I’ve also seen evidence that the same systemic election interference, voter purges/disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, etc — the leading reason for GOP wins over the last 20 years, and were never legitimately addressed or removed — were more than enough to secure Trumps win of the EC.
I’ve seen plenty of evidence that disenfranchisement was off the charts, and it hit me personally.
In Michigan, I’ve been disabled and homebound for years and have never had issues voting by mail, but this time rather than my usual automatic mail-in ballot, I got an application for a vote-by-mail ballot after the deadline. I was still registered, but I had to go in person.
I’d have crawled through hot broken glass naked to vote, so I did it, but only because I live in a small enough town there wasn’t a queue. If I’d had to vote in the city, I could not physically have done it.
I’ll bet plenty of others like me simply could not.
All of the allegations listed on this site have fairly logical explanations when given context.
Republicans pushed against mail in ballots hard, so it makes sense that Harris would do better with mail ins and trump would do better with early voting. It also makes sense that trump voters mainly cared about the presidential election compared to Harris voters. It also makes sense that Harris underperformed as Democrats didn’t get to participate in a primary. Basically it makes sense for there to be abnormalities in an abnormal election, that doesn’t mean there’s “statistical evidence of probable tampering”.
Plus Trump, in his rambling, said something that [heavily implies tampering with vote counting machines
Right… But this means that we would be questioning trump’s honesty based on assuming that trump is being honest on this particular subject. He’s a troll who likes to stir the shit and make people assume he’s more competent than he really is, the same as musk.
It does not behoove progressives to question the reliability of elections without real evidence. Having people question the reliability of elections only serves conservative agenda of making it harder for people to vote.
Abnormal Clustering: In contrast to Election Day voting, Early Vote results display an unusual pattern: once approximately 250 ballots have been processed a visible shift is observed, resulting in a high degree of clustering and unusual uniformity. This is a departure from expected human voting behavior.
This is not logically explained by an “abnormal election”.
It’s also not really explaining much either. They don’t give examples of other elections to compare it too, and their own methodology is lackluster.
They are basically saying that after approx 250 votes trump started to pull ahead, which is to be expected as a lot of early Dem voters were mail ins.
To be honest it just seems like they are trying to purposely confuse normal phenomena with statistical diction, and alluding to claims without providing context.
Usually when making claims this grand you would also want evidence to match it. You’d also want to provide an example to compare it to previous elections utilizing the same methodology.
And the whole thing about Republicans constantly projecting, they screamed about vote tampering and then shut up real quick as soon as Trump won. And the obvious fact that Trump and Republicans in general constantly cheat, lie etc.
IMO it was obvious even before the election that they would tamper, cheat and do everything illegal and unacceptable in their power to win.
So I get how this could sound compelling with that framing, but note that:
This was part of a hack project by 4 students in 2020
The tool they built in the hack was an ML computer vision system to validate ballots, in an effort to reduce mail-in ballot rejection rates
As a part of testing this project, they needed a way to generate a large amount of ballots which the system could then validate
Five years later, one of the authors of this hack works for DOGE
Like, take a look at the code - it’s trivial, in large part because it was made by college students in their early academic career. Creating something of similar caliber would be extremely trivial.
That this student hack project would have been used as a part of a greater scheme of election fraud seems highly unlikely.
It’s funny because student hacks are currently being given access to the entire Treasury payment system for the federal government and have leaked classified data about our spying capabilities.
What if there was statistical evidence of probable tampering?
Plus Trump, in his rambling, said something that heavily implies tampering with vote counting machines.
I’ve also seen evidence that the same systemic election interference, voter purges/disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, etc — the leading reason for GOP wins over the last 20 years, and were never legitimately addressed or removed — were more than enough to secure Trumps win of the EC.
I’ve seen plenty of evidence that disenfranchisement was off the charts, and it hit me personally.
In Michigan, I’ve been disabled and homebound for years and have never had issues voting by mail, but this time rather than my usual automatic mail-in ballot, I got an application for a vote-by-mail ballot after the deadline. I was still registered, but I had to go in person.
I’d have crawled through hot broken glass naked to vote, so I did it, but only because I live in a small enough town there wasn’t a queue. If I’d had to vote in the city, I could not physically have done it.
I’ll bet plenty of others like me simply could not.
All of the allegations listed on this site have fairly logical explanations when given context.
Republicans pushed against mail in ballots hard, so it makes sense that Harris would do better with mail ins and trump would do better with early voting. It also makes sense that trump voters mainly cared about the presidential election compared to Harris voters. It also makes sense that Harris underperformed as Democrats didn’t get to participate in a primary. Basically it makes sense for there to be abnormalities in an abnormal election, that doesn’t mean there’s “statistical evidence of probable tampering”.
Right… But this means that we would be questioning trump’s honesty based on assuming that trump is being honest on this particular subject. He’s a troll who likes to stir the shit and make people assume he’s more competent than he really is, the same as musk.
It does not behoove progressives to question the reliability of elections without real evidence. Having people question the reliability of elections only serves conservative agenda of making it harder for people to vote.
This is not logically explained by an “abnormal election”.
It’s also not really explaining much either. They don’t give examples of other elections to compare it too, and their own methodology is lackluster.
They are basically saying that after approx 250 votes trump started to pull ahead, which is to be expected as a lot of early Dem voters were mail ins.
To be honest it just seems like they are trying to purposely confuse normal phenomena with statistical diction, and alluding to claims without providing context.
Usually when making claims this grand you would also want evidence to match it. You’d also want to provide an example to compare it to previous elections utilizing the same methodology.
And the whole thing about Republicans constantly projecting, they screamed about vote tampering and then shut up real quick as soon as Trump won. And the obvious fact that Trump and Republicans in general constantly cheat, lie etc. IMO it was obvious even before the election that they would tamper, cheat and do everything illegal and unacceptable in their power to win.
I would like to see the similarities between voting machines in districts overlaid with the results.
Not to mention Musk’s DOGE people publishing their vote generation scrip on Git. You tell it the outcome you want, and it’ll make ballots to match.
So I get how this could sound compelling with that framing, but note that:
Like, take a look at the code - it’s trivial, in large part because it was made by college students in their early academic career. Creating something of similar caliber would be extremely trivial.
That this student hack project would have been used as a part of a greater scheme of election fraud seems highly unlikely.
It’s funny because student hacks are currently being given access to the entire Treasury payment system for the federal government and have leaked classified data about our spying capabilities.
Source? I would love to see if the geniuses signed the commits with their public keys as well.
Your first link gives a Page Not Found.
Seems to load for me. DNS issue maybe?