[Jolly2 (OP)]

Share with you this time magazine article

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

A quote from the article:-

"even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it."


This is not about voter fraud allegations.

Although this group confess to intentionally changing laws like act 77 in Pennsylvania which was changed the year before the election happened,  to allow mail in ballots, to remove requirements for signature verification,  and for ballots to be accepted days after the election had happened.

The same process was tried in Texas but failed in the courts. Pennsylvania officials tried to have these law changes over turned as they were unconstitutional,  yet were stuck down on technicalities not on merits.

So is this the final evidence of a conspiracy to fix the election?

The group involved claims they defended democracy, but that's the claim of the conspirators. Should we believe them? Trust them?

France and Canada have both outlawed mail in voting due to concerns with fraud.

[Bored chemist]

France and Canada have both outlawed mail in voting due to concerns with fraud.

While the use is restricted, France and Canada both permit postal voting.

However, the point remains that, whatever the French government thought in 1975, there was no significant evidence of fraudulent voting (postal or otherwise) in 2020 in the USA.

So your "claim" is not just wrong, but irrelevant.

Anyway...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR09AYoJiPEl0lnO6SIcLlcD5l42PiuzUYafDbcD15Np0UGLOwzH9-WB4qk&v=fx2W1Jh4kA0&feature=youtu.be

[alancalverd]

There cannot have been any fraud in the US 2020 presidential election.

A year earlier, der Fuhrer Trump publicly stated and pledged that, thanks to his brilliant  personal intervention and innovations in the electoral process, this would be the fairest, most honest and least corrupt election EVER and would Make America Great Again. Is anyone seriously doubting His Word?

Apparently Fox News repeatedly asserted (who needs evidence in the New Age of Freedom?) that the vote-counting machines used in California were rigged. The manufacturers, being good Republicans cast in the mould of The Leader Himself, are suing Fox for several billion dollars of cancelled contracts and lost revenue from overseas governments and will probably bankrupt the only source of Revealed Truth on the planet.

And it doesn't matter anyway. Donald Trump thinks he won the election and is now running the world from Berechtesgaden a Lago, FL. Nothing else is of any consequence.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

There cannot have been any fraud in the US 2020 presidential election.

A year earlier, der Fuhrer Trump publicly stated and pledged that, thanks to his brilliant  personal intervention and innovations in the electoral process, this would be the fairest, most honest and least corrupt election EVER and would Make America Great Again. Is anyone seriously doubting His Word?

There is a meme going round with Trump dressed like the Queen... the accompanying statement reads "Ok, I might not be president anymore but I can be Queen, I'm gonna be the most amazing, most bestest Queen ever"

This isn't about Trump, this is about democracy.

[alancalverd]

Democracy takes many forms.
The simplest form involves ensuring that only your supporters can vote, but interfering busybodies like Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson screwed that up.
Next, get your brother to count the votes: it worked for George W Bush, but Donald Trump's brothers hate him (with good reason) and are therefore not to be trusted.
Then you can tell your supporters to arm themselves and vote in person. This only works if your supporters are capable of doing two things at once.
Refusing Federal aid to states that are likely to vote against you is sound, provided that the pandemic only affects your opponents.
Postal voting is an absolute no-no because it preferentially enfranchises those who can read and write. It is an affront to Republicanism.
But as long as Donald thinks he won, there is no problem.
Demos: the people  Crassos: the worst. The principle of government by the worst must be upheld. 

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Democracy takes many forms.
The simplest form involves ensuring that only your supporters can vote, but interfering busybodies like Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson screwed that up.
Next, get your brother to count the votes: it worked for George W Bush, but Donald Trump's brothers hate him (with good reason) and are therefore not to be trusted.
Then you can tell your supporters to arm themselves and vote in person. This only works if your supporters are capable of doing two things at once.
Refusing Federal aid to states that are likely to vote against you is sound, provided that the pandemic only affects your opponents.
Postal voting is an absolute no-no because it preferentially enfranchises those who can read and write. It is an affront to Republicanism.
But as long as Donald thinks he won, there is no problem.
Demos: the people  Crassos: the worst. The principle of government by the worst must be upheld.

Well I dont like or agree with the current form democracy has. Its clearly and defined as business interests hold the decision making power(left to the market).

Still there is the basis of people voting for a representative, and this agenda appears in some way, to have violated that basis. Unless you trust them at their word and there was nothing dodgy about their agenda.

[Bored chemist]

Still there is the basis of people voting for a representative,

And most American voters chose Biden as their representative- so it worked.

[alancalverd]

The People do not vote for the President of the United States.

If they did, Hillary Clinton would have been the 45th holder of that post.

The People vote, then the Electoral College chooses the President because The People cannot be trusted to choose whose finger goes on the button they have paid for.

