YOU'RE FIRED!

[Miles]

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .



“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"

"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source

So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

[historia]

You have not proven that my scenario would not work in the real world and one big reason why is that you're acting as if your scenarios are the only possible ones.

I'm not suggesting that it's impossible to imagine a scenario where someone could steal your ballot, correctly forge your signature, and get away with it. Just as it's not impossible for someone to use a fake ID to impersonate you at an in-person polling location, forge your signature, and get away with it. It's obviously possible to commit voter fraud.

Rather, I'm challenging your assertion that it would be "simple" and "easy" to do this. In particular, I'm challenging the idea that some group of nefarious actors could pull this off at a large enough scale -- hundreds of thousands of times -- to actually impact an election without leaving behind any evidence that would expose their fraud to election officials.

That scenario is highly implausible, as you seem to recognize:

As we've already seen, any attempt to steal and return mail-in ballots on a scale that would actually impact an election would almost certainly produce thousands of complaints, rejected signatures, and provisional ballots that would expose the attempted fraud to election officials. So your claim that we wouldn't catch this happening is simply untrue. The same would be true of attempted in-person voter fraud.

I agree with your point to a degree if we assume that mail-in ballots were being stolen on a large scale. I still maintain that it can happen and a person can get away with it but this would probably be successful on a small scale

Then there's not much more for us to debate.

If we both agree that large-scale voter fraud would very likely leave behind at least some evidence, then, if there actually was large-scale voter fraud in the 2020 election -- as the President alleges -- his legal team should have no problem producing that evidence in court. So why haven't they?

Small, isolated instances of voter fraud (on both sides) almost certainly happen in every election. But that has little to no impact on the final results. And it certainly doesn't, in itself, provide justification for the President's unfounded and grossly irresponsible claims that he actually won the election and Democrats "stole" it.

Philadelphia has historically voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee for President. So why in the world would nefarious Democratic operatives go around the city trying to steal mail-in ballots from voters who were already most likely to vote for Biden in the first place?

Even though Joe Biden would easily win Philadelphia, but if he could get a greater number of votes there then that would help his overall vote total for the state and increase his chance of winning.

Think about this for a second, though. If your ultimate goal was to increase voter turn out in Philadelphia, what would be a more effective strategy to do that: (a) registering new voters and conducting get-out-the-vote campaigns, or (b) running around the city trying to steal mail-in ballots from voters who are already likely going to vote for Biden in the first place?

The latter is such a high-risk, low-return proposition that it simply doesn't make any sense to do it.

For instance, you said that Pennsylvania voters can only get a ballot in the mail if they explicitly request one. Well that is not right.

Given that you've already agreed with the overarching argument I was making, this is really neither here nor there in our discussion. But your attempt to challenge this fact was rather odd, so I can't help but comment on it.

Here's a report of Pennsylvania voters receiving mailed ballot applications without requesting them

The fact that some Pennsylvania voters received unsolicited applications to vote by mail doesn't contradict the fact that to actually get a ballot in Pennsylvania you have to apply for it.

Here's further corroboration that these reports were received:

Earlier today Secretary Boockvar stated, “we understand that some voters are receiving a mail ballot for the general election when they do not remember applying for one. Pennsylvania is not a state that automatically sends mail ballots to voters. Voters must apply for the ballot for it to be sent to them, and their eligibility and identification is confirmed through that process.

Again, the fact that some (older?) Pennsylvania voters don't remember applying for a mail-in ballot doesn't contradict the fact that voters in Pennsylvania have to request one, especially when the source you are citing confirms that "voters must apply for the ballot for it to be sent to them."

The source also notes (albeit obliquely) that Pennsylvania checks signatures when you apply for a ballot, meaning not just anyone can apply for a ballot on your behalf, let alone steal it, let alone bank on you not noticing. Likewise, states with universal mail-in voting do signature checks on the returned ballots. This is why none of your imagined scenarios ultimately support your claim, there's always at least one or more factors that mitigate against the fraud being "simple" to pull off or "easy" to get away with.

I'm very skeptical of the vote count in any highly partisan (heavily democrat or republican dominated city), so unless you have bipartisan oversight, which Trump legal team complained about LACKING in Philadelphia when observers were not in good positions to observe, then I even see it possible that such counties would allow cheating.

It's true Trump's legal team complained about this to the media. But, when they were in court last week with a lawsuit on this very matter, they actually admitted to the judge that they have had observers in Philadelphia the entire time!

Don't take my word for it. Here's a Republican election official in Philadelphia pointing out that Trump's accusations are completely false. Sad.

So I have to ask you again: What is your concern here? If large-scale, undetectable voter fraud is highly unlikely, and even Trump's lawyers and Republican election officials admit there has been bipartisan oversight of mail-in ballot processing in places like Philadelphia, then, to quote the Bush-appointed judge in that court case I just mention: "I'm sorry, what’s your problem?"

[AgnosticBoy]

You have not proven that my scenario would not work in the real world and one big reason why is that you're acting as if your scenarios are the only possible ones.

I'm not suggesting that it's impossible to imagine a scenario where someone could steal your ballot, correctly forge your signature, and get away with it. Just as it's not impossible for someone to use a fake ID to impersonate you at an in-person polling location, forge your signature, and get away with it. It's obviously possible to commit voter fraud.

So we are in agreement that it can be done. Our only dispute now seems to be the extent to which it can be done. Keep in mind, my focus is not just on if voter fraud can be committed, but it's also on having enough oversight to catch every instance of it, or at least every scenario that you can think of and that you can do something about it. For instance, signature matching should be standard for ALL mail-in ballots, yet you have some places that don't even have that in place. Voter ID should be standard for in-person voting, yet you have some places where that's not even in place.

Rather, I'm challenging your assertion that it would be "simple" and "easy" to do this.

Well, it is simple, relatively speaking. You have more chances of being caught trying to buy alcohol while underage than trying to submit an illegal ballot.

In particular, I'm challenging the idea that some group of nefarious actors could pull this off at a large enough scale -- hundreds of thousands of times -- to actually impact an election without leaving behind any evidence that would expose their fraud to election officials.

To happen on a large scale, it would have to be fraud on many levels, including an inside job involving the election officials themselves. You bring up exposing their fraud to election officials, but I wonder who is watching the election officials in heavily dominated partisan areas? I brought up some areas of concern in my last post involving the manual processing of ballots - there's clearly a lack of oversight for that process, as well.

That scenario is highly implausible, as you seem to recognize:
As we've already seen, any attempt to steal and return mail-in ballots on a scale that would actually impact an election would almost certainly produce thousands of complaints, rejected signatures, and provisional ballots that would expose the attempted fraud to election officials. So your claim that we wouldn't catch this happening is simply untrue. The same would be true of attempted in-person voter fraud.

Your point here is about the degree to which mail-in ballot fraud could happen. I still maintain that it can happen on a small scale whereas you're more focused on a large scale. But just as I brought up earlier in this post, if there are more involved in this fraud besides just the person stealing the ballot, like the election officials also being involved in fraud in a given highly Democrat or Republican area, then large scale fraud can happen, as well.

I agree with your point to a degree if we assume that mail-in ballots were being stolen on a large scale. I still maintain that it can happen and a person can get away with it but this would probably be successful on a small scale

Then there's not much more for us to debate.

If we both agree that large-scale voter fraud would very likely leave behind at least some evidence, then, if there actually was large-scale voter fraud in the 2020 election -- as the President alleges -- his legal team should have no problem producing that evidence in court. So why haven't they?

