Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?

[GuitarStv]

I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

There may well be 0.001% of poll workers willing to commit fraud, but the actual chance for them to commit fraud is stymied by the processes in place that help to ensure legitimacy.  You can't just argue that there is a percentage of people willing to commit fraud and therefore fraud is committed.  First need to show how the rules that protect against this can be subverted to make your case in a valid way.

Assuming that it's a 'simple math problem' is where you're going wrong here.

[bacchi]

I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

There may well be 0.001% of poll workers willing to commit fraud, but the actual chance for them to commit fraud is stymied by the processes in place that help to ensure legitimacy.  You can't just argue that there is a percentage of people willing to commit fraud and therefore fraud is committed.  First need to show how the rules that protect against this can be subverted to make your case in a valid way.

Assuming that it's a 'simple math problem' is where you're going wrong here.

Right. Fraud, like any secret, becomes much more difficult the more people that are in on it.

[EvenSteven]

Ask yourself why so many in power are trying to stop the normal process this year. Maybe also ask yourself why they’re only questioning the process in counties and states where they lost and, within those states, in heavily minority counties. Here in Michigan, or example, Biden won Wayne County, which includes the heavily Democrat city of Detroit, as expected and by a similar margin as Clinton in 2016 (although Trump actually gained votes in Detroit relative to 2016). Kent County, which includes Grand Rapids and is generally heavily GOP, actually flipped for Biden, and yet no one appears to be questioning the process there. Detroit is 78% black; Grand Rapids is 67% white. A win for Biden in Kent County seems that it would be more suspicious, yet none of Trump’s cult followers were trying to storm the Grand Rapids ballot counting site with weapons. Why not?

I seem to remember a focus on hanging chads in Florida

Again, conflating legitimate concerns with lies.

Hanging/dimpled chads likely caused votes to not be counted. Problems like this happen and are almost expected, that's why recounts are an option. But unless the race is very close, a few miscounted ballots shouldn't necessitate a recount. Florida was decided by 537 votes and those votes decided the presidential election. I think asking for a recount was quite reasonable in that case.

If the tables were turned and Trump had lost by a few hundred or even a few thousand votes, he should ask for a recount and I expect he would get it.

Not only does the current situation not justify a recount, that's not even what Trump and his minions are asking for. They're asking the courts to invalidate votes and in public they're saying anything they can think of to de-legitimize results. No one, Republican or Democrat, has done anything like this in recent history and we need to see it for what it is if we're going to move on and rebuild faith in our election process. Pretending this is something that's been done before and that both sides are guilty is actively harmful to US democracy. I'd ask that you please reconsider before throwing around accusations like this.

Am I the only one who read the "hanging Chad" as the punchline to a joke? There was an observation that there was a disproportionate focus on blacker areas than whiter ones, but as a counter example the Florida recount was used, and a focus and hanging chads (where Chad is a stereotypically white name).

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[OtherJen]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there. I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes. There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

Have you ever worked the polls?

I don't know how things work where you live, but in Michigan it would be very difficult for a polling location to do something fraudulent like that. Everything gets checked by probably a dozen people at City Hall before it goes to the precincts.

Before the polls open, we have to break the seal on the e-pollbook flashdrive, start the laptop, and check that everything in the e-pollbook is zeroed out and set to the right precinct. Sweep the tabulator to make sure that it's empty. Start it up and print out the zero tape. Have every precinct worker check that all races are zeroed out and sign the zero tape (which remains attached to the machine all day). Break the seal on the ballot case. Check the printed sheet indicating the starting and ending numbers for the ballots against the ballots actually in the case. Record this. Have everyone sign the opening page in the hard-copy pollbook.

