No Way

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.
What if there was statistical evidence of probable tampering?
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.
And the whole thing about Republicans constantly projecting, they screamed about vote tampering and then shut up real quick as soon as Trump won. And the obvious fact that Trump and Republicans in general constantly cheat, lie etc. IMO it was obvious even before the election that they would tamper, cheat and do everything illegal and unacceptable in their power to win.
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
  Duty to Warn Letter - to VP Harris - Re: Election 2024
  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.
I would like to see the similarities between voting machines in districts overlaid with the results.
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:
  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.
- Source? I would love to see if the geniuses signed the commits with their public keys as well.
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?

No way! Next you'll tell me the only fraud that was found is from Republican electors!
- You're not going to believe this....
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?

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
- A disproportionate amount...
  Only in swing states...
  Just enough to not trigger an automatic recount...
  
  Part of musks "outreach" plan was reaching low propensity voters and telling them essentially "don't worry about the ballot if you dont know who else to vote for, the most important thing is voting for Trump."
  That's why we saw a lot of "bullet ballots."
  There were also a lot of idiots who voted for Trump and their local Democrat. AOC had this happen when talking with her constituents. She said their response was "you're both (seemingly) authentic, Trump and you are real where everyone else in Washington are fake, greedy, lying politicians."
  There really are just a metric fuckton of idiots out there that don't pay enough attention.
  I don't like Trump's weird remarks about Elon knowing voting machines, but I really don't think they rigged this election by that method.
  
  Voters are so desperate for authenticity, they're willing to vote for an authentic piece of shit like Trump. Fuck.
  
  It wasn't by a large margin - the swing states were a lot closer than people think. Its just that the shift nationally was a pretty uniform making the results in the overall electoral college look less close than each state was. Each swing state was within 1-3%, so small differences to splitting or not filling out the ballot mattered way more here leading to split results
  The swing states actually moved less to the right compared to 2020 than the rest of the country in 2024. Probably because of more campaigning in those states
  EDIT: Also for an example with some specific numbers, let's look at the Wisconsin
  President race
  Trump - 1,697,626
  Harris - 1,668,229
  Third Party - 30,015
  Senate
  Baldwin (D) - 1,672,777 [ 4,548 fewer votes than Harris ]
  Hovde R - 1,643,996 [ 24,233 fewer votes than Trump ]
  If we assume no split ticking, that would mean ~1.4% of Trump voters and ~0.2% of Harris voters in Wisconsin likely left the down ballot blank
- 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?

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.
- 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.
  
  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.
I feel like the exit polls would have revealed something if it was that drastic.
- They did, the early versions of the first ones anyway. They’re adjusted afterwards and weighted to match the alleged vote counts as they come out.
  Exit Polls were spot on for all down ballot races, but were wildly off base with Trump.
  State Edison Exit Polls (EEP) (MoE 3%) vs. Reported Results. In Swing States. EEPs show Harris wins 4 beyond MoE, Trump 0. 3 within MoE. Returns Trump wins all 7. 6 of 7 beyond MoE. But DownBallot EEPs are right and falloff counts are hard to believe.
  https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/11/05/politics/how-exit-polls-work-election

https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/

Only three of the seven swing states are even on that list. Their electoral votes wouldn't have been enough to have put Harris over 270.

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.

TBH they should have taken the dems and been appreciative, instead they've all signed up to get fucked over by a GOP tax plan AGAIN. Did you know 70 Million Americans relied on the Medicaid they froze funding for and are about to gut with the recent spending bill? 79,308,002 if you include CHIP too.
A Harris Tax Plan would have lowered working class taxes and gone after capital gains for the exorbitantly rich.
These are very well documented stances, everybody should have been aware of all of this. There is no excuse about the DNC's message.
- TBH they should have taken the dems and been appreciative,
  The beatings continue until morals improve...
  This is exactly the problem with the US oligarchy and how it filters candidates that are allowed to run for elections.
  
  Yeah keep pretending both sides are equal while one side guts this nation like a pig. Helps you sleep at night, I bet.
  
  They're not equal. You've also acquired such a hair trigger for "enlightened centrists" that you've started shooting the messenger.
  The most important lesson of this last election? The laymen do not give a fuck about how the government functions, or the need to preserve the institution itself for further generations. Erosion of the rule of law? Loyalty tests? Pardoning insurrectionists? Absolutely off their radar.
  They care about the hurt on their wallet, and the fact that the incumbent party is telling them "everything is fine". Do they care that tariffs will put the squeeze on them even more? No, that requires a passing understanding of basic economics.
  The larger voting body operates on the status quo. That's it. If they dislike the status quo, they need an appealing explanation of why they should expect things to change under your stewardship. Controversies used to help swing an election, but we're so saturated with excuses for outrage that a lot of it no longer registers on the radar.
  Realistically we have a party representing stagnation, and a party representing volatility.
  One party positions itself as "just left enough of center" to be stomached by its constituents, but frequently fucks it up because their policy positions can't risk rocking the boat with its wealthiest donors.
  The other party accelerates the country toward authoritarianism under the promise of sweeping changes.
  That first bullet? Pretty fucking important. You seem to want them to win because they value the rule of law. Good on you, so do I. But that party is gonna continue to get black eyes because their priority is on the status quo of the party, not the status quo of their constituents. They consistently fuck it up every time they're given a choice between the two.
  
  Yeah, people should be appreciative of not being gutted. They can still be fucked, but they should just happily spread the legs. Never expect more than not being fucked at least.
  
  If you think taxing the rich and removing money from politics is getting fucked, then you deserve every misfortune.

I just think the dems painted themselves in a corner by arguing there is no way someone could ever rig the general. The left was not built on the foundation of, "we trust the government."

Even the continued reluctance to implement some sort of election security reform is misfounded. Sure, voter suppression is a thing and we can't let our fear cause us to misstep but at the same time just because you haven't found election fraud doesn't mean it does not exist. The point of the fraud would be to go undetected. If they aren't caught, well damn, looks like it's working.

How would someone even go about investigating election fraud? You can't petition every state. No one would trust a private entity to fund it. If you even suggest that the machines are rigged the manufacturer will sue the shit out of you.

It's just another reason the DNC is a sunk cost. These absolute positions they hold are actually gaping vulnerabilities.

they lost a lot of votes from 2020 because of the ~~whole “Harris backs Israel in a~~ genocide ~~” thing.~~

FTFY. It wasn't just the genocide. It was also this kind of denialism and apologism.

Just cause the greater evil won doesn’t mean ~~the left~~ liberals needs to start peddling unfounded “stolen election” conspiracy theories.

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.

.ml

It IS really weird how all the tankie types love both to tell you that your votes don't matter and Trump bragging about rigging the election shouldn't be investigated, isn't it?
- yup.
- Trump bragging about rigging the election
  If that's actually what he was doing, that'd be something, and also quite uncharacteristic of Trump.
- 🐴👟
  
  Horseshoe speaks to the concept of authoritarianism for people that have never heard of multiple political axes. Quite frankly two isn't enough either, so horseshoe trying to bend just one to its false narrative is pretty obnoxious.
  I'm alluding to the effects of an inherently unprovable Russian psyop campaign, like a cool person!
  ~~but it does also annoy the real tankies so there's that~~

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.
limited the dems to 45% on the tabulators after 500 votes
suppressed enough votes that they would’ve lost if it weren’t for the massive voter purges and other legislation they shoved through
algorithmically induced psychosis in 20% the population
If any one of these had failed they would’ve lost.
Plus, people have said that public behaviors in many red states are that people are “pleased” with the result.
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.

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

Alright, imma post this one last time in this thread, I swear:
https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/

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).