Two Years Later: How To Think About Election Cheating in 2020

 

Carefully–that’s how!

Allegations of election illegality in 2020 must be considered on a case-by-case basis.  They vary in at least ten important ways:

  • Some are about perfectly ordinary, well-known, and even predictable human corruption; some are about other, more sophisticated schemes.
  • Some are about electronic shenanigans; some are not.
  • Some claims are about election fraud as such, and some are about lesser forms of illegality.
  • Some specifically involve Biden votes, and some do not.
  • Some come with a chance of counting, or at least estimating, the number of votes involved. Some do not.
  • Some involve votes illegally cast. Some involve votes illegally counted.
  • Some have been subjected to some level of fact-checking or critical scrutiny. Some have not.
  • Some that have been thus subjected have survived that fact-checking or critical scrutiny.  Some have not.
  • Some that have survived have been positively verified. Others have merely had the good fortune of, apparently, only being challenged by goofballs who misrepresented them before refuting the misrepresentation and calling it a day.
  • Some that have been positively verified have been verified in court.  Some have not.

That’s a lot of ways allegations can vary.  The results are interesting, and here are some examples.

  • Gregory Stenstrom’s 50k votes with a bad chain of custody in Pennsylvania: survived a round of fact-checking in which it was misrepresented, and was largely verified, but never went to court apparently. Not necessarily fraudulent votes by category.
  • Something like 30k votes in Michigan with a bad chain of custody: verified in a state Senate report, but apparently never went to court, and not necessarily fraudulent votes by category.
  • Mark Davis’ work, the cream of the crop, tracking votes illegally cast outside of the voter’s jurisdiction in Georgia: 50k double-checked, over 12k verified, but apparently never taken to court, and illegal but not fraudulent as such.
  • Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission in Wisconsin: applies to something like 54k votes illegally counted and improperly (but not illegally) cast, not fraudulent as such; verified by the state Supreme Court.
  • Illegally cast mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania: about a 1.1 million Biden advantage in this category, verified up through the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, in violation of the state Constitution but in keeping with lesser law, fraud-enabling but not fraudulent as such, almost certainly an illegality flipping a swing state, but probably votes that should still be counted and for which voters personally should not be prosecuted.
  • A guy in Pennsylvania saying they weren’t letting observers see what was going on: didn’t exactly survive a round of fact-checking, so unless we learn more I think we’d best just let this one go.
  • A bunch of votes cast illegally by non-citizens: nothing you could bring to court, but a decent probabilistic argument from Just Facts Daily based on sociological data from earlier elections applied to more recent census data and indicating a lot of bad Biden votes, including more than double the Biden margin of victory in Georgia and Arizona.
  • Steven Crowder’s observation of about 174,000 votes without voter registrations in Michigan: It looked good at first, but this could be nothing; these were at artificial and temporary precincts for counting absentee ballots, and they presumably had access to the registration information from the real precincts. Still, 97% voting for the same guy is a ratio even Democrats wouldn’t believe–if it were an election in Russia, Iraq, or Zimbabwe.
  • Some claims about well over 100,000 ghost ballots in Michigan: Incomprehensible to me. Who knows what they were even talking about?

And on.

And on.

And on!

Over time, the stronger allegations rise to the top.  They show that the 2020 election was an epic disaster. Although we still don’t know nearly enough, the claims that are still standing and which have some numbers available indicate more than enough illegalities to flip swing states. More than double the Biden margin of victory, in fact, in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

We can narrow that down to just the claims which have survived a round of fact-checking, and we still have more than double, in the same five states.

If we narrow it down to just a few which have been verified, we still have more than the Biden margin victory in three states (Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin).

And how about just the ones verified in court? That’s still more than double in two states (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

And note well: All of these involve well-known, perfectly ordinary human folly corruption–no big secrets or conspiracies, no hacked voting machines.

In short, without even considering the ways in which the election was rigged and without even checking the allegations about the voting machines (something I’ve been meaning to re-do soon), the American election system is broken and systematically vulnerable, and the 2020 election was a colossal disaster.