After the polls close, at least two people back up the e-pollbook, file various reports, and complete the ballot report: the number of voted ballots (from the tabulator) must equal the number of issued ballots minus the number of spoiled ballots. If not, there's a big fuck-up and there will be an investigation. The tabulator is hooked up to the secure modem to transmit the results directly to the county, and four copies of the results tape are printed. Three are left attached to the zero tape, and all three have to be checked and signed by all precinct workers. The fourth is taped on the wall so that any public observers can check it. The memory cards are removed from the tabulator and placed in a case with the e-pollbook flashdrive. The chair and co-chair sign the form on the cover of the case, insert a locking seal into the closure, and record the seal number in the hard-copy pollbook. Next, at least two workers remove all the ballots from the tabulator and sort them to find ones with write-in candidates. These are checked against the list of valid write-in candidates. Ballots with valid write-ins go in one folder, those with in-valid write-ins go in another folder (note that all non-write-in races were automatically tabulated). There are a bunch of forms that go with these and are included in the hard-copy pollbook. Both folders are sealed with stickers that have to be signed by the chair and co-chair. All spoiled ballots go in another envelope that has to be sealed and signed. Surrendered absentee ballots go in yet another folder that is sealed and signed. All ballots go back in the ballot case with the unused ballots. The cover form is signed by the chair and co-chair, the case closure is sealed, and the seal number is recorded in the hard-copy pollbook. Once all of this is completed and checked by all precinct workers, everyone signs the closing page of the pollbook, and we affix the zero-tape and attached signed results tapes to the pollbook.

The chair and co-chair then take the sealed ballot and memory card cases, the laptop, any affidavits, the ballot applications, and various other paper-trail stuff (don't have a full list handy) back to City Hall, where we wait for a dozen or so people to pick through everything that all of the precincts have done to make sure that everything is in order before all of the ballots and hard copies go to the county to corroborate the wirelessly transmitted reports. This step is taken very seriously; when I waited last week, several other precinct chairs/co-chair got called in to address minor issues (usually a signature was forgotten, although in one case the ballot case seal wasn't affixed properly and had fallen out in the chair's car). One entire precinct team got called back in because they'd forgotten to sign one copy of the tapes. The precinct chair and I waited until 11:30 pm until we got the all-clear, with the caveat that if the county found something wrong later, we might get a 4 am call at home (we didn't).

During the election, 1) we're really, really busy actually doing work. I got two 30-min breaks during a 17.5-hour day. 2) What kind of fraud could we commit? Seriously, explain it to me. Between all of the witnesses and the paper and electronic trails, how would we commit fraud that would affect thousands of votes?

[Kris]

chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes

I am laughing uproariously at the rich irony that the person who posted this absolutely perfect example of Gambler's Fallacy -- which is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy -- has a user name you couldn't make up.

[frugalnacho]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there. I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes. There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

Have you ever worked the polls?

I don't know how things work where you live, but in Michigan it would be very difficult for a polling location to do something fraudulent like that. Everything gets checked by probably a dozen people at City Hall before it goes to the precincts.

Before the polls open, we have to break the seal on the e-pollbook flashdrive, start the laptop, and check that everything in the e-pollbook is zeroed out and set to the right precinct. Sweep the tabulator to make sure that it's empty. Start it up and print out the zero tape. Have every precinct worker check that all races are zeroed out and sign the zero tape (which remains attached to the machine all day). Break the seal on the ballot case. Check the printed sheet indicating the starting and ending numbers for the ballots against the ballots actually in the case. Record this. Have everyone sign the opening page in the hard-copy pollbook.

