The 2020 election doesn't make mathematical sense!

[Oddball]

Why don't you do what an intelligent staff member, Senior Monitor such as you would do a little research... that the person with the most votes is NOT
the determination .
This is the FACT , that frankly I'm sure your fellow staff members are frankly embarrassed with your lack of moderation especially calling
someone who helps pay your salary... if you are a staff member!!!

He's only there to suck the dicks of his corporate masters.

 

[Moonglow]

Duh"! Obviously then according to you YOUR vote doesn't count?

FACTS:
You are telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors.
The winning candidate’s State political party selects the individuals who will be electors.

About the Electors

What are the qualifications to be an elector? The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall...

www.archives.gov

Moonie.... why do you not take just a few minutes to think..(wait 'Moonie Thinking'.. an oxymoron!) and do a little scholarly research ...like the above!

The Constitution doesn't force electors to replicate the popular vote

 

[leftwinger]

Ok, here you will get agreement from me. However, election laws would have to be changed and agreed upon that that people overseas and in the military would have a bit more time to get their vote in. And mail in voting has to be the law of the land. And I'll agree to a deadline of postmarked 48 hours before election day. That's enough time for a vote to make it to town hall to be both verified and counted. I'd also like to see every state have their mail in ballots counted prior to the polls opening on election day.

However, the votes counted AFTER election day are not in enough numbers to change the outcome of the election.
I've seen this happen twice in the last 20 years. And those were both for regional races. Not national ones.

Any idea from completely dishonest lowIQ hack will not help America. It would be like going to Dahmers for dinner to eat Spam & Mac. Get off the boards you ignorant sack of human garbage.


Trump had enough support to overcome most cheating until shutdown dump in 5 big counties changed the results. The GOVT itself installed this china puppet.

 

[healthmyths]

Well, that leaves JasckOfNoBrains and most on the left out. But as a fair statistician, offhand, I'd offer that such an unrealistically low rejection rate is a big RED LIGHT for something funny (and crooked) going on. The increase in voting (itself done suspiciously as per the Time/Molly Ball article of 2/3/21) should have INCREASED the rejection rate.

Yea my college statistics courses support your "RED LIGHT" observation that when you increase a number the chances then the number errors increase...
but this was the opposite!
While there were 34% more ballots cast, the rejected ballots was reduced from 1.4% in 2016 to 0.8% in 2020. And as I pointed out the volunteer signature verification
workers averaged about 4.5 seconds per ballot to verify the signature matched the mail in ballot request form.
I truly question how in 4.5 seconds I can tell which is the real signature!

The very liberal LATIMES questioned the below signatures!
"The major problem then is matching the ballot request form with the returned ballot envelope signatures."
The LA Times article describes steps and fallacies of signature verification.

'Ripe for error': Ballot signature verification is flawed - and a big factor in the election

In an election marked by uncertainties, the signature verification process for mail-in ballots is riddled with vulnerabilities and has never been tested on such a massive scale.

www.latimes.com

 

[healthmyths]

The Constitution doesn't force electors to replicate the popular vote

Ah.. so if a state identified as "democrat" the electoral college electors are GOP then the majority of popular vote, i.e. Democrat, would NOT be represented.

 

[scruffy]

I voted Democrat because the Republican party and its standard bearers LOST THEIR FRIGGIN MINDS!!
And you just walk along like a bunch of simpering fools. I'm sorry, who lacks the intellect?
Your best course of action would be to jettison Trump and throw your support behind a Republican who could win.
But you can't let this man go for some reason. That says more about you than him.

You lost your friggin mind.

Excuse me?

Who rioted for 8 months?

Whose economy was better?

Who kept us out of war?

Who put on Stalinist show trials at taxpayer expense?

If anyone's lost their minds around here it's the Neo-Lib assholes from hell.

They have their heads WAY far up Trump's butt.

And they're scared to death he might win again, which is why they're going after him.

But none of the DOI's charges will matter, none of them will come to trial before the election, and by then Biden will have screwed up things so badly that not even a mangy dog will vote for him.