There is something to debate if we're talking about a "fair" election. In that regard, small scale cheating matters just as much as large-scale cheating in that they are both wrong and an unfair to the candidates and the voter. It seems you're overlooking that just as long the amount of any cheating wouldn't impact the end result. Perhaps partisan Democrats would also overlook that just as long as their side benefits from the cheating and wins.

In terms of court cases, I would wait for the process to play out (like appeals, pending cases, etc.) before drawing any overall conclusions. From my perspective, I'm not just concerned about evidence of actual cheating, but also our ability (or lack thereof) to catch cheating in the first place. Trump won some cases on that in regards to poll observers not being in a good position to observe some of the election officials.

Even though Joe Biden would easily win Philadelphia, but if he could get a greater number of votes there then that would help his overall vote total for the state and increase his chance of winning.

Think about this for a second, though. If your ultimate goal was to increase voter turn out in Philadelphia, what would be a more effective strategy to do that: (a) registering new voters and conducting get-out-the-vote campaigns, or (b) running around the city trying to steal mail-in ballots from voters who are already likely going to vote for Biden in the first place?

The latter is such a high-risk, low-return proposition that it simply doesn't make any sense to do it.

Doing option A does not guarantee that Biden will win. Doing option A and B, where B is used as a backup to make up votes just in case option A is not enough almost guarantees a win for Biden. And keep in mind, it doesn't take doing option B in a massive way, but rather just doing it enough to give Biden a boost, even if it means winning by 2 or more percentage points.

Here's a report of Pennsylvania voters receiving mailed ballot applications without requesting them

The fact that some Pennsylvania voters received unsolicited applications to vote by mail doesn't contradict the fact that to actually get a ballot in Pennsylvania you have to apply for it.

I brought up unsolicited applications because under normal circumstances even that has to be requested by voters but yet we see voters were still getting them without requesting it. As for the ballots, I posted my source for that, as well. My source explains that the problem or confusion, at least in some cases, is that the voters did not have to make a ballot request for each election (the primaries, presidential, and other elections), but rather there was an option they could select (started earlier in the year) where one request applied to all of the 2020 elections.

"Act 77 also created a new option to allow voters to sign up annually to automatically receive mail-in ballots for all elections that year." Source

Again, the fact that some (older?) Pennsylvania voters don't remember applying for a mail-in ballot doesn't contradict the fact that voters in Pennsylvania have to request one, especially when the source you are citing confirms that "voters must apply for the ballot for it to be sent to them."

Under normal circumstances, they must apply, but the point of my source was to show that there are reports of people receiving a ballot without applying for one. Now in some cases, the issue may be confusion or voters unknowingly selecting Act 77 which i explained earlier in this post. I'm not sure how much the DA pressed the matter beyond leaving it up to the voters to make sure they didn't select Act 77, in which case we wouldn't know how many cases were fraud and what was due to Act 77.

The source also notes (albeit obliquely) that Pennsylvania checks signatures when you apply for a ballot, meaning not just anyone can apply for a ballot on your behalf, let alone steal it, let alone bank on you not noticing. Likewise, states with universal mail-in voting do signature checks on the returned ballots. This is why none of your imagined scenarios ultimately support your claim, there's always at least one or more factors that mitigate against the fraud being "simple" to pull off or "easy" to get away with.

The issue here is not just about mail-in applications but the mail-in ballots themselves. There was no signature matching in Pennsylvania for the presidential election. Besides that, please remember that one of my points is that you can't claim that there's cheating if you have no way of catching it to begin with. So even in places were signatures and other technicalities are checked, if they lack bipartisan oversight and monitoring, then my argument still applies. In Philadelphia, a largely Democrat city, Trump observers were not allowed in a good positions to observe the poll workers. They won that lawsuit.

I'm very skeptical of the vote count in any highly partisan (heavily democrat or republican dominated city), so unless you have bipartisan oversight, which Trump legal team complained about LACKING in Philadelphia when observers were not in good positions to observe, then I even see it possible that such counties would allow cheating.

It's true Trump's legal team complained about this to the media. But, when they were in court last week with a lawsuit on this very matter, they actually admitted to the judge that they have had observers in Philadelphia the entire time!

The issue is not if observers were there but rather it's if they were in a good place to carry out their function to observe.

So I have to ask you again: What is your concern here? If large-scale, undetectable voter fraud is highly unlikely, and even Trump's lawyers and Republican election officials admit there has been bipartisan oversight of mail-in ballot processing in places like Philadelphia, then, to quote the Bush-appointed judge in that court case I just mention: "I'm sorry, what’s your problem?"

I'm here to provide a non-partisan perspective (I'm an independent ), and I feel that is important given the partisan-spin that is so common from Democrats and Republicans.

[historia]

In particular, I'm challenging the idea that some group of nefarious actors could pull this off at a large enough scale -- hundreds of thousands of times -- to actually impact an election without leaving behind any evidence that would expose their fraud to election officials.

To happen on a large scale, it would have to be fraud on many levels, including an inside job involving the election officials themselves.

It seems to me you've fundamentally undercut your own argument here.

First, any scheme that requires "fraud on many levels" is, by definition, not "simple" or "easy," so we can now dismiss those claims.

Second, an "inside job involving the election officials themselves" would apply equally to in-person voting as to mail-in ballots. In so far as your hypothesis now requires such nefarious officials, you have no basis to claim that mail-in ballots are particularly problematic, and you've rendered your earlier concerns about the lack of voter verification and strict signature-matching moot. After all, corrupt election officials could just rig the election regardless of the manner of voting or any laws.

In that regard, small scale cheating matters just as much as large-scale cheating in that they are both wrong and an unfair to the candidates and the voter. It seems you're overlooking that just as long the amount of any cheating wouldn't impact the end result.

Fraud on a scale that would actually impact the results of an election obviously matters more than fraud that does not. No voter fraud is a good thing, of course, but small, isolated instances on both sides is simply not relevant to this thread.

In terms of court cases, I would wait for the process to play out (like appeals, pending cases, etc.) before drawing any overall conclusions.

If you want to take longer to reach a conclusion that has been obvious for some time now, that's your prerogative, of course. When you finally catch up to the rest of us -- and reality -- let me know.

Think about this for a second, though. If your ultimate goal was to increase voter turn out in Philadelphia, what would be a more effective strategy to do that: (a) registering new voters and conducting get-out-the-vote campaigns, or (b) running around the city trying to steal mail-in ballots from voters who are already likely going to vote for Biden in the first place?

The latter is such a high-risk, low-return proposition that it simply doesn't make any sense to do it.

Doing option A does not guarantee that Biden will win. Doing option A and B, where B is used as a backup to make up votes just in case option A is not enough almost guarantees a win for Biden. And keep in mind, it doesn't take doing option B in a massive way, but rather just doing it enough to give Biden a boost, even if it means winning by 2 or more percentage points.

I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

Philadelphia mail-in ballots went over 90% for Biden -- which is not surprising given that Philadelphia votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and mail-in votes lean even more Democratic than the city as a whole.

That means that, for every 10 ballots you stole in the city, nine would have voted for Biden anyway. So you would have to steal, on average, 10 ballots just to net one additional Biden vote.

Do the math: Nefarious actors would have to steal fully 40% of all mail-in ballots in Philadelphia just to improve Biden's vote within the city by 2%. And that assumes none of those people decide to cast a provisional ballot, negating the stolen ballot. If even just half do so, you'd have to steal fully 80% of all mail-in ballots in Philadelphia to pick up a meager 2% improvement!

This is utterly impractical. Your argument here is simply detached from reality.