After the polls close, at least two people back up the e-pollbook, file various reports, and complete the ballot report: the number of voted ballots (from the tabulator) must equal the number of issued ballots minus the number of spoiled ballots. If not, there's a big fuck-up and there will be an investigation. The tabulator is hooked up to the secure modem to transmit the results directly to the county, and four copies of the results tape are printed. Three are left attached to the zero tape, and all three have to be checked and signed by all precinct workers. The fourth is taped on the wall so that any public observers can check it. The memory cards are removed from the tabulator and placed in a case with the e-pollbook flashdrive. The chair and co-chair sign the form on the cover of the case, insert a locking seal into the closure, and record the seal number in the hard-copy pollbook. Next, at least two workers remove all the ballots from the tabulator and sort them to find ones with write-in candidates. These are checked against the list of valid write-in candidates. Ballots with valid write-ins go in one folder, those with in-valid write-ins go in another folder (note that all non-write-in races were automatically tabulated). There are a bunch of forms that go with these and are included in the hard-copy pollbook. Both folders are sealed with stickers that have to be signed by the chair and co-chair. All spoiled ballots go in another envelope that has to be sealed and signed. Surrendered absentee ballots go in yet another folder that is sealed and signed. All ballots go back in the ballot case with the unused ballots. The cover form is signed by the chair and co-chair, the case closure is sealed, and the seal number is recorded in the hard-copy pollbook. Once all of this is completed and checked by all precinct workers, everyone signs the closing page of the pollbook, and we affix the zero-tape and attached signed results tapes to the pollbook.

The chair and co-chair then take the sealed ballot and memory card cases, the laptop, any affidavits, the ballot applications, and various other paper-trail stuff (don't have a full list handy) back to City Hall, where we wait for a dozen or so people to pick through everything that all of the precincts have done to make sure that everything is in order before all of the ballots and hard copies go to the county to corroborate the wirelessly transmitted reports. This step is taken very seriously; when I waited last week, several other precinct chairs/co-chair got called in to address minor issues (usually a signature was forgotten, although in one case the ballot case seal wasn't affixed properly and had fallen out in the chair's car). One entire precinct team got called back in because they'd forgotten to sign one copy of the tapes. The precinct chair and I waited until 11:30 pm until we got the all-clear, with the caveat that if the county found something wrong later, we might get a 4 am call at home (we didn't).

During the election, 1) we're really, really busy actually doing work. I got two 30-min breaks during a 17.5-hour day. 2) What kind of fraud could we commit? Seriously, explain it to me. Between all of the witnesses and the paper and electronic trails, how would we commit fraud that would affect thousands of votes?

So what I'm gathering is that the fraud (that obviously happened) must have been extremely sophisticated and difficult to detect.  Are we secretly extras in the movie Ocean's 270? Has anyone actually verified the whereabouts of Brad Pitt and George Clooney on election night?

[JLee]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there. I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes. There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

Have you ever worked the polls?

I don't know how things work where you live, but in Michigan it would be very difficult for a polling location to do something fraudulent like that. Everything gets checked by probably a dozen people at City Hall before it goes to the precincts.

Before the polls open, we have to break the seal on the e-pollbook flashdrive, start the laptop, and check that everything in the e-pollbook is zeroed out and set to the right precinct. Sweep the tabulator to make sure that it's empty. Start it up and print out the zero tape. Have every precinct worker check that all races are zeroed out and sign the zero tape (which remains attached to the machine all day). Break the seal on the ballot case. Check the printed sheet indicating the starting and ending numbers for the ballots against the ballots actually in the case. Record this. Have everyone sign the opening page in the hard-copy pollbook.

After the polls close, at least two people back up the e-pollbook, file various reports, and complete the ballot report: the number of voted ballots (from the tabulator) must equal the number of issued ballots minus the number of spoiled ballots. If not, there's a big fuck-up and there will be an investigation. The tabulator is hooked up to the secure modem to transmit the results directly to the county, and four copies of the results tape are printed. Three are left attached to the zero tape, and all three have to be checked and signed by all precinct workers. The fourth is taped on the wall so that any public observers can check it. The memory cards are removed from the tabulator and placed in a case with the e-pollbook flashdrive. The chair and co-chair sign the form on the cover of the case, insert a locking seal into the closure, and record the seal number in the hard-copy pollbook. Next, at least two workers remove all the ballots from the tabulator and sort them to find ones with write-in candidates. These are checked against the list of valid write-in candidates. Ballots with valid write-ins go in one folder, those with in-valid write-ins go in another folder (note that all non-write-in races were automatically tabulated). There are a bunch of forms that go with these and are included in the hard-copy pollbook. Both folders are sealed with stickers that have to be signed by the chair and co-chair. All spoiled ballots go in another envelope that has to be sealed and signed. Surrendered absentee ballots go in yet another folder that is sealed and signed. All ballots go back in the ballot case with the unused ballots. The cover form is signed by the chair and co-chair, the case closure is sealed, and the seal number is recorded in the hard-copy pollbook. Once all of this is completed and checked by all precinct workers, everyone signs the closing page of the pollbook, and we affix the zero-tape and attached signed results tapes to the pollbook.

