[Janus]

Data analysts have some shocking revelations about the algorithms used. You see the exact same % ratios across multiple states and precincts,  one data analysts stated the possibility of it happening naturally are impossible.

It seems that Trumps lawyers think you are not a "reasonable person".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/23/sidney-powell-trump-election-fraud-claims?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR23YzweS8sebzNJmIl7Q-vHuKK8Z2kon1bHkf82dvurb1yqe0PECeDc3LQ#Echobox=1616516106

Ah, the "Tucker Carlson" defense.  I don't think this is going to wash.  Carlson had the advantage of being a TV personality which gave him some leeway in terms of how much of what he says could be considered just "an act" to draw ratings.    Powell, on the other hand wasn't in that type of position.

[alancalverd]

The only use of an algorithm in vote counting is to decide the distribution of equivocal or incorrectly filled ballots. It would be very surprising if the balance was not consistent between states, given the closeness of the actual contest between democrats and knuckledraggers. 

[Bored chemist]

The only use of an algorithm in vote counting is to decide the distribution of equivocal or incorrectly filled ballots

I thought the algorithm for that was rather simple: we bin them.
Just like unclear paper ballots.

[alancalverd]

Not in the UK. Any equivocal papers are scrutinised by the candidates' agents and the returning officer, who applies the criterion "clear intention to vote for..." that is required by law. So I've seen a single tick, exclamation or even a question mark counted, but we agreed that "sod off and die" written against my name did not indicate a clear intent to vote for either of the others.

[Bored chemist]

but we agreed that "sod off and die" written against my name did not indicate a clear intent to vote for either of the others.

So it was... binned... like I said because it was... unclear... for whom they voted.

[alancalverd]

But "equivocal or incorrectly filled" includes crosses outside the box, ticks or "OK" inside the box, words like "yes" and "no" ,. and so forth. That is where an algorithm might attempt to replace human scrutiny, and would be particularly useful in a backward nation like the USA, where firearms are preferred to discussion.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.

That is the normal business of politics, not election-rigging.

Normal only in a society that doesn't have a free press, uncorrupt legal system, or an actual democracy.  The imposed illusion.
Inverted totalitarianism where a society has all the trapping of freedom, laws and justice but in reality they are all simply a facade designed to hide the truth, that actually the society is totalitarian.

[evan_au]

No I have repeatedly (said) the group confessed it themselves in the time magazine article.
"even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies,

A reporter has to grab the reader's attention in the first paragraph, or they have lost them.
Can't you tell the difference between a reporter's attention-grabbing opening line, and the self-description of a non-political party?

[CliffordK]

We have nearly universal vote by mail here in Oregon and it is generally well accepted by both Democrats and Republicans.

And, now we have automatic voter registration.  Anybody that gets a driver's license or change of address is automatically registered to vote (with an opt-out option). 

Voter turnout is generally high. 

I like the vote by mail in part because I can sit at home and read the voter's pamphlet, or perhaps even review data online as I make my choice of who or what to vote for.  Sometimes it takes me a few days to fill out the ballot as I process some of the ballot measures.

COVID put new and unique pressures on our voting in 2020.  There were suggestions of transitioning to nationwide vote by mail by early 2020, but it was generally rejected by Republicans.

I would much rather see either 100% vote by mail or < 5% vote by mail.  There are multiple issues of having a mixed system, with standing in line, sometimes for hours selecting some voter constituencies, and different ballot reject rates for different forms of voting.  And, these differences could potentially be fraudulently manipulated.

Signature verification is complex.  I never have two identical signatures.  I do have several characteristics of my sig, so I could likely determine 100% whether someone who didn't have a valid signature to copy was me or an imposter, but I can't guarantee anybody would pick that up.  My last initial can vary from looking like a "K" to looking like an "R" depending on how quick I'm writing.  Yet, that letter morphing may also be a unique characteristic of my signature.

Trump's fight against mail in and absentee ballots in certain jurisdictions had nothing to do with trying to find the proper vote count.  The entire argument is an attempt to discard valid opposition votes.  If he had his way, he would simply discard all the Democrat votes, and only count the Republican votes.

This is also one reason why I highly disagree with partial recounts.  Too much of an opportunity to select results in favor of one's goals.  So, only recount precincts that one expects to favor one's ambitions.

Arizona is doing some kind of a partial recount using a company that has previously expressed bias, a full 6 months after the election has already been settled.  It is hard to imagine that they'll be able to come up with any valid results.