The fact that some Pennsylvania voters received unsolicited applications to vote by mail doesn't contradict the fact that to actually get a ballot in Pennsylvania you have to apply for it.

I brought up unsolicited applications because under normal circumstances even that has to be requested by voters but yet we see voters were still getting them without requesting it. As for the ballots, I posted my source for that, as well. My source explains that the problem or confusion, at least in some cases, is that the voters did not have to make a ballot request for each election (the primaries, presidential, and other elections), but rather there was an option they could select (started earlier in the year) where one request applied to all of the 2020 elections.

So, in other words, to receive a mail-in ballot in Pennsylvania, you have to apply for it -- which is precisely what I said. Glad we cleared that up.

Trump won some cases on that in regards to poll observers not being in a good position to observe some of the election officials.

In Philadelphia, a largely Democrat city, Trump observers were not allowed in a good positions to observe the poll workers. They won that lawsuit.

Trump winning "cases" (plural) on this matter would require him to win more than one, which he has not done. He actually lost this specific case in Pennsylvania on appeal. Sad.

So I have to ask you again: What is your concern here? If large-scale, undetectable voter fraud is highly unlikely, and even Trump's lawyers and Republican election officials admit there has been bipartisan oversight of mail-in ballot processing in places like Philadelphia, then, to quote the Bush-appointed judge in that court case I just mention: "I'm sorry, what’s your problem?"

I'm here to provide a non-partisan perspective (I'm an independent ), and I feel that is important given the partisan-spin that is so common from Democrats and Republicans.

I didn't ask what your voter registration is, I asked what your problem with the vote in Philadelphia is. If the top Republican election official in the city says there's not even a hint of fraud, it seems to me you are not in a good position to argue otherwise.

In fact, it seems to me that, given everything you said in this thread, you should be much more concerned about voter fraud in rural, Republican areas than a city like Philadelphia. The fact you haven't said two words about the former, while focusing intently on the latter, suggests rather strongly this was never a good-faith argument to begin with.

[AgnosticBoy]

To happen on a large scale, it would have to be fraud on many levels, including an inside job involving the election officials themselves.

It seems to me you've fundamentally undercut your own argument here.

First, any scheme that requires "fraud on many levels" is, by definition, not "simple" or "easy," so we can now dismiss those claims.

You are focusing too much on the words "simple" and "easy". As I brought up before, you haven't disproved that cheating and mistakes can happen, but rather you've been addressing the extent to which both can happen. So it seems safe to presume that you acknowledge that election cheating and mistakes can occur but our dispute is the extent to which it can (or does) occur. I don't consider an election "fair" when cheating and mistakes can occur, especially when something can be done to prevent it, but it's not done. Even if there's no proof of cheating, I would still be an agnostic, given the fact that there is a lack of oversight to catch and/or prevent various forms of cheating and error in the first place.

Apparently, based on the recount in Georgia, we now know that it's possible for voters to receive confirmation that their ballot was accepted but NOT receive confirmation that their vote was counted. If that weren't the case, then why did it take a RECOUNT (as opposed to voters reporting the issue) to notice that votes, thousands of votes, weren't counted? Who's to say how many other votes are missing?
"A second Georgia county has uncovered a trove of votes not previously included in election results, but the additional votes won’t change the overall outcome of the presidential race, the secretary of state’s office said Tuesday."
Source: AP

Second, an "inside job involving the election officials themselves" would apply equally to in-person voting as to mail-in ballots. In so far as your hypothesis now requires such nefarious officials, you have no basis to claim that mail-in ballots are particularly problematic, and you've rendered your earlier concerns about the lack of voter verification and strict signature-matching moot. After all, corrupt election officials could just rig the election regardless of the manner of voting or any laws.

In a sense, you may as well just ask why don't the election officials just cheat in every way possible, which includes doing it in the open. Just throw away all of Trump's votes so that Biden wins everything!

The clear reason why a cheater would cheat in some ways and not in others is because they want to avoid getting caught. Given a cheater's thinking, he or she would likely choose the path involving the least oversight, something believable or less questionable, and I'd argue that mail-in ballots is the easier route to cheat.

In that regard, small scale cheating matters just as much as large-scale cheating in that they are both wrong and an unfair to the candidates and the voter. It seems you're overlooking that just as long the amount of any cheating wouldn't impact the end result.

Fraud on a scale that would actually impact the results of an election obviously matters more than fraud that does not. No voter fraud is a good thing, of course, but small, isolated instances on both sides is simply not relevant to this thread.

If the only standard was considering who wins the election, even after all proven cheating is made known, then your point is correct. However, I was addressing a point about "fair" elections which is something that your point falls short of. I've made my case for exactly why I'm agnostic on if American elections are "fair" given the fact that we lack the oversight and transparency to catch some cheating in the first place (esp. given the large increase in mail-in ballots).

In terms of court cases, I would wait for the process to play out (like appeals, pending cases, etc.) before drawing any overall conclusions.

If you want to take longer to reach a conclusion that has been obvious for some time now, that's your prerogative, of course. When you finally catch up to the rest of us -- and reality -- let me know.

So now you're trying to fault me for being undecided on this issue. If I were to play the same game, I could easily say liberals are quick to dismiss all claims against the presidential election being "fair" (or even points about the potential for unfair practices) given that their guy won. I won't play that game with you historia, and if anything, such games are what tend to drive people away from the two major American political parties.

I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

Philadelphia mail-in ballots went over 90% for Biden -- which is not surprising given that Philadelphia votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and mail-in votes lean even more Democratic than the city as a whole.

That means that, for every 10 ballots you stole in the city, nine would have voted for Biden anyway. So you would have to steal, on average, 10 ballots just to net one additional Biden vote.

I see alternatives to some of your conclusions. You say that 90% of mail-in votes were for Biden. Given that Philadelphia is a largely Democrat city, I would expect Biden to get a majority votes, but that doesn't necessarily translate into getting such a high of margin (90%?) of mail-in voting since Democrats can also vote in-person. So there is some speculation on your part on just how big of a majority we would expect from mail-in voting.

Perhaps one way to work around this is to compare the number of votes caste in the 2016 and the 2020 election. Perhaps some might say, if the numbers of votes from Democrats are similar then there's nothing wrong. But then that assumes that Trump wouldn't have flipped any Democrats or Independents to Republican or that the same number of voters that turned out for Hillary Clinton would've also turned out for Joe Biden (as opposed to not voting at all). You're also assuming that the large difference in mail-in votes weren't a result of lax rules and fraud, which allowed more mail-in ballots to be accepted compared to what would be accepted if there were more stringent rules. According to one official source, about 67% of registered Philadelphia voters actually voted in the 2020 presidential election (source).

Do the math: Nefarious actors would have to steal fully 40% of all mail-in ballots in Philadelphia just to improve Biden's vote within the city by 2%. And that assumes none of those people decide to cast a provisional ballot, negating the stolen ballot. If even just half do so, you'd have to steal fully 80% of all mail-in ballots in Philadelphia to pick up a meager 2% improvement!

I'm not entirely sure how you came up with the result in the first sentence, but either way 2% does matter. In fact, Biden won Pennsylvania by less than 2%. This shows that every vote matters, even if it leads to 2% more votes over your opponent.

I brought up unsolicited applications because under normal circumstances even that has to be requested by voters but yet we see voters were still getting them without requesting it. As for the ballots, I posted my source for that, as well. My source explains that the problem or confusion, at least in some cases, is that the voters did not have to make a ballot request for each election (the primaries, presidential, and other elections), but rather there was an option they could select (started earlier in the year) where one request applied to all of the 2020 elections.