The chair and co-chair then take the sealed ballot and memory card cases, the laptop, any affidavits, the ballot applications, and various other paper-trail stuff (don't have a full list handy) back to City Hall, where we wait for a dozen or so people to pick through everything that all of the precincts have done to make sure that everything is in order before all of the ballots and hard copies go to the county to corroborate the wirelessly transmitted reports. This step is taken very seriously; when I waited last week, several other precinct chairs/co-chair got called in to address minor issues (usually a signature was forgotten, although in one case the ballot case seal wasn't affixed properly and had fallen out in the chair's car). One entire precinct team got called back in because they'd forgotten to sign one copy of the tapes. The precinct chair and I waited until 11:30 pm until we got the all-clear, with the caveat that if the county found something wrong later, we might get a 4 am call at home (we didn't).

During the election, 1) we're really, really busy actually doing work. I got two 30-min breaks during a 17.5-hour day. 2) What kind of fraud could we commit? Seriously, explain it to me. Between all of the witnesses and the paper and electronic trails, how would we commit fraud that would affect thousands of votes?

So what I'm gathering is that the fraud (that obviously happened) must have been extremely sophisticated and difficult to detect.  Are we secretly extras in the movie Ocean's 270? Has anyone actually verified the whereabouts of Brad Pitt and George Clooney on election night?

And so efficient that it managed to flip the presidency, but not efficient enough to flip 2% of the Senate.

[Montecarlo]

I'm not trolling you guys, I promise. 

The odds of a single polling location committing fraud HAS to be greater than absolute zero.  You all KNOW that.

https://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/

The burden of evidence goes on the person making the most extraordinary claim.  What is more extraordinary, that there is some level of electoral corruption, or that is is absolute 0?  I think absolute zero is the more extraordinary claim.

[Montecarlo]

chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes

I am laughing uproariously at the rich irony that the person who posted this absolutely perfect example of Gambler's Fallacy -- which is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy -- has a user name you couldn't make up.

I don't think gambler's fallacy is what you think it is.  Gambler's fallacy is, for example, saying a coin didn't come up heads for three flips, so heads is more likely the fourth flip.  You're being disingenuous.

[Freedom2016]

Wrong. You are making an extraordinary claim that there has likely been MAJOR fraud when there is zero evidence anywhere, in any race, in any geography, at any point in time of that happening. Good grief!

[Montecarlo]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

[former player]

I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

It's not a math problem, it's an evidence problem.

Produce the evidence.

[Montecarlo]

more criminal convictions for election rigging!

https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/wvs/press_releases/Aug2012/attachments/080812Ramey-plea-release.html

OMG so shocked in a country with hundreds of thousands of elected officials and ballot initiatives, that we haven't been 100% perfect on fraud!

[frugalnacho]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Dude, they got busted and convicted thus preventing the fraud.

[OtherJen]

more criminal convictions for election rigging!

https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/wvs/press_releases/Aug2012/attachments/080812Ramey-plea-release.html

OMG so shocked in a country with hundreds of thousands of elected officials and ballot initiatives, that we haven't been 100% perfect on fraud!

You're the only one claiming that the rest of us are saying 0% fraud.

Certainly it's possible. I assume you have experience as a poll worker and can explain how it would happen frequently on a wide enough scale to affect thousands of ballots.

In this example, someone fraudulently applied for ballots. That does not equate to actually receiving ballots or casting them.

[Montecarlo]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Dude, they got busted and convicted thus preventing the fraud.