 

[scruffy]

Yea my college statistics courses support your "RED LIGHT" observation that when you increase a number the chances then the number errors increase...
but this was the opposite!
While there were 34% more ballots cast, the rejected ballots was reduced from 1.4% in 2016 to 0.8% in 2020. And as I pointed out the volunteer signature verification
workers averaged about 4.5 seconds per ballot to verify the signature matched the mail in ballot request form.
I truly question how in 4.5 seconds I can tell which is the real signature!

The very liberal LATIMES questioned the below signatures!
"The major problem then is matching the ballot request form with the returned ballot envelope signatures."
The LA Times article describes steps and fallacies of signature verification.

'Ripe for error': Ballot signature verification is flawed - and a big factor in the election

In an election marked by uncertainties, the signature verification process for mail-in ballots is riddled with vulnerabilities and has never been tested on such a massive scale.

www.latimes.com

View attachment 811970

There are so many mathematical and statistical problems with this election it isn't even funny.

Unfortunately statistical data is inadmissible in court, and there is no audit trail in any of the 57 states.

What you're pointing out is the REASON for many other anomalies, in fact when you run a Grainger you get a very high Index of causality. Statistically, the mail in vote was one of the reasons for things like the F-Curve.

 

[healthmyths]

There are so many mathematical and statistical problems with this election it isn't even funny.

Unfortunately statistical data is inadmissible in court, and there is no audit trail in any of the 57 states.

What you're pointing out is the REASON for many other anomalies, in fact when you run a Grainger you get a very high Index of causality. Statistically, the mail in vote was one of the reasons for things like the F-Curve.

My statistical courses were "pre-computer functionality" i.e. 1960s... hence I didn't have access to the animation curve to possible point out positive or negative values. My statistical knowledge is extremely laymanisitic i.e. very fundamentally layman's knowledge set!
Also I hope you were mimicking the previous Democrat president who claimed 57 states and recently wrote..
Obama Once Wrote To Ex-Girlfriend That He ‘Repeatedly Fantasizes About Making Love To Men," who in the famous line from Seinfeld "Not that there is anything wrong in it!"

Obama Once Wrote To Ex-Girlfriend That He ‘Repeatedly Fantasizes About Making Love To Men,’ Biographer Says

Former President Barack Obama once wrote that he fantasized about having sexual relations with other men, author David Garrow said in an interview.

dailycaller.com

 

[toobfreak]

And as I pointed out the volunteer signature verification workers averaged about 4.5 seconds per ballot to verify the signature matched the mail in ballot request form.
I truly question how in 4.5 seconds I can tell which is the real signature!

That is interesting as I happen to know there are only about 200 people in the USA actually trained and qualified (board and court qualified) to actually forensically identify handwriting (forgeries, tracings, tampering, alterations, etc.) and while I might tentatively give the three specimens you supply a tentative yes, no, and no, any reputable examiner would tell you they might really need to see a lot more than just ONE specimen exemplar and one suspect to make a positive determination! And better yet, to have the ORIGINALS. With what you supply, there really is not much basis on which to determine the range of natural variation within a given writer to determine authenticity with any great degree of certainty, so I can tell you with far authority that whoever these boobs are the election polls are hiring to make these determinations spending 4.5 seconds is WORTHLESS and they might as well just throw a dart at the wall.

Probably what polls ought to do in cases of authenticity is to error on the safe side and HOLD all ballots with questioned signatures and contact the voter to send them several more exemplars of their signature including the range of variation in how they usually sign things, then have them reviewed by a qualified county examiner. I mean, if they really wanted to protect the integrity of voting!

One of the big reasons why write in paper ballots should be used in only those cases absolutely necessary.

 

[healthmyths]

That is interesting as I happen to know there are only about 200 people in the USA actually trained and qualified (board and court qualified) to actually forensically identify handwriting (forgeries, tracings, tampering, alterations, etc.) and while I might tentatively give the three specimens you supply a tentative yes, no, and no, any reputable examiner would tell you they might really need to see a lot more than just ONE specimen exemplar and one suspect to make a positive determination! And better yet, to have the ORIGINALS. With what you supply, there really is not much basis on which to determine the range of natural variation within a given writer to determine authenticity with any great degree of certainty, so I can tell you with far authority that whoever these boobs are the election polls are hiring to make these determinations spending 4.5 seconds is WORTHLESS and they might as well just throw a dart at the wall.

