Rational perspective on election fraud: In any given election there will be some fraud. As the true margin gets closer and closer to 0, the probability of fraud being the deciding factor increases. Fraud isn't a yes/no, it's a number - how many net votes are fraudulent?
-
Show this thread
-
In 1962, several election workers were convicted of election fraud in the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon race. Convicted and sent to jail; not merely accused. Obviously, there will always be some background level of this, and likely on both sides (though unequal)https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-elections-511765 …
1 reply 3 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
It seems that in the '60s, Nixon basically acquiesced: "At Richard Nixon's request, Mazo met him at the vice president's Senate office, where Nixon told him to back off, saying, "Our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis" in the midst of the Cold War."
2 replies 1 retweet 20 likesShow this thread -
Trump isn't going to acquiesce, and if the election is really close he will have a strong incentive to claim fraud even if he personally thinks fraud wasn't decisive. The USA could be heading for a troubled few weeks, especially if AZ goes Republican.
2 replies 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
Key takeaway: the question isn't "was there fraud?". It's "was the fraud the decisive factor?" (as well as which side did more fraud, as I am absolutely sure that both sides created at least 1 fraudulent vote).
3 replies 1 retweet 33 likesShow this thread -
Also to note: things that look like really obvious fraud (like 23,500 Dem votes "appearing" all at once) almost certainly isn't fraud. Anyone committing fraud will not dump huge, uniform blocks of their preferred candidate. That's just too obvious.
6 replies 1 retweet 34 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK
That's an absurd argument and doesn't take into account the HBD aspect. Absurd because "it's impossible to be fraud - it's too obvious" means that it's *not* obvious because people make that exact argument HBD aspect is obvious. Low IQ people committing low IQ fraud is expected
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
The equilibrium for really dumb crimes is that they happen sometimes, but usually aren't very effective. The most effective criminals don't get caught, and they're the ones who have the most impact. I suspect this will also be the case with vote fraud.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
The equilibrium for really dumb crimes is that people get tired of noticing them so crimestop makes them invisible. The psychosis this causes is often expressed very angrily through means such as the Hunt for the Great White Defendant. "Talking about voter fraud is racism"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.