Well now you have me checkmated.  If I produce the evidence of fraud, you say that if the fraud was detected, it doesn't count.  So now all I have to do is produce evidence of undetected fraud...?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Um, this is an election of a local board of directors in a private community that took place in 2014.  Not sure how much you had to dig to find this gem, but it IN NO WAY counts as evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 National election...

[OtherJen]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Dude, they got busted and convicted thus preventing the fraud.

Well now you have me checkmated.  If I produce the evidence of fraud, you say that if the fraud was detected, it doesn't count.  So now all I have to do is produce evidence of undetected fraud...?

You're the one claiming that large-scale undetected fraud must exist at precincts and at a wide enough scale to affect thousands of ballots. I assume that you must have proof, although I don't know why you'd be arguing here instead of taking it to the clerk or Secretary of State.

[Montecarlo]

more criminal convictions for election rigging!

https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/wvs/press_releases/Aug2012/attachments/080812Ramey-plea-release.html

OMG so shocked in a country with hundreds of thousands of elected officials and ballot initiatives, that we haven't been 100% perfect on fraud!

You're the only one claiming that we're saying 0% fraud.

Certainly it's possible. I assume you have experience as a poll worker and can explain how it would happen freq

I never said frequently.  I said non-zero.

Let me use an analogy.  Odds of winning the powerball jackpot is approx 1 in 300 million.  Pretty close to zero.  But with the number of tickets sold, there are multiple winners a year

[Montecarlo]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Um, this is an election of a local board of directors in a private community that took place in 2014.  Not sure how much you had to dig to find this gem, but it IN NO WAY counts as evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 National election...

OMG I never claimed there was widespread fraud!  I was criticizing those who said the election was stolen.

[frugalnacho]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Um, this is an election of a local board of directors in a private community that took place in 2014.  Not sure how much you had to dig to find this gem, but it IN NO WAY counts as evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 National election...

And they still got fucking busted! They literally got caught in the act, and were arrested and prosecuted.  This was attempted fraud.

During the meeting, Cowher filled out nine of the ballots and took the remaining 62 ballots to fill out at a later time. Upon leaving the meeting, Cowher was arrested by the state police.

[Montecarlo]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Um, this is an election of a local board of directors in a private community that took place in 2014.  Not sure how much you had to dig to find this gem, but it IN NO WAY counts as evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 National election...

OMG I never claimed there was widespread fraud!  I was criticizing those who said the election was stolen.

Sorry for my misunderstanding then, it has been a very confusing way of going about proving your point.

One thing that impresses me about this forum is just how much good discussion we can have about this issue.  There is so much mis-information and politicization about this topic, I can only discuss it with fellow Biden supporters, which are harder to find in Texas.  Still a lot of people flying their Trump 2020 flags...

[GuitarStv]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

You could start by explaining what you view as the most likely way that polling station fraud would take place.

[Montecarlo]

This one is hard to find a summary, but 53 indictments and the election was ordered to be held again:
https://www.wbez.org/stories/more-indictments-in-2003-east-chicago-primary/ac9f36a2-f779-4dc8-8efd-6d8e6eb57673

[Montecarlo]

This one is hard to find a summary, but 53 indictments and the election was ordered to be held again:
https://www.wbez.org/stories/more-indictments-in-2003-east-chicago-primary/ac9f36a2-f779-4dc8-8efd-6d8e6eb57673

Better link:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-08-07-0408070270-story.html

[OtherJen]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

You could start by explaining what you view as the most likely way that polling station fraud would take place.

Yeah, I'd like that explanation as well. Given my description of what actually happens at a precinct on Election Day, how would I and my teammates have been able to commit large-scale fraud?

[Montecarlo]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

You could start by explaining what you view as the most likely way that polling station fraud would take place.

Yeah, I'd like that explanation as well. Given my description of what actually happens at a precinct on Election Day, how would I and my teammates have been able to commit large-scale fraud?

Hold on, now I have to explain a particular manner to commit fraud?  It's not enough I've given several examples of elections being overturned due to fraud, I have to specifically engineer a way to make it happen at your polling location?

