Who do you tip to win the US presidential election

[Jon Miller]

First that is not fraud. Second, they understand the possible associated errors and have even looked at them in some jurisdictions in Wisconsin for this election I believe ( might be another state ). The counts can possible change by a couple hundred ( based on the numbers ). This is not enough to change the result.

they don’t automatically do such audits because it costs money they don’t have

JM

[Jon Miller]

That's right, Georgia did a hand recount for their 2nd or 3rd recount.

They can do another one, it is useful information for future elections. But it doesn't impact this one. Just like the later recount that had Gore ahead of Bush didn't impact the election of 2000 because the relevant count was the one that existed on December 8 (or their day that was the same as our December 8).

You could probably have given Florida a couple of more days, but not past December 14.

JM
(I think that Gore was not ahead by December 14, but sometime later, after a more complete recount)

[Jon Miller]

I find it both hilarious and scary that many Republicans are now arguing that Gore was just a chump for not refusing to count Florida's votes for Bush and instead counting some alternative set of votes in January of 2001. They believe he had that option and that it is right for him to have had that option.

JM
(unlike for Trump, Gore was within 2000 votes in one state and had reason to believe that a complete recount would have showed him ahead with the win)

[Kidlicious]

I agree with this.
But my understanding is, that actually those ballots were available for recount and validation, up till the date when the electoral college convened and determined the president elect. Which, after all, was more than 1 month after voting. Ample time in order to bring any doubts with the election process to court and do multiple recounts (something that AFAIK had been done in multiple states ... AFAIK in Georgia even 2-3 times)

The voter histories are not complete.

"But Murren in her statement and in interviews with Just the News revealed that, even as the year comes to a close nearly two months after the election itself, the state is still ultimately not in possession of the exact number of voters who cast a ballot in Pennsylvania this year. "

So no one has all the information needed to know if the election was done fairly and without fraud. That's why she isn't giving exact numbers. This is bad because it gives people reason to rightfully suspect fraud.

Now we have dueling electors in all of the contested states. Congress must now decide which electors should count. I'm not saying that Trump has a good chance but this is all besides the point. The important issue here is that this whole thing is horrible government and Biden can not be legitimate.

[Jon Miller]

There isn't dueling electors. There is one set that has been signed off by the secretary of state's and the governors to have followed the rules.

You have a group of people who lost and lost by a lot who are being seditious. It is not Biden or anyone form Biden's camp.

JM

[Kidlicious]

First that is not fraud. Second, they understand the possible associated errors and have even looked at them in some jurisdictions in Wisconsin for this election I believe ( might be another state ). The counts can possible change by a couple hundred ( based on the numbers ). This is not enough to change the result.

they don’t automatically do such audits because it costs money they don’t have

JM

I didn't say it was fraud. I claimed that they should be suspected of fraud because the system should be set up and executed so that people know who won, and no people do not know that Biden won. You're just saying that you trust the election officials despite the fact that there is reason to suspect them.

[Kidlicious]

That's right, Georgia did a hand recount for their 2nd or 3rd recount.

They can do another one, it is useful information for future elections. But it doesn't impact this one. Just like the later recount that had Gore ahead of Bush didn't impact the election of 2000 because the relevant count was the one that existed on December 8 (or their day that was the same as our December 8).

You could probably have given Florida a couple of more days, but not past December 14.

JM
(I think that Gore was not ahead by December 14, but sometime later, after a more complete recount)

The investigation needs to be conducted to satisfy suspicion. If you let the police come in your house to look around. You can't tell them not to look in the basement. The Senate Judiciary has ordered the election officials to allow the paper ballots to be audited. And now, just like in AZ, the officials are refusing to comply. This can only mean that the audit will show fraud.

Biden should tell them to comply and show them everything they want to see.

[Proteus_MST]

The voter histories are not complete.

"But Murren in her statement and in interviews with Just the News revealed that, even as the year comes to a close nearly two months after the election itself, the state is still ultimately not in possession of the exact number of voters who cast a ballot in Pennsylvania this year. "

So no one has all the information needed to know if the election was done fairly and without fraud. That's why she isn't giving exact numbers. This is bad because it gives people reason to rightfully suspect fraud.

Now we have dueling electors in all of the contested states. Congress must now decide which electors should count. I'm not saying that Trump has a good chance but this is all besides the point. The important issue here is that this whole thing is horrible government and Biden can not be legitimate.

Well, I would call those competing electors that were hastily arranged by several Trumpists rather a joke than something else.

But regarding the lack of information:
AFAIK the main problem in the US elections is the budget. If the budget is large enough you can hire enough election workers in order to not only count the votes, but also document the whole process according to ISO 9001. Unfortunately "lowering the taxes every few years" doesn't work very well together with "having large enough budgets in order to do qualitry work on the government leverl". Thgerefore more transparency in elections could be something that may have to be bought with higher taxes

[Kidlicious]

Well, I would call those competing electors that were hastily arranged by several Trumpists rather a joke than something else.

It's a lot of pissed off people. This is no joke. We don't let people steal elections.

