I laughed my ass off at the pathetic, baseless attempts to dispute the 2020 election, but never questioned their legal right to do so (which they failed miserably at). If suspicious Harris supporters believe they have convincing evidence of manipulation, then let their claims be examined and proven or disproven by a recount or in a court of law. Call it copium, but I'd rather check these claims out and be disappointed than pre-emptively assume they're bullshit.
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
69 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
6296 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, check it out just to rule out the possibility, I guess. The letter spells out how to determine whether this was the case or not - do a hand recount.
The number of people only voting for Trump and leaving the rest of the ballot blank is super weird. Seems like a great reason to do one of those hand recounts the GOP loves.
Call your reps about this people. I'm calling Senator Bennett's office on Monday. Can't hurt.
Or voting Democrat for everyone but Trump.
Might as well do the check - you sure as fuck aren't going to be able to check anything out in 2028, if we even hold an election that year.
Do the check, see where the info leads, no brainer
The tell: A historically absurd number of Trump-only bullet ballots or undervote ballots.
There are always a handful of voters who cast a vote in one race which they care about, and do not make other selections on the ballot. These are called bullet ballots. In Presidential Races since 1980, these bullet ballots rarely account for more than 1% of the total votes including in Mr. Trump’s winning 2016 election and losing 2020 election, and when they do it warrants further investigation. In 2024 in the 43 non-swing states, bullet ballots make up a nominal >1%. In the seven swing states the numbers are so high to be unbelievable, unprecedented and demanding of further investigation. Here is analysis from totals as of late Nov. 12th
Here are the unprecedented results of drop-offs in the two western swing states:
AZ - 123K+ 7.2%+ of Trump’s total vote. Enough to reverse the outcome.
NV - 43K+ 5.5%+ of Trump’s total vote. Enough to exceed recount threshold.
It is my belief these two states have illegally added votes.
For comparison, examine Trump’s 2024 results in three states which border AZ and NV. They have equally passionate Trump supporters, but have the normal levels of drop off or bullet ballots.
ID <2K 0.03% of Trump’s total.
OR <4K 0.05% of Trump’s total
UT <1K 0.01% of Trump’s total.
In the case of Idaho and Utah, Mr. Trump was a run-away winner and had no need to add votes. In the case of Oregon, Ms. Harris was a run-away winner and adding votes to Trump’s total would add risk without adding value.
The same pattern of large numbers of drop-off votes or bullet ballots exists in the totals of MI, NC, PA, WI.
123,000 Arizonans voted only for President & nobody else? That is weird.
I hate to say it, but this seems like copium. I’d love to be wrong about that.
There's also the issue that Harris and the Democrats spent the last four years repudiating the idea that there was anything insecure about our elections systems, and being the big-tent party that favors process over outcome and desperately clings to democratic norms and the status quo, it seems to me that she'd likely be very loathe to call them into question now.
And even if she were so inclined, she already conceded (and pretty quickly, at that). Does she even have standing to demand a recount now? And even if she should still have standing, would SCOTUS agree?
FWIW, personally, these statistical anomalies seem compelling enough to me that I agree we should go ahead and double-check. I'm not holding out much hope that it will happen, though.
It would probably need a lot of internal cooperation, and he just doesn't go into that. But the excessive bullet ballots only being in swing states is pretty weird, honestly. I wonder how hard it would be to recount/reverify in maybe 2 states as a pilot.
I dont think itd be hard, just costs money
Well good thing they have massive reserves now
DAnon
When Mr. Musk announced his $1M lottery for people to go online and sign a pledge to vote for Trump, I became personally suspicious of why such a promotion would be done. I signed up to see what information he wanted and what the pledge actually stated. He did not want to know people’s socials or send them texts. To sign up you had to provide your street address. That was all they cared about. Once they had the people’s names, and street address this would allow for building a pool of ghost voters who could logically be marked for fake ballots, structured in a manner which matched ePollBook and precinct data.
Elmo surely wouldn’t try such a thing.
They had pledged to vote though, I would assume the vast majority of them would have done just that, so how are they "ghost voters?" I feel like I'm missing something here.
Might have done it for the $1 million. Then never planned on voting or only if they won.
He’s gonna destroy the country anyway; fuck it in say we try. If the numbers in this article are accurate, then anomalies exist. Might as well find out if it’s a “nothing burger”
I'm not experienced enough to know for sure if those claims would truly hold water, but to my layman mind, it sure does sound like a compelling case to at least do a hand count.