Possible for election results to be rigged?

[HarryStotle]

Not so fast…

As I posted elsewhere:

There is a good argument for why the Pennsylania state court ruling will be overthrown by the supreme court because it was essentially the state court making election rules which is solely the prerogative of the state legislature.

Details here…

If the argument holds all the ballots counted after the law was in place as stated by the legislature would be thrown out.

We shall see.

 

[farronwolf]

(g) (1) (i) An absentee ballot cast by any absentee elector as defined in section 1301(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) [which is received in the office of the county board of elections after five o’clock P.M. on the Friday immediately preceding the election and no later than five o’clock P.M. on the seventh day following an election] shall be canvassed in accordance with this subsection if [the absentee ballot is postmarked no later than the day immediately preceding the election.] the ballot is cast, submitted and received in accordance with the provisions of 25 Pa.C.S. Ch. 35

From the same statutes that the guy in the video is referring to. The statute is pretty long, anyone else, care to read the entire thing?

 

[LilyM]

Hi,
I don’t know much about politics so please excuse me if this question sounds ignorant. This is the first election where I have followed politics and I’m 45.

Just wondering with all I’m hearing about big tech and main stream media covering for Biden (I really don’t want to dispute that aspect…several examples I’ve seen) it almost seems like there are those that support the democratic party that may be so powerful as to rig the results? Can that even be possible?

Ultimately I know it’s in God’s hands but if it were rigged how would that be found out and what would be the penalty?

Again, I am politically a bit ignorant so sorry if this sounds juvenile but I am sincere in my curiosity. Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut on this.

The funny thing, after looking more closely into the existing lawsuits and their current progress, is this …

A lawsuit was filed in SCOTUS aboiut Wisconsin which found in Trumps favour in relation to some postal.votes. Biden won Wisconsin anyway.

A lawsuit was rejected in Texas which, if successful, would have invalidated 120,000 votes in a largely Democrat area. Trump won Texas anyway despite losing that suit.

Given the number of results Trump would have to flip to win, and that the decisions for and against him don’t seem to have a significant impact on the result either way, I smell a whole lot of.nothingburger on the grill.

 

[whatistrue]

he tried to get the states on board for sorting out election problems.

What he did was set up the spurious justification for what he is doing now. He knew there was a good chance he would lose, and losing is simply inconceivable to him, so he started early throwing around baseless accusations of fraud to prime the pump. And way too many people bought it. But he thing is, that he will now have to provide actual real verifiable evidence rather than just him whining on Twitter if he wants to prevail in court. Any court. And so far there simply isn’t any.

 

[Annie]

he started early throwing around baseless accusations of fraud to prime the pump.

Right, 5 years ago he decided to do that.

I have been hearing about election fraud all my life, and seen evidence for it since the internet. I’m not saying he would have won without it, but it bothers me that we ignore it the way we do.

But as I said, the winners don’t care and the losers can’t do anything about it…

 

[whatistrue]

Right, 5 years ago he decided to do that.

I am not talking about 5 years ago, he really ramped it up in recent months when it started looking like he wouldn’t win easily.

I have been hearing about election fraud all my life, and seen evidence for it since the internet.

Only since the Internet? Then it is likely to be spurious, or in the words of the man who generates the most of it, “fake news”.

the winners don’t care and the losers can’t do anything about it…

Regardless of whether they do, everyone should care. And essentially all I have heard this cycle is more like whining and tantrum throwing than actually providing evidence of real fraud.

 

[Annie]

Only since the Internet?

It is only since the internet that that I personally have seen actual evidence like videos.

Regardless of whether they do, everyone should care.

I agree.

 

[Dolphin]

Political Scientists predicted around 70% of mail in ballots to be Democratic votes and therefore, election night Trump would have a large lead which he would lose in around a week. Nothing that happened was unexpected from an academic perspective, problem is the average American doesn’t know of this research and assumes something got rigged in the process. Don’t believe in conspiracy theories, its not worth it.

 

[whatistrue]

It is only since the internet that that I personally have seen actual evidence like videos.

Have any of these videos been presented to a court? If so, what was the result? If not, why not?

Also we have to keep in mind that some (fortunately rare) individuals will either take a video of something completely different and claim it supports their assertion when it really doesn’t or even in extreme cases completely fabricate a video then claim it as evidence.

 

[puer.dei]

It is only since the internet that that I personally have seen actual evidence like videos.

Not that there’s ever been such a thing as a faked video.

 

[Buks]

I’ve read a few of the replies here and it surprises me that people would say it’s not even possible. Maybe they mean it’s very unlikely that the final result could be guaranteed to a particular candidate. But as is the case with cheating in a contest of any type, it need only be committed in a finely targeted way. The resources needed are limited to where the crucial votes must be. The greater the stakes financially, the less one should say it cannot happen. It seems to me that the stakes in this election were unusually high, with trade agreements vs. tariffs in play.