But regarding the lack of information:
AFAIK the main problem in the US elections is the budget. If the budget is large enough you can hire enough election workers in order to not only count the votes, but also document the whole process according to ISO 9001. Unfortunately "lowering the taxes every few years" doesn't work very well together with "having large enough budgets in order to do qualitry work on the government leverl". Thgerefore more transparency in elections could be something that may have to be bought with higher taxes

Well you can budget less money so that people don't have the information they need to know if there was fraud or not. The lack of funding can be a symptom of having a bunch of crooks running the show. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it looks like they are crooks.

[Jon Miller]

The investigation needs to be conducted to satisfy suspicion. If you let the police come in your house to look around. You can't tell them not to look in the basement. The Senate Judiciary has ordered the election officials to allow the paper ballots to be audited. And now, just like in AZ, the officials are refusing to comply. This can only mean that the audit will show fraud.

Biden should tell them to comply and show them everything they want to see.

It has, to the courts. With the changing stories and money to be made, and not even the same accusations made in the court room as in the media, and all of the evidence that the claims are wrong... I don't think that anything could convince Trump.

Thankfully he doesn't need to be convinced. Neither do you.

The election is done, there would need to be money for a post-election analysis as done in Florida in 2000. It wouldn't impact the election, just like Florida determining that Gore would have won didn't.

JM
(And Florida was within 2000 votes, Trump would need three of Georgia (Biden is 11800 ahead), Arizona (Biden is 10500 ahead), Wisconsin (Biden is over 20000 ahead), Michigan (Biden is over 150000 ahead) or Pennsylvania (Biden is 80000 ahead). Not one, three.)

[Jon Miller]

It's a lot of pissed off people. This is no joke. We don't let people steal elections.

Well you can budget less money so that people don't have the information they need to know if there was fraud or not. The lack of funding can be a symptom of having a bunch of crooks running the show. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it looks like they are crooks.

Considering the nonsense that keeps being thrown out of court but is accepted by you and other Republicans... I think that you just don't like losing. However, it happens and a democracy functions on losers, as a party, admitting that they lost.

They are Republicans, so in many cases I agree about them being crooks. They like lowering taxes and not funding things and many are open about wanting to make it tougher for people to vote (as they perceive that as benefiting them). Thankfully the head crook is going to leave office in 3 weeks, he was bad even for a Republican (it is true that some Democratic politicians are just as bad as the past era Republican politicians... this new Republican crop though...).

JM

[Jon Miller]

I didn't say it was fraud. I claimed that they should be suspected of fraud because the system should be set up and executed so that people know who won, and no people do not know that Biden won. You're just saying that you trust the election officials despite the fact that there is reason to suspect them.

People do know that Biden won, and all of the people who are responsible for knowing all agree on that point. Courts, who are the places who are responsible for making sure rules were followed, all agree that the rules appear to be followed.

The only people who don't think that Biden won are a portion of the losers (about 75%) who keep believing things which are proven to be false in court (and often times are lunacy, like the latest claim (surprisingly not repeated by you) that the Georgian Secretary of State has a brother (he does not) who works for China (can't be true because he doesn't have a brother...)). This was tweeted by Trump.

JM
(I might have missed it and you did parrot the claim?)

[Kidlicious]

Considering the nonsense that keeps being thrown out of court but is accepted by you and other Republicans... I think that you just don't like losing. However, it happens and a democracy functions on losers, as a party, admitting that they lost.

They are Republicans, so in many cases I agree about them being crooks. They like lowering taxes and not funding things and many are open about wanting to make it tougher for people to vote (as they perceive that as benefiting them). Thankfully the head crook is going to leave office in 3 weeks, he was bad even for a Republican (it is true that some Democratic politicians are just as bad as the past era Republican politicians... this new Republican crop though...).

JM

Corrupt judges throwing cases out of court is not the samething as debunking people's claims. That's a logical fallacy, so is you claiming that Trump is corrupt.

[Kidlicious]

It has, to the courts. With the changing stories and money to be made, and not even the same accusations made in the court room as in the media, and all of the evidence that the claims are wrong... I don't think that anything could convince Trump.

Thankfully he doesn't need to be convinced. Neither do you.

The election is done, there would need to be money for a post-election analysis as done in Florida in 2000. It wouldn't impact the election, just like Florida determining that Gore would have won didn't.

JM
(And Florida was within 2000 votes, Trump would need three of Georgia (Biden is 11800 ahead), Arizona (Biden is 10500 ahead), Wisconsin (Biden is over 20000 ahead), Michigan (Biden is over 150000 ahead) or Pennsylvania (Biden is 80000 ahead). Not one, three.)

No. You do need to convince me, Trump and all of America. This is why we are a divided nation, because you people constantly disrespect us.

You have to prove Biden legitimately won because we have plenty of evidence of fraud.

You did not prove anything in court. You didn't debunk any evidence. You didn't prove that the machines were not hacked or used for fraud.

[EPW]

Luckily we don't need to convince you. Suck it up and move on.

[Jon Miller]

No evidence was provided at court to be debunked. This is one of the things that you don't seem to understand. All of those claims and accusations, that might appear serious to you, where made only for the media and not in the court room. As for why, the obvious reason is because lying is a crime in the court room.

If they aren't made, they can't be debunked or proven or anything of the sort.

It should be a crime of some sort, because people like you can't tell what what is being done and no longer trust the courts or the mainstream media. This despite the repeated lies from the right's entertainers (in court they defend themselves by saying that no one would ever think they were anything other than entertainment).

JM