We had an old thread from 2008. I know this is something some people are talking wanted to ask here to get a pulse on the PSF.
How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?
How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?
Same as 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000...Same as always...likely statistically insignificant. Or, for the purpose of the poll...virtually nonexistent, no impact.
I think this is an awful question. Not a single person that reads or responds to this has a meaningful % of relevant information necessary to potentially offer a cohesive answer.How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?
I don't. At all. Especially given the wide range of answer choices.I think this is an awful question. Not a single person that reads or responds to this has a meaningful % of relevant information necessary to potentially offer a cohesive answer.
Depends on how convincing their evidence is. This notion that every unsubstantiated allegation deserves consideration needs to end.A follow up question would be if a whistleblower comes forward or there are statistical anomalies, would you support an audit of the process/count?
I'm sure you are. It's a profitable subject for those in the business of making money off politics. Doesn't mean any analysis provided is based on facts though. The counting of the vote isn't even over yet.I don't. At all. Especially given the wide range of answer choices.
I'm hearing a lot of talk about this.
And I will very often ask the forum a non leading question like this to get a pulse on what the forum is thinking. The forum is like the market. It answers.
This is the exact same thing I've been saying.Same as 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000...
You do see the options for people to answer "minimal" and "non existent", right?I'm sure you are. It's a profitable subject for those in the business of making money off politics. Doesn't mean any analysis provided is based on facts though. The counting of the vote isn't even over yet.
Depends largely on how you define "whistleblower."A follow up question would be if a whistleblower comes forward or there are statistical anomalies, would you support an audit of the process/count?
Wait... a partisan can't be a whistleblower now?!?!Depends largely on how you define "whistleblower."
A partisan poll watcher with an agenda <> whistleblower.
There are no facts available to answer that question. Only feelings. Decision making based on feelings is one big reason we are where we are.You do see the options for people to answer "minimal" and "non existent", right?
I'm not sure how I could be more clear. I'm not asking for a debate. I'm asking to see what people are thinking.
Of course a partisan can be a whistleblower.Wait... a partisan can't be a whistleblower now?!?!Depends largely on how you define "whistleblower."
A partisan poll watcher with an agenda <> whistleblower.
Alternatively, rather than limiting it to a whistleblower or statistical anomalies, one could ask: If there is any credible evidence that calls the election results into question, should that evidence be presented and considered? I think the answer is clearly yes, but there is a deadline about 6 weeks away. Its a sort of statute of limitations, by which any challenge must be brought.A follow up question would be if a whistleblower comes forward or there are statistical anomalies, would you support an audit of the process/count?
Come on man. Can you give us a minute?We had an old thread from 2008. I know this is something some people are talking wanted to ask here to get a pulse on the PSF.
How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?
Ok, so you just want to use a different term. Someone sounding the alarm on polling irregularities should be given a chance to be heard and investigated. It's the reason they are there.Of course a partisan can be a whistleblower.
But, the word "whistleblower" tends to refer to a person who works within the organization that they are, you know, blowing the whistle on.
Poll watchers do not work for election offices. They are just random citizens with binoculars.
If we water down the definition of "whistleblower" to "anyone who makes an accusation about anything," then we have rendered the word meaningless.
This statistical anomaly, if it is such a thing, is one of the main arguments being made by the Trump team - If there were so many Biden voters in a given state, why did the down-ticket Democrat candidates not show the same support? I think there is an obvious answer, but the numbers alone can serve two masters.My question to those that believe there was rampant fraud in favor of Biden:
Why didn't those same people bother to win the Senate elections and state legislatures, in a Census year, no less?
When the story changes from "WHISTLEBLOWER SOUNDS ALARM ON VOTER FRAUD" to "SOMEONE SOUNDS ALARM ON IRREGULARITIES" then the story loses a bit of its momentum.Ok, so you just want to use a different term. Someone sounding the alarm on polling irregularities should be given a chance to be heard and investigated. It's the reason they are there.Of course a partisan can be a whistleblower.
But, the word "whistleblower" tends to refer to a person who works within the organization that they are, you know, blowing the whistle on.
Poll watchers do not work for election offices. They are just random citizens with binoculars.
If we water down the definition of "whistleblower" to "anyone who makes an accusation about anything," then we have rendered the word meaningless.
What sort of shenanigans?Voted Trump, voter fraud was real, enough to maybe impact the outcome. I don't think we'll know everything until after all the dust settles and it's way too late to do anything about it, but NV was a s###show and certainly some shenanigans in PA.
