Posted on 11/12/2020 2:52:18 PM PST by Golden Eagle
President Donald Trump spelled out elements of his multi-state legal strategy to try to pry back President-elect Joe Biden's victory as called by the networks, claiming through a recount he would strip Georgia away from the Democrat's column.
...
Hi comments about Pennsylvania and Michigan suggest that he will try to find a way to throw out the results in the states. That would grab another 36 electoral votes from Biden's total – depriving him the White House.
By snatching back the 'blue wall' of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Biden carried the states by a total of more than 200,000 votes, far surpassing Trump's 2016 vote margins in the state.
His comments about Michigan and Pennsylvania point to a plan floated even before the election where state legislatures would declare the count fraudulent amid a flood of mail-in ballots, then use their majority status to muscle through a set of electors for Trump despite the vote for Biden.
If that were to happen, it would set up a clash between the House, which Democrats control, and the Senate, where Republicans are one seat away from keeping their majority, over which electors to seat – with known results.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Jeez, lighten up.
In the first place, I wasn’t referring to communism, I was referring to the election of 1876. Read before you get your panties in a wad.
If the votes were removed from Trump digitally, a canvas and hand count will correct the vote assuming they don’t find enough corresponding ballots to match the machine tabulated votes. A count of actual votes will correct for any “software enhancement of vote switches”.. Even if they tried to hurriedly put thru a bunch of fake votes to cover, I doubt they’ve had time to hide their trails well and these ballots may get discovered or they discover the actual ballots are under the numbers of what the machines originally spat out. I think they’ll simply have not had enough time to “cover fake digital ones” with “fake real” ballots so they are attempting to bluff the numbers. I think of this method as being similar to check kiting. They’ve moved needed virtual votes around and they hope to run out the clock or fake enough real ballots to cover the scheme.
If they have ballots but the initial vote counts are over the amounts of ballots at hand then usually it’s because many of the ballots were run through the tabulators several times...like the type of fraud they found in Detroit in 2016.
Then there is the matter of the number of ballots (either absentee mail in or in person cast ballots) that don’t match the numbers of persons who were said to have voted in any given precinct; the voter visit logs don’t match.
Or the number of ballots are greater than those who were registered to vote in that district or even sometimes greater than the total population of any given precinct. The ballots are supposed to be sealed in special boxes after counting with a manifest describing the number of ballots in the boxes.
The courts in times past have often said such over votes don’t matter in the counting but with the election differences at 30000 or so in Pa...such over votes mean a great deal now and must be dealt with.
Sealed boxes with less ballots in them then what their manifests say are the most correctable. The wrong vote can be erased and the ballots in such a box can be re-counted “once”. So if a box that says “306 ballots” with 300 votes for Biden and 6 votes for Trump on the manifest only has 51 ballots in them(like what happened in one example in Detroit)...then Biden loses 250 votes and Trump loses only 5 because those ballots had been run thru 6 times. Trump actually gains because Biden loses votes.
That type of ballot fraud is the most fixable because at least you have ballots to work with. It’s also the most pervasive because the corrupt elections folks are banking on anyone not checking too close.
Votes that show greater than the registered amounts of voters are trickier to try and fix if ballots match the manifests of the boxes they are in but the visitor logs don’t match. You don’t have anything to go on as to wwhat was a fraudulant tvote and what wasn’t. That precinct is in the most danger of having their entire votes canceled and if other elections say...ward assemblyman are involved a new election for that precinct or ward might need to be ordered just like happened in NJ(and some corrupt people were arrested for fraud)where a new election got orderd.
I imagine a lot of corrupt election people are whistling past the graveyard in the swing states right now and hoping Trump just gives up and goes away.
“...as long as the legislature passes something to select electors before the deadline, that State will have its electoral votes counted.”
True, if they want them counted...otherwise, I guess they could split them 50/50, which still helps Biden more than Trump, though.
If the vote was thrown to the House, could Pelosi decide NOT to have a vote, and make herself President ?
