My Question About The Election

[gab13by13]

Experts like David Plouffe and Marc Elias were telling us that Trump's ceiling was 47 to 48%. Trump got 50%. If Democrats knew what Trump's ceiling was, so did Magats.

The experts were right, Trump really did only get 47 to 48%, the way he got to 50% was because a shit load of Democrats didn't vote, and I call bullshit on that. Kamala Harris ran a better campaign than Trump, I don't give a shit if she only had 4 months to run it.

I hope the people doing the audit in Pa. do it with an examination of vote totals.

I am from Pa. and honestly, I was worried more about Casey than Kamala. No way did Casey do better than Kamala in Pa.

No, I don't have any fucking proof because Democrats aren't looking for it, except for the Casey audit. Is it possible for that audit to reveal any fuckery? Or will the Casey audit not be looking for fuckery is my fear.

[Meowmee]

1. I would like to see audits in the key swing states at least as well

as a forensic investigation of software. No harm in doing that imo. It would give us answers.

As far as the ceiling, I may be confusing what you mean here, I think there is usually a 2% margin of error so they can end up higher than expected. My brother said B was higher in polls by about 5-6% I think and then he ended up about only 2% higher maybe in the actual election. I have forgotten the actual numbers here for that and I am going off of memory.

[Amishman]

2. While it's emotionally hard to grasp, no one has been able to present any real proof of wrongdoing

And I don't expect any to emerge. The bottom up reporting of totals and the number of people involved, makes it nearly impossible to alter the results at a meaningful scale.

Our system as it exists today has excellent air gaps and audit trails, and countless engaged well-meaning volunteers involved in the process.

Precinct level volunteers know how many voters they had and what their totals were, and those I know are always very concerned that their work was recorded and counted accurately. Above and beyond the many double checks built into the system, those volunteers often do check their precinct's official total once the numbers are out and official.

The certification process in most states involves manual double checking randomly selected samples.

Tampering in transmission (such as the starlink claim), or any point down-stream would be exposed quickly. Any flipped votes would need be attributed to a precinct, and quickly noticed. Same for fabricated votes, with the added problem that fabricated votes would also quickly become unbelievable when compared to registered voters in the precinct and caught red handed when checked against turnout books.

My off the cuff guess is theoretical tampering is limited to a couple hundred votes per precinct before someone notices, and would still require the entire staff at the precinct to be in on it. To get a meaningful amount of fraud, you'd need an army of people working in thousands of precincts - a scale that makes keeping the secret, or just pulling it off, essentially impossible.

Because voter registration, turnout, and vote totals are reported publicly down to such a granular level, it is extremely easy to validate the integrity of the whole.

[gab13by13]

4. Experts who were involved in "hacking"

disagree with you.

Also remember, pro-Trump people were given access to voting machines, some were arrested for doing so.

Are voting machines randomly audited after the election?

[Amishman]

5. What experts? What proof?

The cybersecurity experts letter?

Their own letter says there is no proof right in the first paragraph:

We have no evidence that the outcomes of the elections in those
states were actually compromised as a result of the security breaches, and we are
not suggesting that they were.

They are pointing out that electronic data security is not great - which would be a big problem if there weren't countless human checks inherently built into our system, as I mentioned. Any data manipulation would need to be attributed to a precinct, and precinct staff and volunteers would quickly catch it. It would also need to be a small number of votes in many many precincts, dramatically multiplying the chances of detection.

[Meowmee]

6. I still think it's important to do this

Software manipulation may have happened and we will never know if no one investigates it. Enough has happened that it’s warranted imo. We’re not talking about an honorable person like B. We’re talking about a psychopath who has already committed numerous crimes, who has other criminals to help him. And he was telling his cult people not to vote because he already had the votes for this election.

No harm done if it’s done and it looks ok. Then at least we know.

[gab13by13]

3. I know nothing,

but I listen to experts. I only get my news from a handful of reliable sources and those experts have been saying Trump's ceiling was only 47 to 48%. I have not seen one expert predict that Trump's ceiling was over 48%.