Lead Foil Hat II wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The title of this thread has it wrong. It should be: "a serious thread about unsubstantiated and baseless allegations of voter fraud." That's all we have. End of thread.
Well, the Benford's Rule applied at both the precinct and county level in PA suggests in the least that a recount is warranted. I am sure we will find out on Monday whether is it baseless or not, but the media/democrat effort to declare this thing before legal challenges are addressed shows they have things they want buried and that they may be trying to build enough public sentiment via media campaign to shut any accountability efforts down. You personally seem very very interested in making sure no scrutiny is given to the vote counts in the very close swing states. Why is that? Why not just take a look and make sure when things are so close. If it is all clean, then there is nothing to hide right; true vindication then? Why are you here acting to vigilantly to squash concern of fraud?
Benford's Analysis for county counts in PA:
1st # B T
1 16 26
2 7 11
3 4 6
4 12 5
5 5 4
6 5 3
7 6 4
8 4 3
9 4 2
The allegations come from the losing candidate, a person who declared before the election that he could only lose if he was "cheated". A man of over 22,000 documented lies. That is a credible source? No allegation has been substantiated; no court has accepted his claims. No legal expert on voter fraud - including Republicans - has accepted the claims have any credibility.
A recount is an entirely separate question from claims of voter fraud. It may change a few votes - because of possible isolated errors of process - but not enough to change a result.