[GuitarStv]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

You could start by explaining what you view as the most likely way that polling station fraud would take place.

Yeah, I'd like that explanation as well. Given my description of what actually happens at a precinct on Election Day, how would I and my teammates have been able to commit large-scale fraud?

Hold on, now I have to explain a particular manner to commit fraud?  It's not enough I've given several examples of elections being overturned due to fraud, I have to specifically engineer a way to make it happen at your polling location?

Those examples of fraud were caught by the existing system.  For fraud to succeed (as you posit) it has to have a way to bypass all the security measures and checks.  You haven't brought forth a theory as to how this would be possible, other than arguing that since there are lots of people involved there must be cheating.

[Montecarlo]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there.  I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

What the fuck are you talking about?  They always look for fraud and can't find any.  So your conclusion is that it's obviously happening?

I'm eagerly looking forward to you retracting this, based on the evidence I provided

[Montecarlo]

You are claiming this number is larger than zero. Okay, PROVE IT.

Done

[Davnasty]

I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

Sure, there is some non-zero chance of a person or group of people working together to commit fraud, but your .001% chance is made up with no supporting evidence. It is meaningless.

But let's say you could back up that number, then you must take into consideration the chances of pulling it off without getting caught. As long as we're making up numbers, let's say the chance of getting caught is 75%*. So now the chance of successful large scale fraud at a single polling location is 15.8% and the chance of attempted large scale fraud is 47.4%. In other words, if it was being attempted, we more than likely would have heard about the attempts that failed over the last 20 years.

Probably higher based on OtherJen's insight but I guess it would depend on the resources and level of sophistication of the culprits. Who's providing the funds and expertise to pull this off with the end goal of stealing a few thousand votes while also taking enormous risk?

[sherr]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Thanks for actually responding with evidence. I still say this is not actually evidence of what you were claiming, which is that "chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes."

These guys were driving around and taking ballots out of the mailboxes of empty lots, in this local election for Community Board of Directors where they mailed ballots out to each lot instead of each registered voter's address-of-record like they'd do (in some states) in a real election. They then filled out and forged the signatures of about 200 people in order to help themselves to get re-elected.

This isn't related to polling stations committing fraud related to thousands of votes, and no it's not because they got caught. This method of fraud simply does not scale. In order to attempt a similar thing in a presidential election you'd have to somehow know where thousands of voter's address-of-record was wrong and an empty lot (or somehow know who is not going to fill out another ballot, because if two ballots from the same person come in they'll start investigating), and have a whole team of people driving around to pick up ballots and fill them out, and somehow have access to everyone's signatures in order to forge them. Forgetting how improbable everything else is, the "whole team of people" part ensures that you'll be caught very quickly.

And the only reason these guys did it in the first place was because they though they could actually affect the results of the Board of Directors election, which is only remotely plausible because I bet the vast majority of people don't bother to vote in an off-cycle community Board of Directors election. Go to one of your HOA meetings sometime and see how many people are there. And they only did it to elect themselves, not to support their political party. I can't imagine anyone risking jail for 200 votes in an actual election where maybe half of those people are going to vote, when they themselves are not on the ballot.

[Montecarlo]

I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

Sure, there is some non-zero chance of a person or group of people working together to commit fraud, but your .001% chance is made up with no supporting evidence. It is meaningless.

But let's say you could back up that number, then you must take into consideration the chances of pulling it off without getting caught. As long as we're making up numbers, let's say the chance of getting caught is 75%*. So now the chance of successful large scale fraud at a single polling location is 15.8% and the chance of attempted large scale fraud is 47.4%. In other words, if it was being attempted, we more than likely would have heard about the attempts that failed over the last 20 years.

Probably higher based on OtherJen's insight but I guess it would depend on the resources and level of sophistication of the culprits. Who's providing the funds and expertise to pull this off with the end goal of stealing a few thousand votes while also taking enormous risk?