So, in other words, to receive a mail-in ballot in Pennsylvania, you have to apply for it -- which is precisely what I said. Glad we cleared that up.

Technically, you are correct if we're considering normal circumstances (what's supposed to happen) but as my source says, people were getting ballots without applying for them. Beyond that, I'm mainly disagreeing with this point of yours in post #9:
"Second, if you never got the mail-in ballot you explicitly requested, you would almost certainly check the Pennsylvania state ballot tracker website (to discover someone else already turned it in!) or go in-person to cast a provisional ballot."

That makes it seem that the time between applying for a ballot and receiving it was short - so short that the applicant would already be tracking it. But keep in mind that the option to select a mail-in ballot could've been made early in the year (possibly as early as February 2020). Applying for something that early would've led many to forget that they applied for something, especially if they weren't going to receive it late into the year. That is precisely one explanation the Philly DA gave for people reporting to receive a ballot without applying for it. I offered my sources for this in my last post. But the main point is that even if people applied for it, that doesn't mean they were expecting it when some forget or didn't understand that they had applied a long time ago.

I'm here to provide a non-partisan perspective (I'm an independent ), and I feel that is important given the partisan-spin that is so common from Democrats and Republicans.

I didn't ask what your voter registration is, I asked what your problem with the vote in Philadelphia is. If the top Republican election official in the city says there's not even a hint of fraud, it seems to me you are not in a good position to argue otherwise.

My problem with the voting in Philadelphia was their lax rules on mail-in ballots, mainly the lack of signature verification. Then there's also my other point about the potential for cheating. Perhaps, out of some sense of nationalism, Americans don't want to believe that their system is open to cheating. But I'm not afraid nor too political to admit it, especially when I have logic and evidence to support my view.

In fact, it seems to me that, given everything you said in this thread, you should be much more concerned about voter fraud in rural, Republican areas than a city like Philadelphia. The fact you haven't said two words about the former, while focusing intently on the latter, suggests rather strongly this was never a good-faith argument to begin with.

I request that you refrain from your partisan/personal remarks about me. This is precisely the reason I told you I am an independent, and yet you're still trying to imply that I only want to focus on Democrats. I suppose just questioning or arguing for something that just happens to be on the side of Republicans (or is it just Trump?) makes me some sneaky Republican ::

[historia]

You are focusing too much on the words "simple" and "easy". As I brought up before, you haven't disproved that cheating and mistakes can happen, but rather you've been addressing the extent to which both can happen. So it seems safe to presume that you acknowledge that election cheating and mistakes can occur but our dispute is the extent to which it can (or does) occur. I don't consider an election "fair" when cheating and mistakes can occur, especially when something can be done to prevent it, but it's not done. Even if there's no proof of cheating, I would still be an agnostic, given the fact that there is a lack of oversight to catch and/or prevent various forms of cheating and error in the first place.

Apparently, based on the recount in Georgia, we now know that it's possible for voters to receive confirmation that their ballot was accepted but NOT receive confirmation that their vote was counted. If that weren't the case, then why did it take a RECOUNT (as opposed to voters reporting the issue) to notice that votes, thousands of votes, weren't counted? Who's to say how many other votes are missing?

It seems we've reached something of an epistemological impasse here.

If your overarching argument is that you simply aren't willing to form a conclusion about what likely happened in an election so long as it is merely possible that voters can commit fraud or election officials can make a mistake, then you will never be able to form a conclusion about any election, since it will always be possible for those things to occur.

We could put in place the most stringent voter identification laws and implement the most robust election oversight imaginable, and yet it would still be possible to subvert both. We can never be completely certain about what happened in an election, so setting that as the bar that has to be met before reaching a conclusion about who legitimately won is simply unreasonable.

In that regard, small scale cheating matters just as much as large-scale cheating in that they are both wrong and an unfair to the candidates and the voter. It seems you're overlooking that just as long the amount of any cheating wouldn't impact the end result.

Fraud on a scale that would actually impact the results of an election obviously matters more than fraud that does not. No voter fraud is a good thing, of course, but small, isolated instances on both sides is simply not relevant to this thread.

If the only standard was considering who wins the election, even after all proven cheating is made known, then your point is correct.

Then, once again, there is not much left for us to debate.

The question posed in this thread was not whether voter fraud is possible (of course it is!) or whether we live in a perfect world where election officials never make any mistakes (of course we don't!) -- if so, I could better appreciate your argument.

Rather, the question under consideration is what the President will do now that he has lost the election. It seems your argument was that we should actually refrain from concluding Trump lost and take his accusations of voter fraud seriously because such fraud is, as you claimed, "easy" to pull off.

But the subsequent discussion showed that is simply not the case. Large-scale voter fraud of the kind that Trump is alleging would almost certainly produce evidence. And yet, Trump's legal team has not presented any evidence of wide-spread fraud that would hold up in a court of law -- most likely because none exists.

Can we concoct ever more elaborate conspiracy theories involving corrupt election officials to explain away the lack of evidence? Sure, one can always salvage a failed hypothesis by adding ad hoc suppositions. Hell, to explain why even Republican election officials didn't notice all this supposed fraud, Trump's crack legal team -- sorry, "independent lawyers" -- are now claiming some Republicans were in on the conspiracy too!

But the mere fact that fraud or conspiracies are possible is simply not a sufficient reason to seriously entertain such theories -- or remain "agnostic" about them -- when those making the allegations have not offered compelling evidence. Especially when a much simpler explanation exists that readily explains the vote: An unpopular incumbent lost to a challenger who polls showed was most likely going to win the election.

So now you're trying to fault me for being undecided on this issue. I could easily say liberals are quick to dismiss all claims against the presidential election being "fair" (or even points about the potential for unfair practices) given that their guy won.

I'm not sure why you think my comments here are partisan. I have little patience for Democrats whining about how the election isn't "fair" because of voter suppression when they lose elections too.

And there are plenty of Republicans who recognize that the President has "failed to make even a plausible case of widespread fraud or conspiracy before any court of law," as Romney noted, and that "the conduct of the president's legal team has been a national embarrassment," so Chris Christie.

Look, for Trump to overturn the results of this election, he had to convince courts in three different states to throw-out tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of ballots. That was always a highly unlikely outcome, even if he had substantial evidence of fraud and top-notch election lawyers. In this instance, however, he has neither. There's a good reason Team Trump is 1-38 in post-election lawsuits.

That's been obvious for awhile now.

[historia]

On the City of Brotherly Love:

I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

Philadelphia mail-in ballots went over 90% for Biden -- which is not surprising given that Philadelphia votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and mail-in votes lean even more Democratic than the city as a whole.

I see alternatives to some of your conclusions. You say that 90% of mail-in votes were for Biden. Given that Philadelphia is a largely Democrat city, I would expect Biden to get a majority votes, but that doesn't necessarily translate into getting such a high of margin (90%?) of mail-in voting since Democrats can also vote in-person. So there is some speculation on your part on just how big of a majority we would expect from mail-in voting.

On the contrary, that number is perfectly in line with what we would expect given the facts.

Consider that 76% of the residents of the city are registered Democrats. And, since 2000, the Democratic nominee for president has garnered between 80%-85% of the vote (obviously winning over some Democratic-leaning independents as part of that total).

Further, 84% of the applications to vote by mail in Philadelphia this year came from registered Democrats, with over 90% of the votes from mail-in ballots going for Biden (obviously winning over some Democratic-leaning independents who also applied to vote by mail).

None of that is surprising. See this article from Temple University and these stats from the Pennsylvania Department of State for the 2020 numbers. Wikipedia has historical stats on the 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 election results in Philadelphia.