Yes, we want those States to either be declared for Trump or to lose their electors and the House decide the Presidency.
p
It’s not ‘chaos’, it is the CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS. If a state cannot certify an election, for any reason, then no electors can be dispatched for that state.
Dumb Brits might want to read the rules.
True...as does our own, LYING media.
See you are still concerned with which candidate won which ballot. The easier thing to do is to count the total number of ballots physically, initially. Should the physical count be off from the reported count then do a physical recount of ballots.
Everyone keeps saying that digital is easy to track. However as a DB Analyst, this is furthest from the truth. Digital breadcrumbs can be and have been manipulated before. They could be erased with a simple script that would have no footprint at all. As an example, system dates can be changed to produce a faulty date then all footprints in the system would not be in question as far as dates go. Many ways to get around the writing of a footprint in order to mke it look on the up and up.
I think the concern is how do you isolate bad ballots(having come in after the deadline dates) from good ballots when they are all mixed together when all other numbers match. You can’t but if the numbers are enough that can significantly throw an election then the whole batch has to be disqualified.
Physical ballots and their counts must match the data tape/file/numbers. If they don’t then there was a programming issue with the tabulators. Physical ballot numbers must match the polling logs of the precincts of those registered voters of the precinct who are recorded as having voted that particular election. There will be some who may not have voted. Any number over 90 percent starts to look suspicious and anything over 100 percent not supported by same day registration additions shows over voting.
No. The Constitution states that each state shall vote by delegation. Rs have 26, Ds 24, and 1 in flux. Trump would be president.
Then, the Senate would vote for the Veep. It “seems” to say that this would be from among the next three highest vote getters-—i.e., Biteme and Jorgenson, but I think it also includes Pence. So Pence it would be.
What? What?
I thought the process was the liberal press declares a winner, then the 'elect/Biden' rents a used car lot for 75 of his followers to sit on cars while he reads an acceptance speech written by a Morning Joe hack... speech...
You are getting away from the discussion. It has nothing to do with isolating ballots and everything to do with the total number of ballots counted. You can still have 100 physical ballots, even if you isolate them, but if the count shows 225 ballots counted then the question is where is the missing 125 ballots. If you then combine the missing 125 ballots with the accusations that multiple ballots were scanned, this becomes evidence in the litigation proving that fraud did indeed occur.
You say there is a “programming issue” with the tabulation if physical ballots don’t match up. I would proffer this would also be the same digitally with the number of voters who actually voted. However, digital records are much more easy to manufacture and to manipulate than physica ballots. Now back to this “programming issue”. I started out by saying that poll workers were accused of running ballots multiple times through the scanner. How does this become a “programming issue” when the scanner is counting ballots presented to it. There is no “programming issue” when the scanner was “programmed” to only count ballots presented to it. The multiple runs is no more a “programming issue” than the sky is blue. In this case it is a “user issue”.
Its funny, in the business world c-level execs are more apt to not believe what is in their database versus their gut. Yet when it comes to elections, everyone must trust the data even when the data has been compromised. In an open and fair election the data should not, in theory, be compromised but when there are actions of multiple scans of the same ballots then the data has been compromised and human manual counting should be done. This includes an independent poll worker, a demoncrap and repube eyeing each and every ballot and then agreeing on the vote for the candidate. Any ballot in question should be placed aside and investigated further. This counting process shooud in theory match the count from the machine scanner. If not, we have an issue of the fourth kind happening.
Like I said a total overall ballot count should be done not worrying about the vote cast at this point. This would indcate the numbers don’t add up. The reason for this is that if multiple ballots are run multiple times through a machine then numbers would not match to total ballots cast. This is before looking at what is on any ballot. Everyone is concerned wit what is on the ballot neglecting the total number of ballots cast and acting as if there were that many total ballots cast.
We know of massive fraud, electors must vote for Trump.
I was talking about 3 ways that they cheat.
Of course it goes back to the confirmed hand count number of votes and the confirmed eyes on votes contained on each ballot....if that doesn’t match what the machine says,then the machine is wrong and/or it’s firmware/software is distorting the numbers on the ballots run thru them. That is the very first thing you check.