Without evidence, it's pretty irresponsible to write things like this.Voted Trump, voter fraud was real, enough to maybe impact the outcome. I don't think we'll know everything until after all the dust settles and it's way too late to do anything about it, but NV was a s###show and certainly some shenanigans in PA.
Gasp.Without evidence, it's pretty irresponsible to write things like this.
Do you think it was COVID backlash, trade / economics, leadership, or storing else that turned the tide?My rural WI area flipped and went for Biden. No way anyone would get some fraud past these polling hawks either. Voter turnout was huge, and Trump needed to keep % from 2016. He did not. And there isn't anything real unique about my area as you see similar results all across WI. No fraud, just cold hard factual truths.
Won't comment on other states, but feel as confident as I can that WI's flip is legit.
You actually didn't answer why but you knew that already.Gasp.
Take it up with Joe, it's his poll. I'm just saying how I voted and why.
Just people tired of trump.Do you think it was COVID backlash, trade / economics, leadership, or storing else that turned the tide?
I did. NV and PA. I mean there may have been things going on in MI but I don't think enough to impact any outcome. Heck there may have been rampant voter fraud in CA or NY but who cares - the gist of the question was impact. I could be wrong - I HOPE I'm wrong - I hope when all the dust settles we find so little that there's a consensus that it would not have made a difference.You actually didn't answer why but you knew that already.
What will it take for you to believe that? Court rulings? FBI statements? Media investigations and reports?I hope when all the dust settles we find so little that there's a consensus that it would not have made a difference.
It really can't serve two masters. One just can't make a cogent argument that Democrats manufactured fake ballots in Georgia and filled in the Perdue oval on those same ballots. Ditto Tillis in NC. Ditto state legislatures across the country.This statistical anomaly, if it is such a thing, is one of the main arguments being made by the Trump team - If there were so many Biden voters in a given state, why did the down-ticket Democrat candidates not show the same support? I think there is an obvious answer, but the numbers alone can serve two masters.My question to those that believe there was rampant fraud in favor of Biden:
Why didn't those same people bother to win the Senate elections and state legislatures, in a Census year, no less?
What you'll find is there wasn't fraud to any significant degree, just as has been determined in the past. What credible evidence are you aware of to support your feeling about this?I did. NV and PA. I mean there may have been things going on in MI but I don't think enough to impact any outcome. Heck there may have been rampant voter fraud in CA or NY but who cares - the gist of the question was impact. I could be wrong - I HOPE I'm wrong - I hope when all the dust settles we find so little that there's a consensus that it would not have made a difference.
I think the argument is that there were a bunch of ballots that only had the POTUS filled in, and nothing down ballot or that the totals were manipulated.It really can't serve two masters. One just can't make a cogent argument that Democrats manufactured fake ballots in Georgia and filled in the Perdue oval on those same ballots. Ditto Tillis in NC. Ditto state legislatures across the country.
I won't know the credibility until they're investigated. Neither will you, or anyone.What you'll find is there wasn't fraud to any significant degree, just as has been determined in the past. What credible evidence are you aware of to support your feeling about this?
Exactly...Depends on how convincing their evidence is. This notion that every unsubstantiated allegation deserves consideration needs to end.
The vote-processing, vote-tallying, and vote-auditing processes are not black boxes at all. In a sense, they are continuously investigated by representatives of both parties as they go along.I won't know the credibility until they're investigated. Neither will you, or anyone.
So any allegation, you think we need to investigate? No threshold for plausibility or evidence?I won't know the credibility until they're investigated. Neither will you, or anyone.
But then you won't know the credibility until the investigator is investigated.I won't know the credibility until they're investigated. Neither will you, or anyone.
No I didn't say either of those things. I mean, I can play this silliness too. Are you saying that voter fraud is not serious and should not be investigated?So any allegation, you think we need to investigate? No threshold for plausibility or evidence?
I said consensus. You have issue with that?But then you won't know the credibility until the investigator is investigated.
And then you won't know the credibility until the investigator of the investigator is also investigated.
Basically, you can keep moving the goalpost infinitely, each time proclaiming that more "investigation" is needed.
If there is credible evidence indicating possible fraud, an investigation is merited.No I didn't say either of those things. I mean, I can play this silliness too. Are you saying that voter fraud is not serious and should not be investigated?
A follow up question would be if a whistleblower comes forward or there are statistical anomalies, would you support an audit of the process/count?