That means that, for every 10 ballots you stole in the city, nine would have voted for Biden anyway. So you would have to steal, on average, 10 ballots just to net one additional Biden vote.

Do the math: Nefarious actors would have to steal fully 40% of all mail-in ballots in Philadelphia just to improve Biden's vote within the city by 2%. And that assumes none of those people decide to cast a provisional ballot, negating the stolen ballot. If even just half do so, you'd have to steal fully 80% of all mail-in ballots in Philadelphia to pick up a meager 2% improvement!

I'm not entirely sure how you came up with the result in the first sentence

Take the total number of votes in Philadelphia (741,377) and multiply it by .02 to get the total number of votes needed to improve Biden's total by 2% (= 14,828). Since you would need to steal 10 ballots to net one additional Biden vote, multiply the votes you need by 10 to get the number of ballots you need to steal (= 148,280). Divide that by the total number of mail-in ballots (370,361) to get the percentage of the ballots you need to steal (= 40%). And that's a conservative estimate.

We can quibble over the exact numbers, but the overall point here should be blindingly obvious to everyone: Stealing ballots from people who were already overwhelmingly going to vote for your candidate is a nonsensical scheme. You're just robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is neither practical nor remotely plausible to pull off without leaving behind evidence. If this is what you're worried about, your concerns are misplaced.

Finally, let me just note that Biden's overall vote percentage in Philadelphia (81%) was less than Clinton's in 2016 (83%).

My problem with the voting in Philadelphia was their lax rules on mail-in ballots, mainly the lack of signature verification.

That is precisely one explanation the Philly DA gave for people reporting to receive a ballot without applying for it. I offered my sources for this in my last post.

To be fair, I shouldn't have impugned your motives, AgnosticBoy. I retract that statement.

But your rationale for focusing on Philadelphia seems a bit confused.

First, you do realize that states, rather than cities, set rules for things like signature verification on mail-in ballots, right? This is a rule set by the state of Pennsylvania, not the city of Philadelphia -- it's not "their rule."

Second, you didn't quote the "Philly DA" in your previous post -- district attorneys don't oversee elections -- but rather the Secretary of State and Attorney General of the state of Pennsylvania, since, again, it is states, rather than cities, that set election rules.

Logically, then, you should be just as concerned about the potential for cheating in rural, Republican areas of Pennsylvania as Philadelphia, since they all follow the same "lax rules." In fact, it would seem that you should be even more concerned about those rural counties. After all, as we've seen, the top Republican election official in Philadelphia has already told us there is no evidence of fraud there. Where are the top Democratic election officials for those rural counties who can say the same? Do those counties even have the same bipartisan oversight as Philadelphia?

[AgnosticBoy]

It seems we've reached something of an epistemological impasse here.

If your overarching argument is that you simply aren't willing to form a conclusion about what likely happened in an election so long as it is merely possible that voters can commit fraud or election officials can make a mistake, then you will never be able to form a conclusion about any election, since it will always be possible for those things to occur.

We could put in place the most stringent voter identification laws and implement the most robust election oversight imaginable, and yet it would still be possible to subvert both. We can never be completely certain about what happened in an election, so setting that as the bar that has to be met before reaching a conclusion about who legitimately won is simply unreasonable.

We can never be absolutely certain, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to be as certain as possible. Therefore, if you KNOW that there is a lack of oversight to catch errors or fraud, and there's a way to fix the problem, then it should be fixed. Why would someone turn down more security on such an important matter (esp. given the 2016 presidential election interference)? Some state elections lack basic things such as identification, something which you need to present in order to buy a beer. This is inexcusable. I mean you have a system in place where voters ballots can sit there and not get loaded into the computer, and the voter has no way of knowing unless there's a RECOUNT. That happened in Georgia and who's to say where else or the degree to which that happens?

The question posed in this thread was not whether voter fraud is possible (of course it is!) or whether we live in a perfect world where election officials never make any mistakes (of course we don't!) -- if so, I could better appreciate your argument.

A member made an unqualified claim about the elections being fair, and that's the claim that I've been challenging. If the member meant what you are claiming then he should've specified his claim, and in fairness I did specify my challenge early on:
" I challenged your claim that the 2020 election process was a "fair" election if you intend that to mean that there was no cheating or no way to cheat." (Post #6).

My challenge or argument went unanswered and you've acknowledged that my point was valid. More specifically to your qualified claim, I'm not expecting perfection just as I'm sure you're not expecting an election with no oversight or monitoring just because they are not perfect. Of course, despite the imperfections, we should still strive for the best of security and oversight. Who (or perhaps a better question, is WHY ) would turn down more security? If you KNOW that there is a lack of oversight to catch errors or fraud, and there's a way to fix the problem, then it should be fixed.

Rather, the question under consideration is what the President will do now that he has lost the election. It seems your argument was that we should actually refrain from concluding Trump lost and take his accusations of voter fraud seriously because such fraud is, as you claimed, "easy" to pull off.

You're jumping the gun by saying that Trump lost the election or that he has no valid points. His points are valid when it comes to there being a lack of oversight in elections, and that's especially the case in some predominantly Democrat run states and cities. There is no harm giving him time to make his case or to at least investigate the matter, and legally he has until Dec. 8 to do those things.

"States must certify election outcomes at least six days before the Electoral College meets — known as the “safe harbor” deadline — if they want to avoid Congress getting involved in resolving potential disputes. That means any court challenges to state election results must be settled by Dec. 8, 2020."
- CNBC.

Also, no one is officially recognized as president until Congress counts the Electoral College votes.
"When Americans cast their ballots for president on Nov. 3, they weren’t voting directly for Biden or the incumbent, President Donald Trump, but rather for their state’s electors. Members of the Electoral College cast their votes for president on behalf of their states. Then, Congress convenes to count the electoral votes and announce the results of the election."
- CNBC.

But the subsequent discussion showed that is simply not the case. Large-scale voter fraud of the kind that Trump is alleging would almost certainly produce evidence. And yet, Trump's legal team has not presented any evidence of wide-spread fraud that would hold up in a court of law -- most likely because none exists.

Can we concoct ever more elaborate conspiracy theories involving corrupt election officials to explain away the lack of evidence? Sure, one can always salvage a failed hypothesis by adding ad hoc suppositions. Hell, to explain why even Republican election officials didn't notice all this supposed fraud, Trump's crack legal team -- sorry, "independent lawyers" -- are now claiming some Republicans were in on the conspiracy too!

But the mere fact that fraud or conspiracies are possible is simply not a sufficient reason to seriously entertain such theories -- or remain "agnostic" about them -- when those making the allegations have not offered compelling evidence. Especially when a much simpler explanation exists that readily explains the vote: An unpopular incumbent lost to a challenger who polls showed was most likely going to win the election.

As i mentioned several times already, I'm not expecting some perfect standard but some of the things I'm pointing out are so basic that it's questionable not to have them in place. To have an election where you don't even have to upload the votes into the computer and that issue is not caught until a Recount (assuming one is done in the first place) is ordered is highly problematic, especially in a close election.

Personally, I won't lean further towards any side until I see a hand recount in Pennsylvania (or even just in heavily dominated Democrat areas), and I'd want one done with bipartisan oversight. Auditing the manual processing of those mail-in ballots (like signature matching, postmarked dates, etc.) and other standards would be nice, as well.

So now you're trying to fault me for being undecided on this issue. I could easily say liberals are quick to dismiss all claims against the presidential election being "fair" (or even points about the potential for unfair practices) given that their guy won.

I'm not sure why you think my comments here are partisan. I have little patience for Democrats whining about how the election isn't "fair" because of voter suppression when they lose elections too.