Not everyone can be a war hero, a respected academic or an astute politician. The duty of the Electoral College is to ensure that the Presidency is properly representative of The People by ensuring that idiots and narcissists all have their turn.

[Janus]

Although this group confess to intentionally changing laws like act 77 in Pennsylvania which was changed the year before the election happened,  to allow mail in ballots, to remove requirements for signature verification,  and for ballots to be accepted days after the election had happened.

Act 77 passed with heavy Republican support( even more so than Democratic support), as a compromise deal with the Democrats.  In exchange for exapnded vote by mail, they got rid of straight ticket voting (Where you could go into a booth and click one lever that voted for all candidates of a given party.)   The Republicans felt that this would help pick up some seats in the state legislature (which it ended up doing).
Off course, the instant this compromise hurt them in the 2020 presidential election, and their compromise no longer benefited them,  they immediately had buyer's remorse.

Pennsylvania officials tried to have these law changes over turned as they were unconstitutional,  yet were stuck down on technicalities not on merits.

Those  "technicalities" were that they had waited until over a year and 2 elections had passed. ( Oh, and by the way, one of those elections was were they picked up a couple of seats in the state legislature.  You didn't hear them complaining that those results should be overturned).
If they had filed their complaint before the election was run, things might have been different. But they didn't.  This just tells me it wasn't the law they were really objecting to, but just an election result they didn't like.

The voters that voted by mail did so while the law was in effect and did so with the assurance that they were voting legally, and you can't just go back and disenfranchise those voters just because it was later decided that the law shouldn't have been passed.

Let's put it this way:  Supposed a town passes a law that allows drivers in their town to make a right turn at a red light without first coming to a full stop.  The law stays in effect for a year.  But then someone points out that it is conflict with state laws.
Can you now go back, using traffic camera footage, and issue tickets to everyone that made a right turn without coming to a stop during that year?

As far a mail-in voting goes: My state has had mail-in voting exclusively for decades, and in that time, the cases of voter fraud has been negligible. 
Republicans are not against vote by mail due to concerns over fraud, but over concerns that it will increase voter turn out, and historically, Republicans don't fare as well when voter turnout is high.

[Petrochemicals]

I would whole heartedly agree jolly, I would say trump was robbed and that the sheer hatred of him by the left must surely have menat die hard democrats did commit fraud., but being as you have posted this in the wrong forum your point is refused.

[evan_au]

So is this the final evidence of a conspiracy to fix the election?

Every political party and every political candidate aims to fix the election in their favor.

But some methods are more ethical than others.

Encouraging people to vote is a good idea in a democracy, as then you better represent the will of the people.
- By holding elections on a working day (Tuesday), and making voting voluntary, the US elections do not capture the opinion of the population very well.
- You are more likely to vote if you can afford to take time off work.
- The idea of having voters register to vote via a political party sounds suspicious to me - this sounds like it would lead to voter lock-in.
- COVID forced something different, and the 2020 US elections were more representative than any previous US election (as measured by % voter participation).
- Republicans do better when there is poor voter turnout, so the result was somewhat predictable

Still there is the basis of people voting for a representative

The "First past the post" voting scheme used in US presidential elections (and most US state senate elections) promotes extremism, and has created a dysfunctional US senate.
- The preferential voting system used in Australia (and some US states) is superior, in that it requires all politicians to consider what the average voter wants, not just the members of their party.
- In Australia, political parties compete for the attention of the "average" voter, because getting that second preference often decides who wins.
- It concerns me somewhat that Australia has been moving towards "first past the post" voting where preferential voting is optional. That may lead to more extreme politicians gaining power.

[syhprum]

There is nothing sinister or political about the word  Fuhrer it simply means leader if I lead a group of tourists around I am a "Grupen fuhrer"

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Although this group confess to intentionally changing laws like act 77 in Pennsylvania which was changed the year before the election happened,  to allow mail in ballots, to remove requirements for signature verification,  and for ballots to be accepted days after the election had happened.

Act 77 passed with heavy Republican support( even more so than Democratic support), as a compromise deal with the Democrats.  In exchange for exapnded vote by mail, they got rid of straight ticket voting (Where you could go into a booth and click one lever that voted for all candidates of a given party.)   The Republicans felt that this would help pick up some seats in the state legislature (which it ended up doing).
Off course, the instant this compromise hurt them in the 2020 presidential election, and their compromise no longer benefited them,  they immediately had buyer's remorse.

Well many Republicans hate trump just as much as Democrats.

Pennsylvania officials tried to have these law changes over turned as they were unconstitutional,  yet were stuck down on technicalities not on merits.

