There absolutely is way. The dems are routinely ineffective and they lost a lot of votes from 2020 because of the whole “Harris backs Israel in a genocide” thing.
Just cause the greater evil won doesn’t mean the left needs to start peddling unfounded “stolen election” conspiracy theories. It’s completely reasonable that enough people realized they fucked up by voting for Republicans, Third Party, or abstaining and took this as an opportunity to refute the actions of the current administration.
I’ve also seen evidence that the same systemic election interference, voter purges/disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, etc — the leading reason for GOP wins over the last 20 years, and were never legitimately addressed or removed — were more than enough to secure Trumps win of the EC.
I’ve seen plenty of evidence that disenfranchisement was off the charts, and it hit me personally.
In Michigan, I’ve been disabled and homebound for years and have never had issues voting by mail, but this time rather than my usual automatic mail-in ballot, I got an application for a vote-by-mail ballot after the deadline. I was still registered, but I had to go in person.
I’d have crawled through hot broken glass naked to vote, so I did it, but only because I live in a small enough town there wasn’t a queue. If I’d had to vote in the city, I could not physically have done it.
I’ll bet plenty of others like me simply could not.
All of the allegations listed on this site have fairly logical explanations when given context.
Republicans pushed against mail in ballots hard, so it makes sense that Harris would do better with mail ins and trump would do better with early voting. It also makes sense that trump voters mainly cared about the presidential election compared to Harris voters. It also makes sense that Harris underperformed as Democrats didn’t get to participate in a primary. Basically it makes sense for there to be abnormalities in an abnormal election, that doesn’t mean there’s “statistical evidence of probable tampering”.
Plus Trump, in his rambling, said something that [heavily implies tampering with vote counting machines
Right… But this means that we would be questioning trump’s honesty based on assuming that trump is being honest on this particular subject. He’s a troll who likes to stir the shit and make people assume he’s more competent than he really is, the same as musk.
It does not behoove progressives to question the reliability of elections without real evidence. Having people question the reliability of elections only serves conservative agenda of making it harder for people to vote.
Abnormal Clustering: In contrast to Election Day voting, Early Vote results display an unusual pattern: once approximately 250 ballots have been processed a visible shift is observed, resulting in a high degree of clustering and unusual uniformity. This is a departure from expected human voting behavior.
This is not logically explained by an “abnormal election”.
It’s also not really explaining much either. They don’t give examples of other elections to compare it too, and their own methodology is lackluster.
They are basically saying that after approx 250 votes trump started to pull ahead, which is to be expected as a lot of early Dem voters were mail ins.
To be honest it just seems like they are trying to purposely confuse normal phenomena with statistical diction, and alluding to claims without providing context.
Usually when making claims this grand you would also want evidence to match it. You’d also want to provide an example to compare it to previous elections utilizing the same methodology.
What is this website? I couldn’t find any link to their board directly, but only through a search engine. Their board is just named with three first names and there is broad statements made about them all being passionate, data analysts, bla bla.
There is no specific “CV” for them. E.g. something like “X studied computer science and worked as a data analyst for ten years”.
And the plots where they claim “suspicious” patterns looks like any aggregate. As the total number of votes go up, each machine is more likely to get towards the overall turnout, so your distribution peaks gets higher and your scatter plot scatters less. You see the same pattern with the Election day machines. Just that they only go up until 125 votes, rather than 250 or more total votes. So the spread remains stronger. Also the number of machines for early day voting is 964, whereas there was 3,116 machines for election day voting. This is another basic truth of statistics. As N goes up, the shape of your distribution gets more uniform.
So what do we see? We see exactly what is to be expected with a higher number of votes per machine. That the distribution gets narrower. And we see what is to be expected with a higher number of machines. That the distribution between machines gets more evenly.
Ignoring third party votes, this is a classical binomial distribution and you can test all of these effects easily by making your own “draw n out of N” tests.
The only argument is that there is a higher result for Trump with early voting as opposed to election day voting. And that can needs to be analyzed in the context of demographics and other factors. For instance people who can take off work for election day voting have more white collar jobs and are demographically more inclined to vote Democrats. But of course accounting for these factors is not part of this “analysis”.
I am not saying that manipulations are out of the question. But these people are clearly trying to bamboozle you with deliberate misinterpretations of statistics.