I just take issue with members who try to push or pressure others to see it as they see it. Many may see and think about these matters in black-and-white terms, but as an agnostic I tend to see a lot of gray areas. But as I mentioned before, I'm willing to come off of the fence pending the result of a Philadelphia recount with adequate bipartisan oversight.

I see alternatives to some of your conclusions. You say that 90% of mail-in votes were for Biden. Given that Philadelphia is a largely Democrat city, I would expect Biden to get a majority votes, but that doesn't necessarily translate into getting such a high of margin (90%?) of mail-in voting since Democrats can also vote in-person. So there is some speculation on your part on just how big of a majority we would expect from mail-in voting.

On the contrary, that number is perfectly in line with what we would expect given the facts.

Consider that 76% of the residents of the city are registered Democrats. And, since 2000, the Democratic nominee for president has garnered between 80%-85% of the vote (obviously winning over some Democratic-leaning independents as part of that total).

Further, 84% of the applications to vote by mail in Philadelphia this year came from registered Democrats, with over 90% of the votes from mail-in ballots going for Biden (obviously winning over some Democratic-leaning independents who also applied to vote by mail).

The issue with me is not the margin of victory for Biden but rather it's the way in which he won. He won by mail-in ballots and that's the method that I'm questioning given all of the lax standards surrounding it. All other past elections were won mostly in-person voting. Now it's reasonable to point out that Democrats have won 80% of the Philadelphia's votes on average in past elections and that percentage is consistent with this year's election. Here's two points to consider:
- First, it's reasonable to consider that we're dealing with mail-in votes this time and those tend to have a high rate of rejection compared to in-person votes. (source)
- Secondly, I don't completely buy your margin of victory point because you assume that Biden couldn't have underperformed or that Trump couldn't have overperformed. Keep in mind, if Biden underperformed by just by TWO percent (getting 78% of the vote in Philadelphia) or if Trump overperformed by just TWO percentage points, then Trump could've won the state. It may not seem like a big deal to be off on your predictions by just TWO percentage points, but when that's all it would've taken for a candidate to win, then that is a big deal (Biden won Pennsylvania by 1.5%).

Take the total number of votes in Philadelphia (741,377) and multiply it by .02 to get the total number of votes needed to improve Biden's total by 2% (= 14,828). Since you would need to steal 10 ballots to net one additional Biden vote, multiply the votes you need by 10 to get the number of ballots you need to steal (= 148,280). Divide that by the total number of mail-in ballots (370,361) to get the percentage of the ballots you need to steal (= 40%). And that's a conservative estimate.

Thanks for showing the work. I understand the first sentence but the only problem I see is that you used the overall vote total which includes both candidates, instead of using only Biden's vote total to figure out a 2% increase for just Biden. Biden received a total of 604,175 in Philadelphia (source). A 2% increase of that number would be about 12,083 more votes (Biden's vote count would go from 604,175 to 616,258).

I also understand the 2nd sentence but only up to the comma. I don't understand your analysis after the comma. You say that it would take Biden getting 148,280 more votes to increase his vote count by 2% but I thought you already figured out that number in the first sentence. Needing 14,828 votes for a 2% increase for Biden is much much less than the 148,280 you cited in the 2nd sentence. Also, you're working within the overall total of mail-in votes in Philadelphia (370,361, based on your data). Biden already gets 90% of those votes which would be 333,324. Needing to steal 148,280 on top of the 333,324 mail-in votes would put him over the total number of mail-in votes, so there's no room for your analysis to work unless you go beyond the total number of mail-in votes. Either way, this doesn't change my overall point that just a 2% advantage would help a candidate win, since every vote matters and Biden won by 1.5% afterall.

To be fair, I shouldn't have impugned your motives, AgnosticBoy. I retract that statement.

But your rationale for focusing on Philadelphia seems a bit confused.

First, you do realize that states, rather than cities, set rules for things like signature verification on mail-in ballots, right? This is a rule set by the state of Pennsylvania, not the city of Philadelphia -- it's not "their rule."

Second, you didn't quote the "Philly DA" in your previous post -- district attorneys don't oversee elections -- but rather the Secretary of State and Attorney General of the state of Pennsylvania, since, again, it is states, rather than cities, that set election rules.

Logically, then, you should be just as concerned about the potential for cheating in rural, Republican areas of Pennsylvania as Philadelphia, since they all follow the same "lax rules." In fact, it would seem that you should be even more concerned about those rural counties. After all, as we've seen, the top Republican election official in Philadelphia has already told us there is no evidence of fraud there. Where are the top Democratic election officials for those rural counties who can say the same? Do those counties even have the same bipartisan oversight as Philadelphia?

Bringing up a Republican or Democrat area where cheating and errors are involved would support my point. Also, i don't have to focus on all areas or states since just one example would support my point. I've been focusing on Democrat areas because they tend to have the more lax voter rules so it makes it easier to prove my point. It's also where Trump's legal team have been focusing, and so it's more relevant.

[historia]

I just take issue with members who try to push or pressure others to see it as they see it.

The point of a debate is not to convince the person you are debating to change their mind, but rather to convince the audience you have made the better case. Personally, I don't care what you believe. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Why would someone turn down more security on such an important matter (esp. given the 2016 presidential election interference)?

Since no one in this thread has said they would turn this down, it seems you are attacking a straw man argument here.

A member made an unqualified claim about the elections being fair, and that's the claim that I've been challenging. If the member meant what you are claiming then he should've specified his claim, and in fairness I did specify my challenge early on:
" I challenged your claim that the 2020 election process was a "fair" election if you intend that to mean that there was no cheating or no way to cheat." (Post #6).

I see. I can assure you that when people use the term "fair" they almost certainly don't mean perfect, as you have defined it here. To that end, it seems you have been attacking a straw man argument here.

I'm not expecting perfection just as I'm sure you're not expecting an election with no oversight or monitoring just because they are not perfect.

Good, then we should be able to draw reasonable conclusions about this election despite the fact that we can never be completely certain of all that took place and no election, including this one, is perfect.

You're jumping the gun by saying that Trump lost the election or that he has no valid points.

Since no one has said that Trump has "no valid points," we can, once again, set aside a straw man argument.

To say that I'm "jumping the gun" in claiming Trump lost the election, however, is simply absurd.

Again, Trump's legal team has not been able to demonstrate widespread fraud in any court in this country, with many of their lawsuits being tossed out by judges for farcically bad arguments. Trump's own Attorney General admitted he has seen no evidence of fraud that would change the results of the election. And enough states have certified their results to give Biden 270 electors. It's over, and that has been obvious for weeks now.

There is no harm giving him time to make his case or to at least investigate the matter

Except that Trump is not merely expressing concerns about election oversight or investigating election irregularities. Rather, he is claiming outright and in ALL CAPS that he won the election "in a landslide" and that Democrats, Republican election officials, and the so-called Deep State "stole" it from him. He's also openly pressuring Republican state legislators and governors to simply discard certified election results and put forward their own slate of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College.

This is gross, pathetic, and deeply undemocratic. Having the President of the United States spreading deranged, easily-debunked conspiracy theories and making a public spectacle of himself degrades the office that he holds and our standing in the world. The fact that millions of Americans have been taken in by this thicket of lies erodes the social fabric and faith in our democratic institutions. Trump supporters like Michael Flynn have even gone so far as to call for the suspension of the Constitution and the imposition of martial law.

I fear this will also do deep, lasting damage to the Republican party and the conservative movement, as young people and college-educated voters recoil in horror at all of this craziness.