Those  "technicalities" were that they had waited until over a year and 2 elections had passed. ( Oh, and by the way, one of those elections was were they picked up a couple of seats in the state legislature.  You didn't hear them complaining that those results should be overturned).
If they had filed their complaint before the election was run, things might have been different. But they didn't.  This just tells me it wasn't the law they were really objecting to, but just an election result they didn't like.

In Texas they did and were successful.

The technicalities issue is rather rediculas, if they had applied before the election they may well have been ignored as not having standing as no injury had occurred, they apply afterwards and are told they are too late.

Technicalities are not a basis for justice,  the merit have to be heard for the court to ignore them is rediculas.  The supreme court also refused to hear the Texas lawsuit on a technicality that Texas and 20 other states was not an injured party.

The voters that voted by mail did so while the law was in effect and did so with the assurance that they were voting legally, and you can't just go back and disenfranchise those voters just because it was later decided that the law shouldn't have been passed.

Well there is the question if these voters exist at all.

Let's put it this way:  Supposed a town passes a law that allows drivers in their town to make a right turn at a red light without first coming to a full stop.  The law stays in effect for a year.  But then someone points out that it is conflict with state laws.
Can you now go back, using traffic camera footage, and issue tickets to everyone that made a right turn without coming to a stop during that year?

That is a terrible analogy. This case we solely regarding potential fraud.

As far a mail-in voting goes: My state has had mail-in voting exclusively for decades, and in that time, the cases of voter fraud has been negligible. 
Republicans are not against vote by mail due to concerns over fraud, but over concerns that it will increase voter turn out, and historically, Republicans don't fare as well when voter turnout is high.

That's simplistic, Trump managed a huge turn out he got more votes then Obama, he actually got the most votes of any candidate in American history,  beaten by Biden who claims more.

[alancalverd]

Having seen the US and UK postal vote systems in action, I'm certain that it is less prone to fraud than voting in person. In effect you get one randomly numbered ballot delivered to your registered postal address.

An automatic counting system can reject any return slips with duplicate numbers, and since the post office has no idea how anyone is going to vote, a genuine vote is as likely to be counted as anyone else's. The only way to bias the result is to intercept a bulk outgoing mailing and return all the slips in your favor. But a sharp-eyed party will raise hell if more than 1% of its members don't receive their papers (UK Royal Mail delivers over 99% of all letters within 4 days of posting), so you know which batch(es) have been intercepted.

This is quite unlike voting in person where you don't even have to provide ID (because there is no national ID standard in the UK) but merely state your home address - or that of someone you know has died or won't vote. Hence Trump's Call to the Faithful: "Vote early and vote often" - previously a traditional Irish proverb.     

[Jolly2 (OP)]

So is this the final evidence of a conspiracy to fix the election?

Every political party and every political candidate aims to fix the election in their favor.

I don't agree to act it that may would mean all politicans are anti democratic. It's one thing to fight hard its quiet another to fix the election. Under the assertion you are effectively agreeing the Democrats stole the election and this kabal helped them control the narrative.

But some methods are more ethical than others.

Encouraging people to vote is a good idea in a democracy, as then you better represent the will of the people.
- By holding elections on a working day (Tuesday), and making voting voluntary, the US elections do not capture the opinion of the population very well.
- You are more likely to vote if you can afford to take time off work.
- The idea of having voters register to vote via a political party sounds suspicious to me - this sounds like it would lead to voter lock-in.
- COVID forced something different, and the 2020 US elections were more representative than any previous US election (as measured by % voter participation).

Wasnt covid the legal changes happened the autumn before the pandemic

- Republicans do better when there is poor voter turnout, so the result was somewhat predictable

Still there is the basis of people voting for a representative

The "First past the post" voting scheme used in US presidential elections (and most US state senate elections) promotes extremism, and has created a dysfunctional US senate.
- The preferential voting system used in Australia (and some US states) is superior, in that it requires all politicians to consider what the average voter wants, not just the members of their party.
- In Australia, political parties compete for the attention of the "average" voter, because getting that second preference often decides who wins.
- It concerns me somewhat that Australia has been moving towards "first past the post" voting where preferential voting is optional. That may lead to more extreme politicians gaining power.

I don't like any of the western democratic systems they are all a cup and ball show, real power remains with the corporations.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

The People do not vote for the President of the United States.

The people do vote for the president, but they vote for their state. America Is better seen as 50 countries. tHe whole point of the electoral college,  is to guarantee high population states dont dominate the rest.

If they did, Hillary Clinton would have been the 45th holder of that post.

The People vote, then the Electoral College chooses the President because The People cannot be trusted to choose whose finger goes on the button they have paid for.

Yeah sure that was always part of the reason for the electoral college, in certain circumstances the elete can intervene and prevent someone they don't like taking the presidency.