So how should we think about allegations of election illegalities?

On a case-by-case basis. Taking the problem very seriously. With attention to the differences between claims. Very carefully. Slowly if possible.  And continuously. Even two years later, we have barely begun to figure this out.

This post is a continuation of a series.  Since the week of the 2020 election, I’ve been trying to keep track of different allegations of election illegality and, as much as possible, make sense of them. That means figuring out, where I can, the sort of things listed above.  Some of the unfinished results of this ongoing work are below.

First up is the core, but it’s big and unwieldy.

And then there’s the right frame of mind for thinking through the electronic allegations (but not a word about 2020 as such):

And then there’s a string of more readable intros to some of the specifics.

And then two bonus analyses:

And on we go!  I think we’re just getting started.

Published in Elections
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 40 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    True in WI, and other places.

    One big change in PA was to the laws.

    You are probably thinking of universal mail-in voting, which was passed, but never legally in effect, since a constitution change requires passing by successive legislatures. “legal” is just a minor speed bump for Dems in PA.

    Sounds right.

    • #31
  2. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Starting to see a bit of red and yellow in all that smoke.

    • #32
  3. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    You are a treasure, SA.

    Thank you for all the attention to detail and compiling all the many threads across the 50 states during these past 2 years.

    Watching you grow from someone who at first was binary: “proven or not proven,” to someone who understands that sometimes there might not be a proof, but indications are such that many questions and problems still need answers and resolutions has made me  happy to have access to your findings and  very proud to know you.

     

    • #33
  4. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    You are a treasure, SA.

    Thank you for all the attention to detail and compiling all the many threads across the 50 states during these past 2 years.

    Watching you grow from someone who at first was binary: “proven or not proven,” to someone who understands that sometimes there might not be a proof, but indications are such that many questions and problems still need answers and resolutions has made me happy to have access to your findings and very proud to know you.

    Thank you. You are too kind.

    • #34
  5. ElizabethJ Coolidge
    ElizabethJ
    @ElizabethJ

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    So how should we think about allegations of election illegalities? On a case-by-case basis.

    It’s a fair opinion, but it’s yet another example of the double-standard that plagues Western politics.

    Everything in the OP screams “systemic” corruption, but the Right dares not use such language.

    The Left gets to call things they don’t like “systemic” but when the Right does it they’re “conspiracy theorists”.

    And when the Right suggests that things the Left doesn’t like should be treated on a case-by-case basis it’s just evidence of “systemic racism” or “systemic sexism” or “systemic homophobia” etc. etc.

    The OP is about occurrences in a small number of states, and often in a fairly small number of jurisdictions within those states. So I don’t think that this “screams ‘systemic’ corruption.” It does raise concerns.

    Especially when it involves 2 and 3 times the number of votes needed to change the outcome of the election. And that almost all of these incidents benefited Democrats. That makes it suspicious for more than simply random voting system malfunctions.

    • #35
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    ElizabethJ (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    So how should we think about allegations of election illegalities? On a case-by-case basis.

    It’s a fair opinion, but it’s yet another example of the double-standard that plagues Western politics.

    Everything in the OP screams “systemic” corruption, but the Right dares not use such language.

    The Left gets to call things they don’t like “systemic” but when the Right does it they’re “conspiracy theorists”.

    And when the Right suggests that things the Left doesn’t like should be treated on a case-by-case basis it’s just evidence of “systemic racism” or “systemic sexism” or “systemic homophobia” etc. etc.

     

    The OP is about occurrences in a small number of states, and often in a fairly small number of jurisdictions within those states. So I don’t think that this “screams ‘systemic’ corruption.” It does raise concerns.

    Especially when it involves 2 and 3 times the number of votes needed to change the outcome of the election. And that almost all of these incidents benefited Democrats. That makes it suspicious for more than simply random voting system misfunctions.

    New since September???

    Welcome to Ricochet!

