Another legal “expert” declares that no one has standing to challenge election fraud. Everyone should have standing to challenge election fraud because until it is investigated, no one really knows if it affected the outcome of the election. All of this becomes a problem with masses of absentee mail-in ballots. People need to demand a change, but it requires an informed citizenry to identify the problem.
So if a 30% chance of voter #'s ending in 0 cannot be reconciled with the Chance Hypothesis, we go on to the next filter: Is there a "law" that would drive 30% of the voter #'s to be ending in 0? Just judging from the article it doesn't sound like it, though investigation of the details of how such numbers are generated should be done to achieve a robust conclusion. If not a product of the "system" (law), the 30% result can be reliably concluded to be the result of Design. In this case presumably the design of corrupt actors undermining the electoral system. (Hat tip to The Design Inference by Dr. William Dembski.)
Is there a link to this research?
No better proof that the 2020 election was a fraud than the strange 8million votes for Biden who didn’t appear in 2024 to vote for Harris.
The standing doctrine was made up by the courts to being with. It didn’t even exist until near the 1900’s I believe. Some court just made it up and then it went from there. It is actually unconstitutional because the constitution simply gives us the right to have our grievances heard.
If the algorithm isn’t simple like “counts[candidate] += 1;”, then something was amiss.
Wouldn’t a losing candidate have standing to sue?