If the votes were removed from Trump digitally, a canvas and hand count will correct the vote assuming they don’t find enough corresponding ballots to match the machine tabulated votes. A count of actual votes will correct for any “software enhancement of vote switches”.. Even if they tried to hurriedly put thru a bunch of fake votes to cover, I doubt they’ve had time to hide their trails well and these ballots may get discovered or they discover the actual ballots are under the numbers of what the machines originally spat out. I think they’ll simply have not had enough time to “cover fake digital ones” with “fake real” ballots so they are attempting to bluff the numbers. I think of this method as being similar to check kiting. They’ve moved needed virtual votes around and they hope to run out the clock or fake enough real ballots to cover the scheme.
Remove the issue of what was cast on the ballot. Concern your yourself with the total number of cast ballots. Count those first.
You are zeroed in on what is cast on the ballot versus the actual ballot itself. The number of ballots should match the total of reported results.
If the total count is equal to the reported then you can concern yourself with what is on the ballot. First lets deal with the irregularities reported by the total number of ballots cast not adding up because the same ballots were scanned multiple times. If a ballot is scanned twice you only have one (1) ballot for two votes. If you have 25 ballots scanned four times you have 100 votes for 25 ballots. Thus you would have 75 more total votes than ballots. This is that easy to determine.
If the machines are spot on and they use the scanner to verify from a random sampling of votes that the machine is correct then this is not addressing the real issue. The issue is not the machines. The issue becomes the people feeding the machines.
I was talking about 3 ways that they cheat.
And yet you do not mention anything about running the same ballot through a scanner multiple times.
Again, the way they check the machine is pull random ballots from the pile of ballots and run it through the machine. If the machine comes up with the correct number they certify the machine is correct. If a person runs multiple ballots through a machine that has been certified as correct, this still does not address the accusations ballots were run through the machine multiple times as the machine will give a count whether it is fed 100 unique ballots or 10 ballots run through 10 times. Each time the machine will determine it saw 100 ballots and will have reported it has counted 100 ballots.
That is the ideal situation for counted ballots...the question is how the machine tabulated the vote counts on each ballot and that is what folks are saying got messed up. Especially when the machines we find were internet connected to others.( and we now know it did happen) Rounding errors introduced into the software that favor one candidate over others become significant over multiple precincts. Only handcounts in those precincts can catch the software fraud. But that is a massive undertaking and subject to bickering and disputes and court fights. Yes ideally one could take say a hundred ballots and tally them and confirm yes....the machine can confirm there wer 100 ballots...but did they tabulate the votes on the ballots correctly or was the vote off from what was a given known standard. A machine cut off from outside interference and certified thru testing should not have any errors from a known tally of ballots run thru them. But if a network of machines could be interfered with in real time over millions of votes with precious time left for certification...that is something else. Also harder to get permission by the courts to check if no other evidence of overvotes, multiple ballot tabulations, ect which are easier to spot.
Apparently 3 dominion workers are now singling like canaries...I guess we’ll see. Not a lot of push by Pol’s in general to want to stand up to defend Trump...a lot of foot dragging.
Your question about multiple ballot runs. That is what happened in one circumstance in Detroit in 2016. (Steins recount) The manifest on the secure box said 306 ballots but when the seal was broken only 51 ballots were inside and the precinct station had only 51 voters for that election that day. They had run the ballos thru 6 times for a fake vote of 300 votes for Hillary and 6 votes for Trump. They corrected the counts(still couldn’t prove if the ballots were faked but the counts did improve for Trump in the state by 250 votes which were taken away from Hillary while he lost 5.
So you have to look to see if ballots matched the numbers as recorded on the strong box manifests and to see if they matched the numbers as having actually voted in a precinct, who are actually registered as a voter,on that given election day.
Otherwise there is no other way to prove fraud if everything else matches unless you get sworn witnesses that come forward with videos of time stamps and testimony that says no way 95 percent of the registered voters in precinct X voted that day or even absentee and here is precinct leader telling us to cheat and how.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.