this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
46 points (81.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2829 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Here you go, a "real" source. He said there were more bullet ballots than there likely really are, but there's still a really suspiciously high number of them. How is this not at least worth investigating?

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

What seems more likely: 1) a vast conspiracy between the Trump campaign, a collection of hackers, Elon Musk and various workers at his super PAC, and any number of other insidious actors part of a shadowy cabal all conspired to hack the vote, and this one dude, who got almost every data point verifiably wrong and has demonstrated zero evidence for his other related claims, somehow "got it right." 2) a small amount of Trump voters didn't give a shit about or know much of anything about any other offices/candidates and just voted for Trump and left?

Right.

It's so sad to watch people grasp at conspiracy theories like this. Conspiratorial thinking is highly correlated with feelings of insecurity, low agreeability, narcissism, intolerance of uncertainty, feelings of a lack of control, fear, and a tendency toward confirmation bias and proportionality bias. So I guess seeing people on the left start indulging this way of thinking just like Trump supporters did isn't shocking, but it's still sad to see.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 24 minutes ago) (2 children)

All good points here, but the clarification that Snopes and everyone else is missing and not talking about are kind of important:

  • "Bullet Ballots" are single votes for one candidate with nothing else filled out. In order to be valid that means...
  • A voters information would have to be put on a form and fed into a tabular, and in the case of Georgia and Arizona (I think?) physically reviewed before fed into said machine because...
  • The tabulation machines are set to confirm a specific amount of information, and if that information is wrong, it will error. This is a code on the form that can be machine scanned, so that makes sure it fits a specific location, precinct, county, whathaveyou., BECAUSE...
  • if someone were to get a grip of these forms and ballot stuff them, then counts would be meaningless.

So really all that needs to be done is to find a large enough sample of size of consistent voters who had a flipped vote, find their forms, ensure nothing is fucky with the forms, then interview to confirm with the voter. Do that for a few thousand people in Wherever, USA and you'll have your answer.

It's not hard, it's just time consuming and costs money. Voters don't generally have a way to even check their vote was counted for all the candidates they chose in most states, which I think is fucked up, otherwise this might be a bit easier.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 35 minutes ago (1 children)

Ballots are anonymous, there isn't identifying information on the part put in a tabulator.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 points 28 minutes ago

Yeah, what did you read about my post that said that was the case?

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

find a large enough sample of size of consistent voters who had a flipped vote

Is that possible in AZ? In my state the poll worker records that you appeared to vote, then gives you a generic ballot. The ballot is not tied to you. Your vote is completely secret with no way to trace it.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 points 26 minutes ago

Some states it is not, as I mentioned.

[–] SGforce@lemmy.ca 17 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

However, Snopes' research, in which we compared the vote tallies cited by Spoonamore with the latest official election results, found his figures to be incorrect and his assertions to make no mathematical sense.

Sure, investigate. But what though? You need evidence of something before even alleging a crime.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'd say the number of bullet ballots is evidence that something is almost certainly up that needs investigating. That's not a normal occurrence

[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

So the assertion is that Republicans inserted a bunch of fake votes but only for president? Why would they not just make it down ballot?

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 14 points 5 hours ago

I don't believe there was fraud but I do believe statistical anomalies are worth a second look. Some people won't ever be convinced but I'm certain the various audits of 2020 that came up empty swayed at least a few people (on that topic, not Trump as a whole).

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 9 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Damn imagine if true, knowing that your US Government was illegally elected. This really should be investigated for the sake of the entire world.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 23 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Well, we saw it in 2000 so that's nothing new...

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 14 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

according to that planetcritical post I shared, it seems that the public still doesn't know the actual results of the 2000 election? Doesn't seem democratic to me.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

It doesn't seem democratic because America is a corporate plutocracy masquerading as a democracy.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 5 hours ago
[–] saltesc@lemmy.world -3 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Seems it's been investigated enough and no surprises, the numbers are off and allegations based on no evidence.

Remember when there was a bunch of idiots from the red camp, all bent on the idea Biden stole the election? Well, it's that and the blue camp has idiots too. This is something we'll have to get used to now, a bunch of idiots from X claiming Y stole the election.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 58 minutes ago

Remember when they demanded a hand recount, got it, and then kept lying about the results even after they were verified?

That's the difference.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 17 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Except for one MASSIVE difference, Harris isn't making the claims, calling for violence and to "stop the count"

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

but it can't be that off the margin. from 1% to 7.2% in the case of Arizona, thats highly suspicious. Also the theory shared by those computer scientists is too damn convincing so those ballots should be hand counted, imho.

https://www.planetcritical.com/p/cyber-security-experts-warn-election-hacked

Also I will never understand why USA insist on using Computers for voting.

Or how a winner-takes-it-all approach is in any way fair or reasonable to the people.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The source you linked is referencing the claims that snopes is partially debunking

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

"partially debunking" here basically means "correcting numbers that were slightly too large and clarifying the explanation given is a hypothesis". This is still suspicious as heck, especially given all the other ways republican politicians and voters and funders have tried to influence and tamper with the election

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

I mean this puts a bad taste in my mouth for the credibility of the letter:

In an email, North Carolina State Board of Elections spokesman Patrick Gannon told Snopes, "Without access to confidential data, there is no way that anyone could know what this individual claims to know about North Carolina's presidential election. North Carolinians cast secret ballots, and cast vote records and ballot images that could potentially provide this information are confidential in North Carolina. My first step in fact-checking this would be to ask the writer to show his work."

I welcome investigation & would fully believe if this is corroborated and true. I won't believe it until then especially when there are crucial discrepancies in tallies that invalidate some (not all) claims from the letter