Probably what polls ought to do in cases of authenticity is to error on the safe side and HOLD all ballots with questioned signatures and contact the voter to send them several more exemplars of their signature including the range of variation in how they usually sign things, then have them reviewed by a qualified county examiner. I mean, if they really wanted to protect the integrity of voting!

One of the big reasons why write in paper ballots should be used in only those cases absolutely necessary.

Well the election workers have a "curing process"...

Some states have a process in statute for voters to “cure” these mistakes in time for the ballot to be counted. These states notify voters that there was a problem and then provide the voters with a process and time frame to verify that the ballot is indeed theirs. In states that do not have such a process, ballots with missing or mismatched signatures on the envelope are not counted.

Table 15: States With Signature Cure Processes

Which states allow voters to correct signature discrepancies through a ballot or signature cure process and what the notification and correction processes are.

www.ncsl.org

NOTE: Not all states have curing process. 15 states do...the other 35?
There were just 44,000 votes in Georgia,Arizona and Wisc. that put Biden into the White House.
Georgia Arizona have a curing process, Wisc. not.

 

[toobfreak]

Some states have a process in statute for voters to “cure” these mistakes in time for the ballot to be counted. These states notify voters that there was a problem and then provide the voters with a process and time frame to verify that the ballot is indeed theirs.

That all sounds good, but it just makes me wonder that if you can't even follow the simple directions to fill out a voting ballot, do we really want to count your votes in the first place? There ought to be a very basic test of every voter to prove that they actually have even a minimal understanding of the candidates and issues that your opinion and choices are actually WORTH counting!

Perhaps that says something of us that we place more value on having everyone just cast a vote than we do having them cast an INFORMED vote.

 

[healthmyths]

The Constitution doesn't force electors to replicate the popular vote

You are right! But party membership does!
No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
However, several electors were disqualified and replaced, and others fined, in 2016 for failing to vote as pledged.

About the Electors

The Electoral College website now has an easy-to-remember address. Make sure to update your bookmarks! What are the qualifications to be an elector? The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no...

www.archives.gov

A historic number of “faithless” electors -- seven in total--each cast their ballots on Monday for a candidate other than the one who won his or her state.
(NOTE my comment.. CBS was "surprised" THAT Hillary had 5 elector that didn't vote their state, i.e. chose Trump! "Surprising" was what that was!)
What may be more surprising, given the level of protests against Donald Trump and the pressure exerted on Republican electors, is that a greater number were untrue to Hillary Clinton than to Mr. Trump
Among the 538 electors chosen to represent their states in the Electoral College, five were faithless to the Democratic nominee and two to the Republican.
Prior to this year, there hasn’t been more than one faithless elector in any presidential election since 1948.

Which candidates did the seven "faithless" electors support?

This year saw the greatest number of "faithless" electors in history. More of them were untrue to Hillary Clinton than to Donald Trump

www.cbsnews.com

Why would CBS news call it "surprising" except maybe this: The MSM donated more than 96% of their financial donations to Hillary!

"Surprising"!!

 

[Concerned American]

That all sounds good, but it just makes me wonder that if you can't even follow the simple directions to fill out a voting ballot, do we really want to count your votes in the first place? There ought to be a very basic test of every voter to prove that they actually have even a minimal understanding of the candidates and issues that your opinion and choices are actually WORTH counting!

Perhaps that says something of us that we place more value on having everyone just cast a vote than we do having them cast an INFORMED vote.

While I agree with everything you said--there is no requirement that you have a functioning brain to vote. Sad.

 

[toobfreak]

While I agree with everything you said--there is no requirement that you have a functioning brain to vote. Sad.

That was my point. Just imagine if the USA had a requirement to have a functioning, semi-intelligent brain how many Americans would fail?

Another win for the government-run public school system which puts us at nearly 30th place down from the top!

 

[healthmyths]

That all sounds good, but it just makes me wonder that if you can't even follow the simple directions to fill out a voting ballot, do we really want to count your votes in the first place? There ought to be a very basic test of every voter to prove that they actually have even a minimal understanding of the candidates and issues that your opinion and choices are actually WORTH counting!

Perhaps that says something of us that we place more value on having everyone just cast a vote than we do having them cast an INFORMED vote.