Agreed 100% on all points.  I feel I made a casual remark (while criticizing an election stealing monger!), I backtracked by stating it relies on an assumption (but the fundamental concept is sound) and now I'm being gaslit by all the other posters.

[Montecarlo]

I just want to do a quick recap. 

I said there was a decent chance of fraud happening that would be enough to change local election results.
I was ridiculed.
I clarified saying there had to be some non-zero chance, at the very least.
I was ridiculed.
I was told I engaged in gambler's fallacy, which I did not, and that accusation has yet to be retracted.
I was told I was casting doubt on the national election, when I very specifically was not.
I found with just a little Googling actual cases where local elections were fraudulent and had to be reheld.
And now my evidence isn't good enough?

[frugalnacho]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there.  I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

What the fuck are you talking about?  They always look for fraud and can't find any.  So your conclusion is that it's obviously happening?

I'm eagerly looking forward to you retracting this, based on the evidence I provided

Just to be clear absolutely no one is claiming there is absolutely no voter fraud.  There just isn't large scale and widespread voter fraud.  When people say there is no voter fraud, they are implying there is no large scale and widespread voter fraud, because there is no evidence that there is, and plenty of evidence that there is not.

I disagree you've met your burden of proof with the examples you've provided

[OtherJen]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

You could start by explaining what you view as the most likely way that polling station fraud would take place.

Yeah, I'd like that explanation as well. Given my description of what actually happens at a precinct on Election Day, how would I and my teammates have been able to commit large-scale fraud?

Hold on, now I have to explain a particular manner to commit fraud?  It's not enough I've given several examples of elections being overturned due to fraud, I have to specifically engineer a way to make it happen at your polling location?

Well, you did say:

chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes

I explained exactly what happened at my polling location on Election Day, and asked what we could have done at that location to affect thousands of votes (given that there were 1600 registered voters in the precinct, that would have been truly impressive).

We're not ridiculing you. We're asking you to back up this assertion. You've provided evidence of attempted fraud that was caught.

[nereo]

I’ve held out participating in the poll until now, but I say “Biden will win the 2020 election”.

[Montecarlo]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Thanks for actually responding with evidence. I still say this is not actually evidence of what you were claiming, which is that "chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes."

Do you honestly not see that as a casual off-hand remark, one that was clarified and partially walked back with a more nuanced reply:

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

[ixtap]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there.  I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

What the fuck are you talking about?  They always look for fraud and can't find any.  So your conclusion is that it's obviously happening?

I'm eagerly looking forward to you retracting this, based on the evidence I provided

That was not a governmental election, it was a private community's board election. And they still couldn't do it without getting caught, even though it didn't have the same level of security and scrutiny in place.

[Montecarlo]

I provided four links.  One was a bum lead, my bad, but certainly doesn't invalidate anything.

[Montecarlo]

I seriously can't believe I started with a post that criticized Newt Gingrich for slandering the election results, and cautioned that even if some local instance of fraud was found it can't be extrapolated to a larger issue, and an off hand comment - whose main point is valid, that local instances of fraud happen! - was parsed to death!

Why?

And @Kris owes me a retraction for the gambler's fallacy remark.

[sherr]

Oh look!  Criminal conviction for fixing an election!

Non-zero!!!
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160524/two-found-guilty-of-fixing-election-in-pike-county-private-community

Thanks for actually responding with evidence. I still say this is not actually evidence of what you were claiming, which is that "chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes."

Do you honestly not see that as a casual off-hand remark, one that was clarified and partially walked back with a more nuanced reply:

If all you are trying to say is that occasionally people attempt to commit fraud, then I guess we agree. I'll even do you one better and provide another example that's similar to your Chicago one: the 2018 Republican candidate in NC-9.

I disagree that there is any evidence for widespread fraud, but it sounds like you disagree with that too. My main problem was with you pulling numbers out of thin air and then claiming "See! Binomial distribution! Pure math!"

[Davnasty]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

I'll give you this one. Anyone asking for evidence of the people that got away with it isn't thinking it through.