 

[Annie]

@whatistrue

Love the way people say they want some sort of evidence but downplay any evidence that comes up.

It’s like the way Protestants argue about religion: they want proof, you give them the ECFs, they downplay the ECFs, you give them the Bible, they say it’s just interpretation, and so on.

And frankly, at this point it doesn’t matter. The democrats are going to run this country into the ground anyway, not that the republicans have ever had enough spine to work at doing anything differently.

Bye, bye energy independence, bye, bye jobs for Americans, bye, bye religious freedom…

 

[whatistrue]

Love the way people say they want some sort of evidence but downplay any evidence that comes up.

I, for one, just want solid verifiable evidence, but all too many people think that a tweet from DJT (or JB) or an opinion piece from Breitbart (or Mother Earth News) constitutes evidence. I don’t want to see a repeat of the claim, I want to see actual true verifiable support for the claim, and that tends to be sorely lacking.

Bye, bye energy independence, bye, bye jobs for Americans, bye, bye religious freedom…

If any of this actually happens, and can be verified to have happened because there is a Democrat in the White House, then you can say “I told you so” and I will sit here and say “yes, you did”. If not, will you agree to admit you were wrong?

 

[Annie]

If any of this actually happens, and can be verified to have happened because there is a Democrat in the White House, then you can say “I told you so” and I will sit here and say “yes, you did”. If not, will you agree to admit you were wrong?

BTDT

Fracking, outsourcing/insourcing, and Little Sisters of the Poor.

 

[whatistrue]

Holy galloping goalposts, Batman!!

I guess I can take that as a “no”.

 

[Annie]

If the Democrat presidency it looks like we are going to have turns out to be completely different from what they promised while running, I will admit I was wrong.

But I look at the past record of Democrats and their current promises and do not think I will have to.

 

[whatistrue]

I am not interested in weasel words. If you are bringing up “what they promised” there is too much leeway to say that they “promised” something that they never did because some opponent claimed it as part of the campaign rhetoric. I asked for a commitment based on the list of concrete actions you gave, then you added some and now you want to hedge it even more with too easily reinterpreted caveats.

 

[MNathaniel]

evidence

evidence

evidence

Can we all agree that the places for evidence to be evaluated are courtrooms? And can we all recognize that any evidence (whether we personally suspect it is strong or weak) is indeed proceeding to courtrooms to be analyzed there?

I don’t see much point in speculating, on either side, before the courtrooms have actually analyzed whatever evidence gets presented to them.

These court cases are objectively going to happen. Shouldn’t everyone, regardless of political affiliation or private expectation of outcome, want them to happen? Public trust in election procedures, including the checks and balances for when suspected breaches of election procedures occur, is fundamental to the stability of a country. If the Biden side is confident he won the election by provable legal ballots, awesome! They can relax and encourage the court processes forward, for the sake of the other ‘side’ that needs to see this all happen in the light of day.

As far as I’m concerned, I’m suspending any private assessment until after the courts have made their assessments.

And as far as I’m aware, such results are weeks out. An American election ‘finishes’ (so far as the internet tells me) when the states are certified – in December. The media can project their expectations, but certification is the actual conclusion, and follows recounts, court contests, etc.

So it’s the time of year for hot chocolate, cozy sweaters, and raking leaves. Continued political talk should probably wait a few weeks until there’s actually new data to talk about (in the form of court rulings about whatever evidence is brought to them).

She said, recognizing it’s unlikely many people will actually hit ‘pause’.

 

[Annie]

That was not my intention. Let me use Biden’s own words:

WRT fracking:

he had this exchange with CNN’s Dana Bash during a July 2019 debate:

Bash: “Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?”

Biden: “No, we would – we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either – any fossil fuel.” –Link, CNN

Now, he did end up walking that back, so he didn’t actually promise that during the election process–see the title of the CNN article I got this quote from–so I looked at the DNC platform for this year; everything is going to be greenly clean, so I think just maybe fracking will be affected.

WRT outsourcing/insourcing:

"He (US President Donald Trump) just ended H-1B visas the rest of this year. That will not be in my administration,” –Link–Hindustani Times

WRT religious freedom:

“If I am elected I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the [Supreme Court’s 2014] Hobby Lobby ruling: providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions,” said Biden in July.

“This accommodation will allow women at these organizations to access contraceptive coverage, not through their employer-provided plan, but instead through their insurance company or a third-party administrator.” –Link, CWR

 

[whatistrue]

Whatever. I no longer think that such a deal would work, so think what you like and I will think what I like and we can go over it all again 4 years from now. Or not.