    • #36
  7. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    WillowSpring (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    2000 Mules?

    I have seen and been impressed by this documentary. Has anyone seen it debunked or even examined by the other side?

    There was one superficial attempt to debunk it in The Bulwark (natch), but I’m not aware of anything in serious detail. The criticism seems to focus on the accuracy of GPS, but the True the Vote people have pushed back.

    There ‘s an element of “Ignore it and it may go away.”

    Your husband could come home with lipstick on his collar. He claims he was working late, but his boss had called earlier asking why he left for the afternoon. You find a pair of women’s panties on the floor of his car. His credit card statement shows a charge to a local no-tell motel. There’s a security camera there that shows someone who looks just like him going into a room with a hot blonde.

    Then Dinesh D’Souza shows some analysis they did that located his cellphone there at the motel at that time. The Bulwark immediately calls their methodology into question.

    • #37
  8. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    WillowSpring (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    2000 Mules?

    I have seen and been impressed by this documentary. Has anyone seen it debunked or even examined by the other side?

    There was one superficial attempt to debunk it in The Bulwark (natch), but I’m not aware of anything in serious detail. The criticism seems to focus on the accuracy of GPS, but the True the Vote people have pushed back.

    There ‘s an element of “Ignore it and it may go away.”

    Your husband could come home with lipstick on his collar. He claims he was working late, but his boss had called earlier asking why he left for the afternoon. You find a pair of women’s panties on the floor of his car. His credit card statement shows a charge to a local no-tell motel. There’s a security camera there that shows someone who looks just like him going into a room with a hot blonde.

    Then Dinesh D’Souza shows some analysis they did that located his cellphone there at the motel at that time. The Bulwark immediately calls their methodology into question.

    Objection!  Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

    • #38
  9. ElizabethJ Coolidge
    ElizabethJ
    @ElizabethJ

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    ElizabethJ (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    So how should we think about allegations of election illegalities? On a case-by-case basis.

    It’s a fair opinion, but it’s yet another example of the double-standard that plagues Western politics.

    Everything in the OP screams “systemic” corruption, but the Right dares not use such language.

    The Left gets to call things they don’t like “systemic” but when the Right does it they’re “conspiracy theorists”.

    And when the Right suggests that things the Left doesn’t like should be treated on a case-by-case basis it’s just evidence of “systemic racism” or “systemic sexism” or “systemic homophobia” etc. etc.

     

    The OP is about occurrences in a small number of states, and often in a fairly small number of jurisdictions within those states. So I don’t think that this “screams ‘systemic’ corruption.” It does raise concerns.

    Especially when it involves 2 and 3 times the number of votes needed to change the outcome of the election. And that almost all of these incidents benefited Democrats. That makes it suspicious for more than simply random voting system misfunctions.

    New since September???

    Welcome to Ricochet!

    Thank you! It seems like a really cool place to be!

    • #39
  10. Chuck Thatcher
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    MargaretJ (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    So how should we think about allegations of election illegalities? On a case-by-case basis.

    It’s a fair opinion, but it’s yet another example of the double-standard that plagues Western politics.

    Everything in the OP screams “systemic” corruption, but the Right dares not use such language.

    The Left gets to call things they don’t like “systemic” but when the Right does it they’re “conspiracy theorists”.

    And when the Right suggests that things the Left doesn’t like should be treated on a case-by-case basis it’s just evidence of “systemic racism” or “systemic sexism” or “systemic homophobia” etc. etc.

    The OP is about occurrences in a small number of states, and often in a fairly small number of jurisdictions within those states. So I don’t think that this “screams ‘systemic’ corruption.” It does raise concerns.

    Especially when it involves 2 and 3 times the number of votes needed to change the outcome of the election. And that almost all of these incidents benefited Democrats. That makes it suspicious for more than simply random voting system malfunctions.

    Maybe Republicans  tend to be  conscientious, law-abiding citizens but Dims not near as much? Never mind, that would be foolish.

    • #40
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.