It even does harm to the election oversight and fraud concerns you've expressed in this thread. By mixing those serious concerns with a slew of unserious and totally absurd conspiracy theories and an avalanche of misinformation, Trump has buried any legitimate issues around election integrity under a mountain of bull sh*t that will cause many in this country to dismiss all of it together as nuttery.

Many may see and think about these matters in black-and-white terms, but as an agnostic I tend to see a lot of gray areas.

I also think that the world is full of grey areas. But, just because things are rarely black and white, doesn't mean they are all the same shade of grey. Just because we can't be completely certain about this election doesn't mean we should retreat into a paralyzing position of uncertainty where we can't say who most likely won.

I'm willing to come off of the fence pending the result of a Philadelphia recount with adequate bipartisan oversight.

Why? Even if you threw out every single vote in Philadelphia, and handed Trump all 20 of Pennsylvania's electors, Biden would still win the presidential election.

I see alternatives to some of your conclusions. You say that 90% of mail-in votes were for Biden. Given that Philadelphia is a largely Democrat city, I would expect Biden to get a majority votes, but that doesn't necessarily translate into getting such a high of margin (90%?) of mail-in voting since Democrats can also vote in-person. So there is some speculation on your part on just how big of a majority we would expect from mail-in voting.

On the contrary, that number is perfectly in line with what we would expect given the facts.

Consider that 76% of the residents of the city are registered Democrats. And, since 2000, the Democratic nominee for president has garnered between 80%-85% of the vote (obviously winning over some Democratic-leaning independents as part of that total).

Further, 84% of the applications to vote by mail in Philadelphia this year came from registered Democrats, with over 90% of the votes from mail-in ballots going for Biden (obviously winning over some Democratic-leaning independents who also applied to vote by mail).

The issue with me is not the margin of victory for Biden but rather it's the way in which he won. He won by mail-in ballots and that's the method that I'm questioning given all of the lax standards surrounding it. All other past elections were won mostly in-person voting. Now it's reasonable to point out that Democrats have won 80% of the Philadelphia's votes on average in past elections and that percentage is consistent with this year's election. Here's two points to consider:
- First, it's reasonable to consider that we're dealing with mail-in votes this time and those tend to have a high rate of rejection compared to in-person votes. (source)
- Secondly, I don't completely buy your margin of victory point because you assume that Biden couldn't have underperformed or that Trump couldn't have overperformed. Keep in mind, if Biden underperformed by just by TWO percent (getting 78% of the vote in Philadelphia) or if Trump overperformed by just TWO percentage points, then Trump could've won the state. It may not seem like a big deal to be off on your predictions by just TWO percentage points, but when that's all it would've taken for a candidate to win, then that is a big deal (Biden won Pennsylvania by 1.5%).

Take the total number of votes in Philadelphia (741,377) and multiply it by .02 to get the total number of votes needed to improve Biden's total by 2% (= 14,828). Since you would need to steal 10 ballots to net one additional Biden vote, multiply the votes you need by 10 to get the number of ballots you need to steal (= 148,280). Divide that by the total number of mail-in ballots (370,361) to get the percentage of the ballots you need to steal (= 40%). And that's a conservative estimate.

Thanks for showing the work. I understand the first sentence but the only problem I see is that you used the overall vote total which includes both candidates, instead of using only Biden's vote total to figure out a 2% increase for just Biden. Biden received a total of 604,175 in Philadelphia (source). A 2% increase of that number would be about 12,083 more votes (Biden's vote count would go from 604,175 to 616,258).

Sorry, but you seem to have completely lost track of the point that I was making. The numbers you're quibbling over here don't affect my argument at all.

Either way, this doesn't change my overall point that just a 2% advantage would help a candidate win, since every vote matters and Biden won by 1.5% afterall.

No one is suggesting that a 2% increase in vote share wouldn't help a candidate win. That's obviously true.

Your earlier comment that a 2% increase in Philadelphia would "guarantee" Biden a win is obviously erroneous. After all, Clinton in 2016 did 2% better than Biden in Philadelphia, and yet lost Pennsylvania. Likewise, Trump increased his vote share in Philadelphia by 3% over 2016, yet lost Pennsylvania this time around. Noting that Biden won the state by 1.5% is mixing apples and orange groves, of course.

But that's neither here nor there. The point I'm making is not that a 2% increase in Biden's Philadelphia vote wouldn't help him, but rather that trying to achieve that goal by stealing ballots is impractical and nonsensical.

Take the total number of votes in Philadelphia (741,377) and multiply it by .02 to get the total number of votes needed to improve Biden's total by 2% (= 14,828). Since you would need to steal 10 ballots to net one additional Biden vote, multiply the votes you need by 10 to get the number of ballots you need to steal (= 148,280). Divide that by the total number of mail-in ballots (370,361) to get the percentage of the ballots you need to steal (= 40%). And that's a conservative estimate.

I also understand the 2nd sentence but only up to the comma. I don't understand your analysis after the comma. You say that it would take Biden getting 148,280 more votes to increase his vote count by 2%

No, I said you have to steal 148,280 ballots. Since 90% of the ballots you steal were already going to vote for Biden anyway, to net an additional 14,828 Biden votes you need to steal ten times that number of ballots.

Also, you're working within the overall total of mail-in votes in Philadelphia (370,361, based on your data). Biden already gets 90% of those votes which would be 333,324. Needing to steal 148,280 on top of the 333,324 mail-in votes would put him over the total number of mail-in votes, so there's no room for your analysis to work unless you go beyond the total number of mail-in votes.

You don't need to steal 148,280 ballots on top of the 333,324, you need to steal 148,280 ballots out of the 370,361. Actually, that's a bit of the fudge: more precisely, you would need to steal 148,280 ballots out of the 425,000 ballot requested by Philadelphia residents.

But let me reiterate the overarching point, lest one continue to miss the forest for the trees here: Stealing 148,280 ballots is an insane proposition. To imagine nefarious actors could pull that off and somehow get away with it without anyone noticing is absurd! It is simply impractical and nonsensical to steal ballots from a place where voters already overwhelmingly support your candidate. That should be obvious.

[Difflugia]

Your scenario involves locked mailboxes, but I presume big cities like Philadelphia also have mailboxes without locks.

Have you been to Philadelphia?

The only mailboxes without locks will be where the locks are broken and the super refuses to have them fixed. Republicans don't live in those buildings.

[AgnosticBoy]

A member made an unqualified claim about the elections being fair, and that's the claim that I've been challenging. If the member meant what you are claiming then he should've specified his claim, and in fairness I did specify my challenge early on:
" I challenged your claim that the 2020 election process was a "fair" election if you intend that to mean that there was no cheating or no way to cheat." (Post #6).

I see. I can assure you that when people use the term "fair" they almost certainly don't mean perfect, as you have defined it here. Again, it seems you are attacking a straw man argument.

I never said anything about a "perfect" election so you're building a straw man and attacking that. My standard is that if you KNOW there is a lack of oversight to catch errors and fraud, then you should add more oversight. If there's anything less than that standard, then I wouldn't even call that "reasonably" fair, but rather I'd call it negligent. Surely, if people think the elections were "fair" or if they wanted them to be fair, then they should have no problem with recounts and added oversight. The response shouldn't be to just leave those lack of oversights in place since Biden (or x with x being your favorite candidate) would've won anyways.

I'm not expecting perfection just as I'm sure you're not expecting an election with no oversight or monitoring just because they are not perfect.

Good, then we should be able to draw reasonable conclusions about this election despite the fact that we can never be completely certain and no election, including this one, is perfect.

