[Bhilai]

There was simply no fraud at the scale of what you seem to be intending. Most claims of fraud were investigated multiple times (AZ, MI, WI ...) and no evidence has come up which would prove baseless claims of Trump et al. Most states where Trump et al are claiming fraud already have voting ID laws. Just because your guy did not win does not mean the process in not trust worthy.

[dukeofdoom]

It absolutely is not trustworthy. Evidence by a third of democrats not trusting the results. There's no biometrics in the ballots to match them to a unique voter once it leaves the envelope. So you can't audit it back to a person, best you can do is recount the same result. Hence why I think mail in ballot results are suspect in any country.

I'm not American, so I'm not swayed by part allegiance. What I did see is 3 am mail in ballot reversals in multiple cities at ridiculous high skewed percentages.

A wildly popular president, the most popular in history, 81 million votes, that somehow is barely polling in the 30%s. Winning the fewest precincts in history yet breaking record for the most votes. More black people voting in record numbers much higher than for Obama in downtown Detroit for him.

It smells like a Putin election. Except Putin is actually popular in his country unlike Biden.

[ModernMech]

> I'm not American, so I'm not swayed by part allegiance. What I did see is 3 am mail in ballot reversals in multiple cities at ridiculous high skewed percentages.

Maybe since you're not American, you're missing a little nuance about the situation. First of all, mail-in-ballots are counted last in many places. Sometimes, it's by law (like in PA, where mail-in-ballot counting cannot start until after election day). This is why you saw a lot of 3am mail-in-vote counting.

The reason why it took so long to count those votes as opposed to other years is due to the ongoing global pandemic. Because of the pandemic, voters were encouraged to vote by mail. However, the President had spent months before the election claiming that mail-in-voting was rigged, and encouraged his supporters to vote exclusively in person. This is why the mail-in-vote percentages were so skewed toward Democrats.

Therefore the dynamic on election night was that all the in-person votes were counted first, and they gave the impression that Trump had won. When the mail-in-ballots were counted, they were in some cases able to overtake the in-person vote tally, which caused Biden to win in those cases.

> A wildly popular president

Trump was not wildly popular. Again, this may be a perception you had from abroad. In reality, Trump did not win the popular vote the first time he was elected. He lost the House during his first two years in office, and lost the House again and the Senate in 2020, as well as his own election. While it's true he got 74 million votes, his opponent was more popular, and more importantly won the electoral vote, and that's why he's president today. Also in America, our population is highly concentrated in cities. The 500 counties won by Biden account for 70% of the US population. The 2500 counties won by Trump only account for 30% of the population.

All of the other points you raise are just the result of this being an election with record turnout across the country. I just don't understand what you could possibly infer by more black voters voting for Biden than Obama. What exactly is that supposed to prove? There's really nothing about the demographics or statistics of the 2020 election that point to fraud.

[dukeofdoom]

This is pretty much the state/corporate media TV explanation you're giving.

There's no good reason other than narrative that the mail-in ballot ratios would not closely trend the in person voting. It's sampling the same population. Please provide some evidence that Republicans don't vote by mail.

Imagine if Putin lost the in person vote by a large margin, but won mail-in ballot vote by a huge percentage. And those votes came from inner city Moscow, inner city St. Petersburg, his party strongholds. The winning margin from votes from the poorest citizens, a demographic that rarely votes, but this time voted in record numbers like never before. And their will is apparently in opposition to rest of the country. That alone would be good enough reason to be suspicious.

At minimum if you're going to have an election with mail-in ballots in the US and you want the citizens to trust the results. There needs to be some way to tie the paper ballot to the person for audit purposes. Otherwise, the losing side, will assume it's printers doing the voting. Hence the J6 protest that turned riot.

At least with an in person ballot you have some upper bound of how many people came out to vote, to verify the results against.

With mail-in voting. You could literally delay announcing the results of election and print out as many votes as needed to overcome any margin. It makes cheating on a mass scale much easier.

[ModernMech]

> This is pretty much the state/corporate media TV explanation you're giving.

Most of my statements are from first-party sources like government reports and court filings. My statements about the election results stem from monitoring I did of the results as they arrived on election day. I'm a data nerd and there's a lot of fun data to play with around election time. The results of course were of significant national interest as well. I stayed up for multiple days going over the results, and am proud to say I called Pennsylvania on Tuesday by looking at the Northampton County returns. They turned out to be a good bellwether for how the rest of the state was going to go.

> Please provide some evidence that Republicans don't vote by mail.

Don't take my word for it. Here are some exit polls:

                   In person (total)   By mail or absentee
  Trump voters     68%                 32%
  Biden Voters     42%                 58%

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-biden...

If you are hearing the things I'm saying in state/corporate media, I would say that's because they are truthfully reporting on what happened.

> That alone would be good enough reason to be suspicious.

You tried to make this seem nefarious, but let me restate what you wrote. People in Democratic-friendly areas voted heavily for Democrats. That's not suspicious. What would be suspicious is if Trump won places which are known to vote Democratic. That Democrats won in cities is one of the least surprising outcomes of the election.

Do you want to know how Trump really lost the election? It wasn't because of poor people voting extra in cities. It wasn't even because he lost Georgia, because it wasn't critical in his path to victory.

What really sunk Trump were people who voted a straight Republican ticket except for Trump. Think about that. They either left it blank, or wrote in someone else. They didn't even vote for Biden really, although some did. But House and Senate Republicans actually got more votes than Trump did. All of this consternation about Democrats being responsible for Trump's loss is misplaced. If he would have stayed off of Twitter, I bet he would have won easily.

> With mail-in voting. You could literally delay announcing the results of election and print out as many votes as needed to overcome any margin.

This would be caught easily, because it would result in a bunch of envelopes with no paper trail. The attack you describe was alleged quite often during the 2020 election, but the mail-in voting process does not really work as you may expect, so the attack is not feasible.

The first protection is that you need to have requested a ballot for one to be printed. If ballots are printed indiscriminately, there would need to be a corresponding record of requests for those ballots. Even if ballots are sent without a request, as is done in California, there would still need to be a record of the envelope's provenance. Where did it come from, who handled it, etc.

Secondly, there is a signature match process. You have to put your ballot in a security envelope with a signature to be matched against others. If the signature does not match then the ballot will be cast provisionally, and the voter will be contacted to correct it.

Actually this requires more verification than voting in-person. Mail-in voting is one of those things were people think it is less secure, so it's scrutinized more, making it actually the most secure way to vote.

But anyway, I can only describe my local election process, I'm not aware of how every place works. Either way, I don't see why in-person voting is not just as vulnerable to the attack you describe.