Scientific Methods of proving election fraud

You are getting emotional again.

Incorrect.

You literally pulled something I said from a completely different thread and subject and applied it here.

It's considered high statistically.

No it isn't. It wasn't a random sample of votes.

I'll pull a Phage here show me where it wasn't random.

He "claims" this could be done in a few days and then we would know. I'm not sure, but I think there are probably some laws that restrict access. Laws in both blue and red states.

He knows it's unlikely, his assertion is forensic scanning technology is solid and has been used in courts before, you are continuing arguing when the premise is, we don't need the machines and envelopes and even Dominion. A forensic scan of ballots would reveal if there was or was not widespread fraud It could be especially effective on mail-in ballots and have they been folded. You know, the premise of the OP's thread and the video. You refuse to watch, but can't control your contrarian impulses and must comment authoritatively, almost obsessively.

a reply to: putnam6

Your formatting sucks but I think I get the point

I'll pull a Phage here show me where it wasn't random.

Ok. The sample came from one small county. It cannot be applied to an entire state. Take random ballots from around the state and you might have something.

Here's my problem with the fraud scenario: you are assuming that what you are trying to prove or at least find evidence for is true.

Georgia replaced our voting systems becuase the previous system was 21 years old and was fully electionic (no paper trail.)

Multiple people in the Secretary of State's office and the Elections Commission have "examined anything to do with this election." Are all those people in on it? How many complicit and quiet individuals does this theory of yours (that you're not pushing of course, you're just sayin') require? The vote counts have a paper trail. The votes have been counted, recounted, and audited.

Folks saw a 2 minute video cut down from 14 hours of an election staffer pulling out a container of ballots and absolutely positively KNEW that was "the smoking gun" ... only to find out that the SoS has already investigated the matter and found nothing illegal.

Sure, there could be fraud. The funny thing is none of you think there was any fraud FOR Trump only against him. You're not concerned about the voting in Alabama, for example, there was no request for audits or recounts there, why not? Alabama had the largest incidence of mail in voting in the State's history. Yet, no claims of fraud ...

I wonder why.

Trump won 81% of the counties that used Dominion voting machines. If Dominion voting machines are so untrustworthy, why aren't those totals being questioned?

How is it that the only places that are questiionable are those that Trump lost, but the same circumstances existed in places Trump won ...

Does the light start to come on for anyone?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: continuousThunder

Funny how they claim to use the scientific method, yet they have a conclusion they are working backwards trying to prove.

Yes. That is the major problem I have with the argument that assume that fraud exists, and therefore, anytime it is not found, someone is "covering it up."

I'm not sure how to assist a mind that far gone in absolute delusion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Multiple people in the Secretary of State's office and the Elections Commission have "examined anything to do with this election." Are all those people in on it? How many complicit and quiet individuals does this theory of yours (that you're not pushing of course, you're just sayin') require? The vote counts have a paper trail. The votes have been counted, recounted, and audited.

Names please. Who are these people who "examined anything to do with this election" either prior to, during, or after?

originally posted by: CIAGypsy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Multiple people in the Secretary of State's office and the Elections Commission have "examined anything to do with this election." Are all those people in on it? How many complicit and quiet individuals does this theory of yours (that you're not pushing of course, you're just sayin') require? The vote counts have a paper trail. The votes have been counted, recounted, and audited.

Names please. Who are these people who "examined anything to do with this election" either prior to, during, or after?

Brad Raffensperger would be the easiest and best answer to your questions. Source

Aside from that, the Fulton County Elections Board information is available here: Source

Here are their names and emails:

Current Members:

Ms. Mary Carole Cooney, Chairperson
Email: [email protected]

Ms. Vernetta Keith Nuriddin, Vice Chair (Democrat)
Email: [email protected]

Kathleen Ruth, Ph.D. (Republican)
Email: [email protected]

Mr. Aaron Johnson, (Democrat)
Email: [email protected]

Mr. Mark Wingate, (Republican)
Email: [email protected]

That's a start, let me know if you need more.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Since it is public information, I suppose you haven't really added to their hate mail by posting that.

This is 2020 - we don’t need scientific data for proof. All we have to do is feel like it happened and that’s enough. Anyone denying that is simply suffering from fragility, and is maintaining and perpetuating voter fraud by not being actively anti voter fraud.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gryphon66

Since it is public information, I suppose you haven't really added to their hate mail by posting that.

