new | show | ask | jobs Github

jacquesm 7 hours ago

No, you don't need to do that in 'almost every single jurisdiction'. That's a strawman.

▲

lotsofpulp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It would be quite the coincidence then for all the voting precincts to swing towards the same candidate as the fraud.

I find it likelier that people’s preferences simply changed.

▲

jonathanstrange 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Possible but a simple software update can also do the trick. That's just a fact and the reason why no one should trust a democracy based on voting machines. Experts have been warning against voting machines for decades.

▲

lotsofpulp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Do all the jurisdictions use the same software? It would surprise me if we are at that level of centralization, plus no discrepancies appeared between audited paper ballots and the software counts?

▲

jonathanstrange 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Why "all jurisdictions"? That's a strawman. You only need to target a few districts in swing states to secure a victory.

	▲	lotsofpulp 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		…that is the point I am making. Which scenario is likelier: All 7 swing states went to Republicans due to fraud, and it just so happens that everywhere else also went more Republican. Or all 7 swing states went to Republicans because voters voted more Republican throughout the country? Note that not voting is the same as voting for the winning party.
	▲	idontpost 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]