In any case, my personal belief (that I'm not going to attempt to put probabilities on) is that the evidence of fraudsters who have been caught is not significant enough to claim poll-wide fraudulent votes in the 1000's is likely. Non-zero chance? yes. Likely? no.

[frugalnacho]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

I think we need to backup and define what we are even talking about.  As I've posted multiple times, no one is claiming there is literally zero voter fraud.  Me, and everyone else, are talking about widespread and significant fraud.  A few isolated cases, especially when they were caught and no actual fraud ended up taking place, is not sufficient evidence.  And if we are talking all elections right down to local private communities (like the ones you've posted), stretching back some arbitrary time into the past, then we are talking about many billions of votes being cast.  If there was a significant chance of voter fraud occurring I would expect a lot more than a few articles about rinky dink communities.  Based on the evidence you've provided voter fraud is not zero, but appears to be approaching zero. 

[JLee]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

I'll give you this one. Anyone asking for evidence of the people that got away with it isn't thinking it through.

In any case, my personal belief (that I'm not going to attempt to put probabilities on) is that the evidence of fraudsters who have been caught is not significant enough to claim poll-wide fraudulent votes in the 1000's is likely. Non-zero chance? yes. Likely? no.

Being caught in the process, thus preventing a fraudulent vote, is different than being caught in an investigation after the fact (after a fraudulent vote was successfully cast).

[Montecarlo]

My main problem was with you pulling numbers out of thin air and then claiming "See! Binomial distribution! Pure math!"

Well for me starting with a prior of no local fraud anywhere is ridiculous, so it has to be a non-zero number.  The exact number (or even the order of magnitude)... no one can say for sure.

I was trying to demonstrate, even with a tiny probability, over 100,000 opportunities it adds up very quickly! 

[Montecarlo]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

I think we need to backup and define what we are even talking about.  As I've posted multiple times, no one is claiming there is literally zero voter fraud.  Me, and everyone else, are talking about widespread and significant fraud.  A few isolated cases, especially when they were caught and no actual fraud ended up taking place, is not sufficient evidence.  And if we are talking all elections right down to local private communities (like the ones you've posted), stretching back some arbitrary time into the past, then we are talking about many billions of votes being cast.  If there was a significant chance of voter fraud occurring I would expect a lot more than a few articles about rinky dink communities.  Based on the evidence you've provided voter fraud is not zero, but appears to be approaching zero.

Chicago is rinky dink?

I never said wide spread.  In fact, I cautioned against extrapolating to wide spread.

[Montecarlo]

@frugalnacho
Explain to me how I’m supposed to produce evidence of fraud when the criminals weren’t caught?  Your bar for evidence is unattainable.

I'll give you this one. Anyone asking for evidence of the people that got away with it isn't thinking it through.

In any case, my personal belief (that I'm not going to attempt to put probabilities on) is that the evidence of fraudsters who have been caught is not significant enough to claim poll-wide fraudulent votes in the 1000's is likely. Non-zero chance? yes. Likely? no.

Being caught in the process, thus preventing a fraudulent vote, is different than being caught in an investigation after the fact (after a fraudulent vote was successfully cast).

Which I provided examples for

[frugalnacho]

My main problem was with you pulling numbers out of thin air and then claiming "See! Binomial distribution! Pure math!"

Well for me starting with a prior of no local fraud anywhere is ridiculous, so it has to be a non-zero number.  The exact number (or even the order of magnitude)... no one can say for sure.

I was trying to demonstrate, even with a tiny probability, over 100,000 opportunities it adds up very quickly!

Stop being disingenuous.  This is the fourth fucking time I am repeating myself: No one is claiming there is absolutely zero fraud. No one.  Absolutely no one.

And we can say for sure because this is not some new issue that you just thought up.  It's been an issue every since voting was invented.  Which is why there is a ton of scrutiny around it, we have a ton of procedures in place to ensure it's not fraudulent, and when we perform audits we find practically none.