Then some independent data scientists got in touch with him and ElectionTruthalliance and SmartElections was borne out of it.
I haven’t verified the data in-depth, but AFAIK there are inconsistencies like this pattern only appearing on a certain brand of tabulator. I’m pretty sure you’re missing something either way or someone else would’ve as easily refuted it. There is a lot more information posted on https://old.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/Verify2024/
There is a recent AMA from the SmartElection founder here with some more details:
I have read briefly into the Duty to Warn Letter. These are specific arguments with a specific call to investigation, and they actually cover what would be considered statistical anomaly.
These are very different from the “Election Truth” people. And i wouldn’t be surprised if the “Election Truth” is using this hot issue topic to scam donations out of people.
So I get how this could sound compelling with that framing, but note that:
This was part of a hack project by 4 students in 2020
The tool they built in the hack was an ML computer vision system to validate ballots, in an effort to reduce mail-in ballot rejection rates
As a part of testing this project, they needed a way to generate a large amount of ballots which the system could then validate
Five years later, one of the authors of this hack works for DOGE
Like, take a look at the code - it’s trivial, in large part because it was made by college students in their early academic career. Creating something of similar caliber would be extremely trivial.
That this student hack project would have been used as a part of a greater scheme of election fraud seems highly unlikely.
It’s funny because student hacks are currently being given access to the entire Treasury payment system for the federal government and have leaked classified data about our spying capabilities.
It is better to go for specific leads and investigate those, rather than throw blanket conspiracies. The latter only helps Trump in abolishing democratic processes altogether.
The tabulators switched after 500 votes and restricted dems to 45%, the data looks artificially smoothed to hide this. The same pattern is visible on elections going back to 2014.
They also found the remote access code for Dominion machines on a public repo with the private admin password in it, there’s evidence of breaches all around the country from people associated with Trump. They got caught red handed, told us they were doing it the full time.
And that’s before we get to the voter suppression, and 10-20% of the country being in a state of algorithmically induced psychosis.
A lot is made of the ‘drop-off’, which is easily explained by the fact that Trump is a unique phenomenon. People are shocked that some Trump voters might swing towards a democrat downballot, and I can’t imagine the mindset personally, but I acknowledge it exists. Remember, they aren’t Republican voters, they are Trump voters. Further, NC has a history of voting for democrat state offices and republican federal offices.
I think if they were going full tampering, you wouldn’t see the drop-off, because they’d rig the down-ballot as well.
As to the graphs look funny, well, I think I’ll need to see more analysis from more data by a broader set of analysts. I know that statistics will say anything if you torture the numbers enough, so I’m not going to get too invested in visualizations from one source.
Scrutinizing the vote is fine, but feel like this looks more like denial than an educated analysis.
For this case specifically, again, a ‘Trump’ voter is not a republican voter, the democrat party is way more energized to vote against a would-be Trump ally than before the election. Finally, I don’t know about this race, but it’s possible that those two in particular have something in the local population making the democrat more popular. For example in NC the republican governor candidate was way specifically a problem, so there’s a much easier explanation for why he lost by an anomalous amount.
While it might seem simple to attribute the drop-off phenomenon to personal preferences for Trump or against Harris, the SMART Elections analysis shows that this pattern is far more complex and inconsistent with such an explanation. For instance, if Harris were uniquely unpopular, you’d expect her drop-off to be uniformly large across all states, but it isn’t. In Michigan, her drop-off is negligible (0.87%), while in Montana, it’s a staggering -19%, even though Montana has little connection to the pro-Gaza movement that critics say might have influenced her support. Similarly, the Republican drop-off (votes for Trump but not for down-ballot candidates) is just as significant, sometimes exceeding the margins of victory in key swing states. Down-ballot candidates refer to those running for lower-profile positions, such as governors, state legislators, or other local offices, as opposed to high-profile ones like the president. This suggests the issue isn’t simply about liking Trump or disliking Harris but instead points to a mix of unusual voter behaviors or even potential systemic issues in how votes were cast or counted. The consistent pattern of drop-off across vastly different demographics and states demands more scrutiny, not simple assumptions.
Thats pretty impressive. Sad it took 10+ years for the first comprehendible mention of it. Let’s go on like this but a little faster please.
