inner privacy envelope and an outer mailer envelope.

 

[wiscoaster]

But Trump had already established a narrative that mail-in would lead to fraud.

Trump isn't that subtle.

 

[WrongHanded]

Trump isn't that subtle.

He did it though. I heard him preaching about mail-in voter fraud, and about if he didn't win it was because it was rigged for weeks if not months before the election. You know full well he was saying it repeatedly. He uses tricks such as sandwiching what he wants people to believe with two things they already really believe. And he uses triple repetition of phrases to engrain a concept. You go back and look at some of his speeches and you'll be able to see it. He absolutely is that subtle when he can emotionally control himself. You and others believing he's not is just a cover he's successfully pulled off. He played a very smart game knowing that a huge number of Biden voters were going to use mail-in. He set up the narrative of fraud before the first vote was cast.

 

[WrongHanded]

But ... I see that doubt in the no-fraud narrative is already cooking in your mind. Maybe you ought to watch the other hearings.

BTW, yes, WI counted the mail-in votes after the in-person votes. Wisconsin election law for mail-in votes requires that a person request a mail-in ballot. Thousands of un-requested mail-in ballots (ie illegal) were cast, and those just from the two counties in the recount.

And here's something else curious about mailed-in ballots (in another state): how is it possible that unfolded "mailed-in" ballots were "received" and tallied? Mail-in ballots are enclosed in an inner privacy envelope and an outer mailer envelope.

Oh no. I'm 100% confident there were cases of voter fraud. But I do not believe there was widespread or significant voter fraud. That was the underlying point of all I wrote. The picture painted is far too messy. No masterminded organized fraud would be that messy. And I'm certainly not wasting more hours of my life on watching such things.

Having said that, did the AZ stuff go to court? Did those legislators follow it up on it? Did any of those elected representatives who seemed so convinced actually lift a finger, or did they not care once the public eye left them?

So in WI mail-in ballots must be requested, and some were sent out that weren't requested. But does that prove fraud? Not without confirmation that those ballot were used by others, or people voted more than once. And there was a recount? So how did the recounts go in the two counties with the un-requested mail-in ballots in WI? Was significant vote fraud found? How much exactly?

I don't know how it's possible that "unfolded" mail-in ballots were received and counted. Are you suggesting that these ballots should have been folded if they had been mailed, but that they weren't folded so couldn't have been mailed? I'd have to see the ballots because I would assume the mail-in ballots in my state are not the same as other states. I'd have to see the ballots and the envelopes to be able to understand exactly what the issue is. When I send in a mail-in ballot it comes with a pre-folded crease so that I don't have to create the fold myself. Actually I have to unfold it to vote with it, then refold it on the same crease (which seems to be created during the ballot manufacturing process). If someone doesn't know what their states mail-in ballot actually should look like, they might be confused. I'd have to see the ballots.

 

[wiscoaster]

He did it though. I heard him preaching about mail-in voter fraud, and about if he didn't win it was because it was rigged for weeks if not months before the election. You know full well he was saying it repeatedly. He uses tricks such as sandwiching what he wants people to believe with two things they already really believe. And he uses triple repetition of phrases to engrain a concept. You go back and look at some of his speeches and you'll be able to see it. He absolutely is that subtle when he can emotionally control himself. You and others believing he's not is just a cover he's successfully pulled off. He played a very smart game knowing that a huge number of Biden voters were going to use mail-in. He set up the narrative of fraud before the first vote was cast.

Why then didn't they try to stop it before it happened? Something as simple as getting court orders to enforce proper poll watching? Why did he look so damn surprised and pissed off when it actually happened? I think it was because they realized they had REALLY screwed up.

 

[wiscoaster]

I'd have to see the ballots.

So you won't take the word of the people who actually saw the ballots and submitted sworn affidavits to that effect.

In other words, if you were a juror at a murder trial, you would only convict if you'd been there and personally seen the murder committed.

 

[WrongHanded]

So you won't take the word of the people who actually saw the ballots and submitted sworn affidavits to that effect.

In other words, if you were a juror at a murder trial, you would only convict if you'd been there and personally seen the murder committed.

Nice straw man argument you've got there.

I don't trust that those people know what a mail-in ballot is actually supposed to look like. So no, I won't take their word on it. Would you take anyone's word on anything just because they submitted sworn affidavit? Is that a good blanket rule? People lie. People misunderstand. People misremember. People misread.

 

[WrongHanded]

Why then didn't they try to stop it before it happened? Something as simple as getting court orders to enforce proper poll watching? Why did he look so damn surprised and pissed off when it actually happened? I think it was because they realized they had REALLY screwed up.

How would Trump's team stop what he was claiming would be massive mail-in voter fraud? They tried! They tried repeatedly and failed.

He looked surprised? Really? As judged by whom? Experts in facial expressions? Or just people who supported him? Maybe. Maybe because he really thought he won when he went to bed before many states began counting mail-in ballots. Maybe it was fake. I never saw him look surprised, so I can't say.