Oh no question about the lack of even minimal understanding! The truly gross malfeasance is the one entity mentioned in the Constitution:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-1/ALDE_00000395/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.&text=Houchins%2C%20438%20U.S.%20at%2015%E2%80%9316.

Think about it! Where do most people get their information? From the "press"! Now Google, Facebook,twitter,etc.
Yet how many Hillary/Biden voters KNEW this about the sources of their information, i.e. that the MSM donated 96% to Hillary and 90% to Biden!
And that the biased MSM that ABC,CBS/NBC alone donated $2.6 billion in free advertising for Democrats calling it "NEWS"!
Over 32.7 hours of coverage, from 7/29/2020-10/20/20). Everything You Need to Know About TV Advertising Costs
The average commercial costs $105,000 for a 30 sec. spot. Therefore in 32.7 hours , two 30 second commercials in a minute or total of 25,440 thirty second commercials @ $105,000 or $2,671,200,000 In television advertising value.
"
"What they found was, over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history — 92% negative, vs. just 8% positive.from July 29 through October 20"

Broadcast networks deliver 92% negative coverage for Trump, 66% positive for Biden: Study

The country’s major broadcast news media outlets have never been more negatively biased against a sitting president than Donald Trump, a conservative media watchdog has concluded in its latest study, which found President Trump receives negatively-slanted coverage 92% of the time in network news...

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Concerned American]

Oh no question about the lack of even minimal understanding! The truly gross malfeasance is the one entity mentioned in the Constitution:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-9-1/ALDE_00000395/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.&text=Houchins%2C%20438%20U.S.%20at%2015%E2%80%9316.

Think about it! Where do most people get their information? From the "press"! Now Google, Facebook,twitter,etc.
Yet how many Hillary/Biden voters KNEW this about the sources of their information, i.e. that the MSM donated 96% to Hillary and 90% to Biden!
And that the biased MSM that ABC,CBS/NBC alone donated $2.6 billion in free advertising for Democrats calling it "NEWS"!
Over 32.7 hours of coverage, from 7/29/2020-10/20/20). Everything You Need to Know About TV Advertising Costs
The average commercial costs $105,000 for a 30 sec. spot. Therefore in 32.7 hours , two 30 second commercials in a minute or total of 25,440 thirty second commercials @ $105,000 or $2,671,200,000 In television advertising value.
"What they found was, over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history — 92% negative, vs. just 8% positive.from July 29 through October 20"

Broadcast networks deliver 92% negative coverage for Trump, 66% positive for Biden: Study

The country’s major broadcast news media outlets have never been more negatively biased against a sitting president than Donald Trump, a conservative media watchdog has concluded in its latest study, which found President Trump receives negatively-slanted coverage 92% of the time in network news...

www.washingtontimes.com

Seems the DNC and the MSM tactics are backfiring on them. Think of all the free publicity Trump has gotten. Even negative publicity is good when it shows the obsession and enmity that these two entities have for him. You cannot watch a newscast or talkshow that doesn't donate scads of time to --- Trump. They are doing him a favor.

 

[candycorn]

The reason?

Democrats kept counting until they won...same as the always do.

Yet amazingly they lost seats in the House.

 

[Thunk]

Yet amazingly they lost seats in the House.

They can't do it for hundreds of different elections at once. But they're getting better and better every 2 years.

 

[candycorn]

They can't do it for hundreds of different elections at once. But they're getting better and better every 2 years.

Why not? Its the same ballot. You don't vote for the President on one ballot and your house member on another ballot?

I don't know which of the dozens of crazy assed conspiracy theories you personally subscribe to out of the dozens you buys have put out

• same ballots being ran through dozens of times
• ballots from under the table
• ballots from other states being trucked in
• North Korea dropping off ballots in New England
• Dominion adding votes
• Dominion switching votes

But there is nothing that should prevent these master criminals from checking a box on top of the ballot and then checking another box an inch down the ballot?

I mean I know it's a lost cause with you guys but what you wrote was brazenly stupid. Come up with another lame theory

 

[candycorn]

The reason?

Democrats kept counting until they won...same as the always do.

Why not just keep counting until they increased their margin in the House, the Senate...get a super majority in both?