It is absolutely insane that only a couple million worldwide are on the fediverse. This information can NOT AT ALL be on single, non federated websites. Federate this stuff immediately.
Edit: correction and addition -> nice one with the algorithmic induced psychosis. I wish we could get some psychologists on this to make it actual science so its not some randos like us screaming into the void.
The problem is the down ballot. I’m having trouble believing that a whole lot of people went out there and voted for Trump for president, and Democrats everywhere else.
I understand staying home. I understand voting Republican. But lots and lots of split ballots?
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but I think it’s more to do with them saying how great “the economy” is. They didn’t even try to appeal to the working class. They just told them they should be appreciative. They lost because they eschewed the left.
It wasn’t just Harris’s stance on Palestine that lost her the election. It was because they ran right on nearly every policy. Honestly I think abortion was the only topic they remained aligned with their base on. Mass deportations, went right. Wealth redistribution, token jesters. Universal health care, they laughed in sick and poor people’s faces. On and on, they told their base to go pound sand or have Trump as president. Whelp here we are.
Even if I consider election tampering a vague possibility, they’d never get away with it if that’s all it was. They likely aimed for a combination of factors, between misinformation, voter suppression, and/or vote tampering. Plus, people have said that public behaviors in many red states are that people are “pleased” with the result. This could be a vocal minority, but it’s hard to judge for sure.
I’m also not going to link to Greg Palast as “proof” of tampering - just that if we were under a responsible administration, there’s enough circumstantial oddities I’d want the election investigated for certainty (just as we did in 2020 even after Biden won).
Very important to keep in mind that even if evidence suggests the election was rigged that there are plenty of actors (Russia for example) that would want Trump in power to destabilize the states
Not pointing fingers and looking at this objectively is the best way for it to gain traction
There absolutely is way. The dems are routinely ineffective and they lost a lot of votes from 2020 because of the whole “Harris backs Israel in a genocide” thing.
Just cause the greater evil won doesn’t mean the left needs to start peddling unfounded “stolen election” conspiracy theories. It’s completely reasonable that enough people realized they fucked up by voting for Republicans, Third Party, or abstaining and took this as an opportunity to refute the actions of the current administration.
What if there was statistical evidence of probable tampering?
Plus Trump, in his rambling, said something that heavily implies tampering with vote counting machines.
I’ve also seen evidence that the same systemic election interference, voter purges/disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, etc — the leading reason for GOP wins over the last 20 years, and were never legitimately addressed or removed — were more than enough to secure Trumps win of the EC.
I’ve seen plenty of evidence that disenfranchisement was off the charts, and it hit me personally.
In Michigan, I’ve been disabled and homebound for years and have never had issues voting by mail, but this time rather than my usual automatic mail-in ballot, I got an application for a vote-by-mail ballot after the deadline. I was still registered, but I had to go in person.
I’d have crawled through hot broken glass naked to vote, so I did it, but only because I live in a small enough town there wasn’t a queue. If I’d had to vote in the city, I could not physically have done it.
I’ll bet plenty of others like me simply could not.
All of the allegations listed on this site have fairly logical explanations when given context.
Republicans pushed against mail in ballots hard, so it makes sense that Harris would do better with mail ins and trump would do better with early voting. It also makes sense that trump voters mainly cared about the presidential election compared to Harris voters. It also makes sense that Harris underperformed as Democrats didn’t get to participate in a primary. Basically it makes sense for there to be abnormalities in an abnormal election, that doesn’t mean there’s “statistical evidence of probable tampering”.
Right… But this means that we would be questioning trump’s honesty based on assuming that trump is being honest on this particular subject. He’s a troll who likes to stir the shit and make people assume he’s more competent than he really is, the same as musk.
It does not behoove progressives to question the reliability of elections without real evidence. Having people question the reliability of elections only serves conservative agenda of making it harder for people to vote.
This is not logically explained by an “abnormal election”.
It’s also not really explaining much either. They don’t give examples of other elections to compare it too, and their own methodology is lackluster.
They are basically saying that after approx 250 votes trump started to pull ahead, which is to be expected as a lot of early Dem voters were mail ins.
To be honest it just seems like they are trying to purposely confuse normal phenomena with statistical diction, and alluding to claims without providing context.
Usually when making claims this grand you would also want evidence to match it. You’d also want to provide an example to compare it to previous elections utilizing the same methodology.
