I saw parts of Lindell’s conference through Steve Bannon’s podcast. Okay, so he had these guests who brought charts and tables with plausible explanations which would make attendees go “oooooo” and “aaaaah”, but if this information is not made known to the general public, what good does it do? My jaded response to these presentations is: “Aaaaaaand?”.
I saw parts of Lindell’s conference through Steve Bannon’s podcast. Okay, so he had these guests who brought charts and tables with plausible explanations which would make attendees go “oooooo” and “aaaaah”, but if this information is not made known to the general public, what good does it do? My jaded response to these presentations is: “Aaaaaaand?”.
Agreed. In addition, the original source data and code by which the charts and tables can be reproduced needs to be provided. Otherwise, they are just unsubstantiated claims. I googled to try to find how to reproduce some of the charts that were shown by Dr. Douglas Frank. The closest thing that I could find is this paper that attempts to reproduce and analyze Frank's findings. I haven't had time to look through it much but on page 5, it states:
Transparency and reproducibility are lauded among the scientific community, however in my experience this is not the case among fraud theorists. Data is not shared, methods are only vaguely described, and I have yet to see a link to reproducible code. As a result, reproduction entails an exercise in data hunting and reverse engineering, which is what must be done here.
I have looked at too many studies where the data is cherry-picked and/or the analysis is flawed or incomplete. If the author cannot take the time and effort to provide the source data and code to reproduce the conclusions, I usually have no time to hunt for the data and reverse engineer the code. I generally ignore the study and move on to a study that is documented and reproducible.
I agree with Lindell that our voting system is not transparent and is hackable. However, I very much disagree with his claiming to know that the Presidential race was actually won by Trump. Most of the "evidence" that his "experts" have presented is piecemeal. Even if Frank and his canvassers have found some cases of apparent voter fraud, it's unclear how many they have found or even who those votes benefited. It is possible that there is some amount of voter fraud, vote harvesting, voter suppression, or even vote manipulation practiced by both parties. There's an online article that suggests that Republicans may have been benefiting the most from such activity since 2004. That fact is, we don't know for sure. All we can do is to come up with rules for counting the vote (and auditing and recounting it under set rules). Also, we can get rid of the machines as much as possible so that the system is as transparent and verifiable as we can make it. I had been hoping that Lindell's plan would be a proposal to do this. Instead, he came up with a plan to fix our problem of unverifiable machines with another system of unverifiable machines.