Not everyone can be a war hero, a respected academic or an astute politician. The duty of the Electoral College is to ensure that the Presidency is properly representative of The People by ensuring that idiots and narcissists all have their turn.

No it's a fail safe for the ruling oligarchy and a means to stop high population states dominating the rest.

[Bored chemist]

, he actually got the most votes of any candidate in American history, 

No.
In reality Biden got more which makes Trump the most successful loser of all time.

That is a terrible analogy.

Please explain what's wrong with it.

[Janus]

- COVID forced something different, and the 2020 US elections were more representative than any previous US election (as measured by % voter participation).

Wasnt covid the legal changes happened the autumn before the pandemic

As far as Pennsylvania goes,  The basic law allowing expanded vote by mail was passed a year prior, but some changes were implemented at least in part due to Covid, including ballot drop boxes and allowing late arriving ballots to be counted as long as they were postmarked by Election day. 
These later changes came about because the Post Office couldn't guarantee that they could get all the ballots to election offices in time.  This was in no small part to Trump's newly appointed Postmaster started ripping out sorting machines. (under the excuse of "improving efficiency".   But let's be honest, in an election year where you knew that there was going to be a larger than normal amount of vote by mail,  even if you were planning on removing the machines anyway, a prudent person would have waited until after the election.  That is, unless the very reason for removing the machines was to sabotage  vote by mail.)

The technicalities issue is rather rediculas, if they had applied before the election they may well have been ignored as not having standing as no injury had occurred, they apply afterwards and are told they are too late.

 
Bullocks.  If the argument is that the law is unconstitutional, you can bring a case against it even if the law has yet to even take effect. 
This has happened multiple times in my own state, were some law is passed in the Legislature, and is challenged on constitutional grounds before it could come into effect. On more than one such case, it the law was found to be unconstitutional, and was never enacted.

Technicalities are not a basis for justice,  the merit have to be heard for the court to ignore them is rediculas.  The supreme court also refused to hear the Texas lawsuit on a technicality that Texas and 20 other states was not an injured party.

What those who brought suit against the Pennsylvania election were trying to do was to get 10's of thousands of votes thrown out On a technicality
The Texas lawsuit had no merit either.  The constitution clearly states that each state has full control over how it runs its own elections.  The suit was based on the fact that those 20 states didn't like how Pennsylvania ran its own election. 
The Supreme Court was perfectly correct in not hearing it.   Do you have any idea of the can of worms that would have been opened if they did?  Any State could sue to have any other state's elections nullified because "They didn't like the way that state ran its election.  Hawaii could have turned around and said they wanted Texas' election thrown out, because they didn't like something about how they ran it. Where would it have ended?

That is a terrible analogy. This case we solely regarding potential fraud

And just where is the evidence of that "potential fraud"?   In all the cases presented, none was ever presented. In fact, in none of the actual court cases was massive election fraud even claimed by the plaintiffs. 
For all the claims of how they had tons of evidence, it never surfaced in court, where, if you actually had evidence, you would have wanted to present it.
And many of the court cases were thrown out on merit.  On the very fact that the plaintiffs failed to show that there was sufficient cause to have the ballots they wanted tossed out to be invalidated. 

That's simplistic, Trump managed a huge turn out he got more votes then Obama, he actually got the most votes of any candidate in American history,  beaten by Biden who claims more.

In an election which had the highest turnout of any election. Which just fits the pattern; high turn out tends to favor Democrats.
 You've got it backwards.  All indications are the Biden did get more votes.   No state, or even the US justice dept. could find any evidence of massive election fraud.
It is the Trump supporters that are simply claiming, without any real evidence, that Biden didn't get as many votes as the election results say he did .

Why is it that people have trouble accepting that a president that never got as much as a 50% approval rating lost re-election?

[Bored chemist]

It's important to remember that Trump only scraped a win in 2016- he didn't win the popular vote.
And he got in on a ticket of jailing Clinton, building a wall, getting Mexico to pay, and draining the swamp.

He did none of those things.
In general, if you achieve precisely zero of your big ticket election pledges, your support falls because people don't like to be taken for fools.

Trump started at less than 50% and did the thing that was guaranteed to lose him votes.

Of course he lost. The miracle is that he didn't lose by a bigger margin.

[alancalverd]

tHe whole point of the electoral college,  is to guarantee high population states dont dominate the rest.

either they do

The more people who live in a state, the more electors there are for that state. So, California for example, with a population of 38.8 million, has 55 votes - while Delaware, (pop. 936,000), has just three votes.

or they don't: California has 1.4 EC votes per million population, Delaware has 3.2 votes per million. So Californian voters only get half a vote and the result cannot be considered the popular choice.