What is this website? I couldn’t find any link to their board directly, but only through a search engine. Their board is just named with three first names and there is broad statements made about them all being passionate, data analysts, bla bla.
There is no specific “CV” for them. E.g. something like “X studied computer science and worked as a data analyst for ten years”.
And the plots where they claim “suspicious” patterns looks like any aggregate. As the total number of votes go up, each machine is more likely to get towards the overall turnout, so your distribution peaks gets higher and your scatter plot scatters less. You see the same pattern with the Election day machines. Just that they only go up until 125 votes, rather than 250 or more total votes. So the spread remains stronger. Also the number of machines for early day voting is 964, whereas there was 3,116 machines for election day voting. This is another basic truth of statistics. As N goes up, the shape of your distribution gets more uniform.
So what do we see? We see exactly what is to be expected with a higher number of votes per machine. That the distribution gets narrower. And we see what is to be expected with a higher number of machines. That the distribution between machines gets more evenly.
Ignoring third party votes, this is a classical binomial distribution and you can test all of these effects easily by making your own “draw n out of N” tests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution
The only argument is that there is a higher result for Trump with early voting as opposed to election day voting. And that can needs to be analyzed in the context of demographics and other factors. For instance people who can take off work for election day voting have more white collar jobs and are demographically more inclined to vote Democrats. But of course accounting for these factors is not part of this “analysis”.
I am not saying that manipulations are out of the question. But these people are clearly trying to bamboozle you with deliberate misinterpretations of statistics.
It’s been ran by a few different independent orgs. I believe it all began from
Then some independent data scientists got in touch with him and ElectionTruthalliance and SmartElections was borne out of it.
I haven’t verified the data in-depth, but AFAIK there are inconsistencies like this pattern only appearing on a certain brand of tabulator. I’m pretty sure you’re missing something either way or someone else would’ve as easily refuted it. There is a lot more information posted on https://old.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/Verify2024/
There is a recent AMA from the SmartElection founder here with some more details:
https://old.reddit.com/user/Filmmaker_Lulu/comments/1hjjyx8/i_am_the_cofounder_and_executive_director_of/
even the exact method has been uncovered.
I have read briefly into the Duty to Warn Letter. These are specific arguments with a specific call to investigation, and they actually cover what would be considered statistical anomaly.
These are very different from the “Election Truth” people. And i wouldn’t be surprised if the “Election Truth” is using this hot issue topic to scam donations out of people.
I’m not getting any red flags I think they’re just a bit disorganised. Here’s the name of someone involved
https://bsky.app/profile/electiontruth.bsky.social/post/3lhpbvqswak2d
Seems if it were a scam they wouldn’t register as a non profit in the us they’d be anon and taking crypto donations.
I know Spoonamore said he was working with a new team to verify the claims. I’m not sure which one that is though.
The duty to warn letter was debunked as junk
Debunked how?
Not sure how you could rationalise all those shown breaches.
I fucking hate when people just say “that’s bullshit” without actually showing you where to find the information to prove it.
Not to mention Musk’s DOGE people publishing their vote generation scrip on Git. You tell it the outcome you want, and it’ll make ballots to match.
So I get how this could sound compelling with that framing, but note that:
Like, take a look at the code - it’s trivial, in large part because it was made by college students in their early academic career. Creating something of similar caliber would be extremely trivial.
That this student hack project would have been used as a part of a greater scheme of election fraud seems highly unlikely.
It’s funny because student hacks are currently being given access to the entire Treasury payment system for the federal government and have leaked classified data about our spying capabilities.
Source? I would love to see if the geniuses signed the commits with their public keys as well.
I would like to see the similarities between voting machines in districts overlaid with the results.
Your first link gives a Page Not Found.
Seems to load for me. DNS issue maybe?
You honestly think the party of “Every accusation is a confession” who spent 4 years screaming about election fraud didn’t commit election fraud?
It is better to go for specific leads and investigate those, rather than throw blanket conspiracies. The latter only helps Trump in abolishing democratic processes altogether.
You actually think that Trump is smart enough to pull off something like that without fucking it up?
The same Trump that almost let it slip that they rigged PA?
There’s actually quite a lot of evidence.
https://electiontruthalliance.org/
https://smartelections.substack.com/p/so-clean
The tabulators switched after 500 votes and restricted dems to 45%, the data looks artificially smoothed to hide this. The same pattern is visible on elections going back to 2014.