He looked pissed off? Is that because he's used to winning at everything and halfway truly believes the narrative he created that he's "the best" at this thing and "no one's better than him" at this other thing?

He was hoping his base and the right leaning middle ground had only increases in their determination to support him. Pushing all the narratives of socialist sleepy creepy old senile joe. And he did that. He energized them, and you can see it in the final vote totals. Unfortunately in doing so, he also energized a massive chunk of elligible voters who usually don't vote. Black people and young people make up a majority of that demographic, and they rose up during the BLM movement. He not only didn't support Black people who were upset about police brutality, he actually came out on the other side of it. He pushed the law and order line, backing the police rather than listening to these people and their concerns. And it pissed them off. His opposition were sleeping voters, and he woke them up with his rhetoric and inaction. And he seemed to have no clue.

So yes, he knows how to energize a crowd and get the support of certain demographic. There is subtlety in the way he manipulates his base. But he would never listen to his staff, who were advising him not to piss off voters on the other side. And he fired them or made the resign, rather than listen to people who knew better. The west wing must have installed a rotating door to deal with all the staff turnover in the past 4 years.

 

[wiscoaster]

I don't trust that those people know what a mail-in ballot is actually supposed to look like.

Oh, c'mon, a mailed-in ballot has obviously got to have been folded to get it into an envelope, so a ballot without any creases in it, like a sheet of paper you'd get out of a fresh 500-sheet ream of blank paper, would obviously be noticed as strange by ANY person that obvserved it and understood it was a ballot that was represented as having been mailed in. If it had obviously never been in any envelope, then where the heck DID it come from?

 

[wiscoaster]

They tried! They tried repeatedly and failed.

They make some weak attempts through the judicial system, and we know where their stripes are. They didn't really try to mobilize their base to be poll-watchers, for instance. They just plain didn't do what could have been done, what should have been done, if they were certain about the suspicions of fraud. I think they were just hoping that their turnout would overcome the fraud, like it did in 2016. Let's face it, they got outsmarted and outmaneuvered. If that's what politics is like now in this country, I'm done. I'm not voting again, ever, without significant and meaningful election reform. You want a country where one person one vote means nothing, then do nothing. Call us the Estados Unidos de Venezuela del Norte.

 

[WrongHanded]

Oh, c'mon, a mailed-in ballot has obviously got to have been folded to get it into an envelope, so a ballot without any creases in it, like a sheet of paper you'd get out of a fresh 500-sheet ream of blank paper, would obviously be noticed as strange by ANY person that obvserved it and understood it was a ballot that was represented as having been mailed in. If it had obviously never been in any envelope, then where the heck DID it come from?

I've seen and used multiple mail-in ballots. They've been standard in CO since 2010. I think I know what one looks like. The fold is manufactured into the ballot. My guess is that it is stamped in based on how it looks. It comes in the mail, folded. It flattens out perfectly. Then the voter refolds it along the same crease, which is how it goes into the official envelope.

When dealing with hundreds of thousands of ballots designed to be run through automated machines, it doesn't make sense to let people put their own crease line in the ballot. It's far less likely to feed in the machine that way. But if a person has never used one themselves, it makes sense that they wouldn't have observed any of this.

I'm willing to put it in a sworn affidavit, if that makes a difference to you.

 

[WrongHanded]

They make some weak attempts through the judicial system, and we know where their stripes are. They didn't really try to mobilize their base to be poll-watchers, for instance. They just plain didn't do what could have been done, what should have been done, if they were certain about the suspicions of fraud. I think they were just hoping that their turnout would overcome the fraud, like it did in 2016. Let's face it, they got outsmarted and outmaneuvered. If that's what politics is like now in this country, I'm done. I'm not voting again, ever, without significant and meaningful election reform. You want a country where one person one vote means nothing, then do nothing. Call us the Estados Unidos de Venezuela del Norte.

So now you're just speculating. I've no interest in debating such things because there is no evidence to present within the context of your post.

 

[wiscoaster]

I'm willing to put it in a sworn affidavit, if that makes a difference to you.

No, no, you don't get it ... they say they saw ballots with NO creases, prefolded or not, no way they could have ever been in an envelope.

 

[WrongHanded]

No, no, you don't get it ... they say they saw ballots with NO creases, prefolded or not, no way they could have ever been in an envelope.

I don't believe it. Do they have proof? Didn't they have their phones with them? I can't take it on faith.

 

[wiscoaster]

So now you're just speculating. I've no interest in debating such things because there is no evidence to present within the context of your post.

There's nothing in that post to debate. I'm just telling you that I'm done with this system. They won. You want to participate in a rigged system you go right ahead. Whatever you do in such a system makes no difference. The outcome is predetermined.

In some ways, it's probably better Biden being President, not Trump. History will hold Biden responsible for what's coming in the next few years: stock market crash, major depression, major inflation, deteriorating society, economy, lawlessness, a new shooting war.

 

[wiscoaster]

? Didn't they have their phones with them?

No, their phones weren't allowed. Or they were kicked out. That was testified to in the hearings by multiple poll-watchers.