I considered that before posting. I can take it down or the mods can delete it if it's deemed a problem.

Boxes of GA ballots found in Fulton County.

You dont need enemies with friends like Brad Raffensperger. 1.4 million mail in ballots with no signature verification, brilliant.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Boxes of GA ballots found in Fulton County.

You dont need enemies with friends like Brad Raffensperger. 1.4 million mail in ballots with no signature verification, brilliant.

Lin Wood's Twitter is an unimpeachable source?

I don't think so. He's brought two fraudlent cases in Georgia thus far.

Also, he's lying about signature verification.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
Oh that's funny....maybe you should tell Schiff and the Mueller team that??? Oh wait...they did that for YEARS, not just a month.

oh my god, are you in kindergarten?
"miss, miss, they did it first!!"
are you responsible for your own conduct in this world or not?
I thought The Right were supposed to be big on personal responsibility?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Trump won 81% of the counties that used Dominion voting machines. If Dominion voting machines are so untrustworthy, why aren't those totals being questioned?

Because you can’t manufacture enough votes in small precincts... especially when they overwhelmingly vote red.

It’s easier to hide fraud in large urban areas where large segments of the population don’t vote.

Common sense.

You send out millions of ballots through the mail to outdated voter rolls, you verify who can’t use those ballots through address changes, death certificates, etc, then manufacture the ballots in your favor.

8000 dead voters in Nevada?

That’s why the local election results in small precincts in Michigan is so damning.

6 registered voters in one precinct, more than 600 votes added.

1400 votes added to a local school board election...

That 6000 vote flip in Antrim county was reprocessed 3 times. Different vote counts each time.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Where's the science?

originally posted by: putnam6


Need to stay on point and this thread number 1 and number 2 All I ever claimed is finding 2 fraudulent ballots in a random selection of 100, which warrants more investigation. It's considered high statistically.

Nice use of the passive there. It means you don't have to tell us who, apart from you, considers it "high statistically".

A result that size from a sample that size from a population that size is not statistically significant.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: putnam6


Need to stay on point and this thread number 1 and number 2 All I ever claimed is finding 2 fraudulent ballots in a random selection of 100, which warrants more investigation. It's considered high statistically.

Nice use of the passive there. It means you don't have to tell us who, apart from you, considers it "high statistically".

A result that size from a sample that size from a population that size is not statistically significant.

When you take a small, random sample of 100 out of millions of votes, 2% is significant. And also indicates widespread fraud, because you shouldn’t find ANY bad ballots in that small of a sample.

And there were actually issues with 3 ballots.

a reply to: rounda

Because you say so?

Show me the math.

a reply to: rounda

It's hardly "common sense" as it's no easier to "manufacture votes' based on physcial location due to the fact that the Dominion systems produce a paper trail. Also, do you mind demonsrating with facts that a higher percentage of the population votes in rural areas than in urban ones? Can you also specify your geographic parameters for determining that split?

Thank you kindly.

The rest of that is the kind of garbage that has been dismissed in over 60 lawsuits nationwide. Those are claims not evidence.

Also, from your second post, I see that you have very little understanding of statistics.

With a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 3%, the sufficient random sample size for one million votes would be about 1066 votes not 100.

If you're interested in understanding, Google the phrase "statistical power."

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

Because you say so?

Show me the math.

Many states require an error rate FAR below 1% or they are not allowed by law to certify the election. 2% is absurd.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rounda

It's hardly "common sense" as it's no easier to "manufacture votes' based on physcial location due to the fact that the Dominion systems produce a paper trail. Also, do you mind demonsrating with facts that a higher percentage of the population votes in rural areas than in urban ones? Can you also specify your geographic parameters for determining that split?

Thank you kindly.

The rest of that is the kind of garbage that has been dismissed in over 60 lawsuits nationwide. Those are claims not evidence.

Also, from your second post, I see that you have very little understanding of statistics.

With a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 3%, the sufficient random sample size for one million votes would be about 1066 votes not 100.

If you're interested in understanding, Google the phrase "statistical power."

Yes, it is common sense.

The fact is, residents of most major American cities typically vote at rates 5 to 15 percent lower than their suburban neighbors.

thehill.com...

And I didn’t say 100 random votes was a good sample size.

I said there should be no issues with the votes in a *random* sample size that small.

But there was. Which makes it significant.