They also found the remote access code for Dominion machines on a public repo with the private admin password in it, there’s evidence of breaches all around the country from people associated with Trump. They got caught red handed, told us they were doing it the full time.
And that’s before we get to the voter suppression, and 10-20% of the country being in a state of algorithmically induced psychosis.
A lot is made of the ‘drop-off’, which is easily explained by the fact that Trump is a unique phenomenon. People are shocked that some Trump voters might swing towards a democrat downballot, and I can’t imagine the mindset personally, but I acknowledge it exists. Remember, they aren’t Republican voters, they are Trump voters. Further, NC has a history of voting for democrat state offices and republican federal offices.
I think if they were going full tampering, you wouldn’t see the drop-off, because they’d rig the down-ballot as well.
As to the graphs look funny, well, I think I’ll need to see more analysis from more data by a broader set of analysts. I know that statistics will say anything if you torture the numbers enough, so I’m not going to get too invested in visualizations from one source.
Scrutinizing the vote is fine, but feel like this looks more like denial than an educated analysis.
For this case specifically, again, a ‘Trump’ voter is not a republican voter, the democrat party is way more energized to vote against a would-be Trump ally than before the election. Finally, I don’t know about this race, but it’s possible that those two in particular have something in the local population making the democrat more popular. For example in NC the republican governor candidate was way specifically a problem, so there’s a much easier explanation for why he lost by an anomalous amount.
The challenge with this example is that it suggests that they bothered to rig things against Harris in Montana of all places.
They were rigging it via voter suppression and fighting it in court so they must think it relevant enough to involve themselves in anyway
https://youtu.be/E7aH2_F8v5Q
Thats pretty impressive. Sad it took 10+ years for the first comprehendible mention of it. Let’s go on like this but a little faster please.
It is absolutely insane that only a couple million worldwide are on the fediverse. This information can NOT AT ALL be on single, non federated websites. Federate this stuff immediately.
Edit: correction and addition -> nice one with the algorithmic induced psychosis. I wish we could get some psychologists on this to make it actual science so its not some randos like us screaming into the void.
The problem is the down ballot. I’m having trouble believing that a whole lot of people went out there and voted for Trump for president, and Democrats everywhere else.
I understand staying home. I understand voting Republican. But lots and lots of split ballots?
A decent number of trump voters only voted for Trump. They left the downballot blank because they don’t really care about anything but Trump
Yeah, sure. But we saw a gigantic increase in split ballots.
Orders of magnitude more split ballots than any other election.
Have you met anyone that did that?
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but I think it’s more to do with them saying how great “the economy” is. They didn’t even try to appeal to the working class. They just told them they should be appreciative. They lost because they eschewed the left.
https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/
deleted by creator
FTFY. It wasn’t just the genocide. It was also this kind of denialism and apologism.
Libs are right-wing.
It wasn’t just Harris’s stance on Palestine that lost her the election. It was because they ran right on nearly every policy. Honestly I think abortion was the only topic they remained aligned with their base on. Mass deportations, went right. Wealth redistribution, token jesters. Universal health care, they laughed in sick and poor people’s faces. On and on, they told their base to go pound sand or have Trump as president. Whelp here we are.
Even if I consider election tampering a vague possibility, they’d never get away with it if that’s all it was. They likely aimed for a combination of factors, between misinformation, voter suppression, and/or vote tampering. Plus, people have said that public behaviors in many red states are that people are “pleased” with the result. This could be a vocal minority, but it’s hard to judge for sure.
I’m also not going to link to Greg Palast as “proof” of tampering - just that if we were under a responsible administration, there’s enough circumstantial oddities I’d want the election investigated for certainty (just as we did in 2020 even after Biden won).
They did do a variety of things.
If any one of these had failed they would’ve lost.
Just this weekend I had to overhear a conversation about how terrible trans people are, and how good it was that trump is doing things about it.
Alright, imma post this one last time in this thread, I swear:
https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/
Very important to keep in mind that even if evidence suggests the election was rigged that there are plenty of actors (Russia for example) that would want Trump in power to destabilize the states
Not pointing fingers and looking at this objectively is the best way for it to gain traction
deleted by creator