Yes, but not being perfect doesn't justify being negligent by having a lack of oversight, even basic oversight in some cases.

You're jumping the gun by saying that Trump lost the election or that he has no valid points.

Since no one has said that Trump has "no valid points," we can, once again, set aside another straw man argument.

To say that I'm "jumping the gun" in saying Trump lost the election, however, is simply absurd.

Again, Trump's legal team has not been able to demonstrate widespread fraud in any court in this country, with many of their lawsuits being tossed out by judges for being farcically bad. Trump's own Attorney General admitted there is no evidence of fraud that would change the results of the election. Enough states have certified their results to give Biden 270 electors. It's over, and that has been obvious for weeks now.

Officially, Trump has not loss the election since he still has more time to challenge it and bring in more evidence. What i've seen so far is that Trump's legal team has some success when they have focused on showing that there is a lack of oversight, like when poll watchers were restricted from being in good positions to watch Although, I'd like to see a manual recount in Pennsylvania, and one where there is bipartisan oversight that involves observers. If I were Trump, I would be focusing on getting a recount under those conditions, rather than alleging fraud with insufficient or weak evidence.

Keep in mind that I am not here to defend Trump, but rather I'm here to make the point that the U.S. elections lack oversight.

Many may see and think about these matters in black-and-white terms, but as an agnostic I tend to see a lot of gray areas.

I also think that the world is full of grey areas. But, just because things are rarely black and white, doesn't mean they are all the same shade of grey. Just because we can't be completely certain about this election doesn't mean we should retreat into a paralyzing position of uncertainty where we can't say who most likely won.

There are things that we can do to make the election more certain ( that applies to even this current one - recounts!), as opposed to doing nothing and accepting the result.

I'm willing to come off of the fence pending the result of a Philadelphia recount with adequate bipartisan oversight.

Why? Even if you threw out every single vote in Philadelphia, and handed Trump all 20 of Pennsylvania's electors, Biden would still win the presidential election.

Ensuring that the elections are fair should matter more than who wins.

The issue with me is not the margin of victory for Biden but rather it's the way in which he won. He won by mail-in ballots and that's the method that I'm questioning given all of the lax standards surrounding it. All other past elections were won mostly in-person voting. Now it's reasonable to point out that Democrats have won 80% of the Philadelphia's votes on average in past elections and that percentage is consistent with this year's election. Here's two points to consider:
- First, it's reasonable to consider that we're dealing with mail-in votes this time and those tend to have a high rate of rejection compared to in-person votes. (source)
- Secondly, I don't completely buy your margin of victory point because you assume that Biden couldn't have underperformed or that Trump couldn't have overperformed. Keep in mind, if Biden underperformed by just by TWO percent (getting 78% of the vote in Philadelphia) or if Trump overperformed by just TWO percentage points, then Trump could've won the state. It may not seem like a big deal to be off on your predictions by just TWO percentage points, but when that's all it would've taken for a candidate to win, then that is a big deal (Biden won Pennsylvania by 1.5%).

Take the total number of votes in Philadelphia (741,377) and multiply it by .02 to get the total number of votes needed to improve Biden's total by 2% (= 14,828). Since you would need to steal 10 ballots to net one additional Biden vote, multiply the votes you need by 10 to get the number of ballots you need to steal (= 148,280). Divide that by the total number of mail-in ballots (370,361) to get the percentage of the ballots you need to steal (= 40%). And that's a conservative estimate.

Thanks for showing the work. I understand the first sentence but the only problem I see is that you used the overall vote total which includes both candidates, instead of using only Biden's vote total to figure out a 2% increase for just Biden. Biden received a total of 604,175 in Philadelphia (source). A 2% increase of that number would be about 12,083 more votes (Biden's vote count would go from 604,175 to 616,258).

Sorry, but you seem to have completely lost track of the point that I was making. The numbers you're quibbling over here don't affect my argument at all.

I don't see that it takes away from my point regarding mail-in ballots being used to get Biden just over the top, as opposed to giving him some massive lead.

Either way, this doesn't change my overall point that just a 2% advantage would help a candidate win, since every vote matters and Biden won by 1.5% afterall.

No one is suggesting that a 2% increase in vote share wouldn't help a candidate win. That's obviously true.

Your earlier comment that a 2% increase in Philadelphia would "guarantee" Biden a win is obviously erroneous. After all, Clinton in 2016 did 2% better than Biden in Philadelphia, and yet lost Pennsylvania. Likewise, Trump increased his vote share in Philadelphia by 3% over 2016, yet lost Pennsylvania this time around. Noting that Biden won the state by 1.5% is mixing apples and orange groves, of course.

That's a misleading take on my view. I did not talk about boosting Biden's vote by 2%, but I talked about boosting his votes to where he's win by just 2%. There is a clear difference between the two statements. Here's the relevant post (post #12:
"Doing option A and B, where B is used as a backup to make up votes just in case option A is not enough almost guarantees a win for Biden. And keep in mind, it doesn't take doing option B in a massive way, but rather just doing it enough to give Biden a boost, even if it means winning by 2 or more percentage points."

But that's neither here nor there. The point I'm making is not that a 2% increase in Biden's Philadelphia vote wouldn't help him, but rather that trying to achieve that goal by stealing ballots is impractical and nonsensical.

I understand your point, and I respectfully disagree.

Also, you're working within the overall total of mail-in votes in Philadelphia (370,361, based on your data). Biden already gets 90% of those votes which would be 333,324. Needing to steal 148,280 on top of the 333,324 mail-in votes would put him over the total number of mail-in votes, so there's no room for your analysis to work unless you go beyond the total number of mail-in votes.

No, I said you have to steal 148,280 ballots. Since 90% of the ballots you steal were already going to vote for Biden anyway, to net an additional 14,828 Biden votes you need to steal ten times that number of ballots

You don't need to steal 148,280 ballots on top of the 333,324, you need to steal 148,280 ballots out of the 333,324. Actually, that's a bit of the fudge. There were more requested ballots than returned. So you would need to steal 148,280 ballots out of about 425,000 requested by Philadelphia residents.

I understand your analysis now. I did the math using your process except that I plugged in some corrected numbers. Doing the math, I got 120,830 votes needed to be stolen. Out of 333,324, that is only 32.2% of the vote, and 28% if you go by the 425,000 that you just brought up.

That seems like a sizable chunk of Philadelphia's votes but that's only so because of the way the math goes given your scenario. Another scenario can simply involve adding 12,000 invalid votes on top of what Biden would've already gotten, or just take 6,000 votes away from Trump (by not uploading the ballots and do so accidentally which was the explanation in Georgia) and add 6,000 to Biden. . So if he would've gotten 333, 324 votes, just allow an additional 12,000 votes to be counted for Biden on top of that total.

But let me reiterate the overarching point, lest one continue to miss the forest for the trees here: Stealing 148,280 ballots is an insane proposition. To imagine nefarious actors could pull that off and somehow get away with it without anyone noticing is absurd! It is simply impractical and nonsensical to steal ballots from a place where voters already overwhelmingly support your candidate. That should be obvious.

As I mentioned in my last post, there is some speculation in your math and that's why I don't accept your conclusion. We now know that mail-in ballots don't even have to be stolen, but they can just simply not be counted (that happened in Georgia). You haven't offered any solutions to catch cheating nor have you shown how pre-existing procedures would've caught the type of cheating that I brought up when it comes to manual process of mail-in ballots, stealing ballots, and not even uploading them to be counted (as happened in Georgia). If current procedures would have automatically caught it before officials announced the election results, then why did it take a Recount (something which most states won't or don't go through) to catch it?