Not on this election. The world fully expected Trump to be shown the door. If you took an objective study of almost every country on the planet other then the US, the surprise factor was that he was even close to winning
Where is this "information" coming from? My understanding is that official Republican and Democrat poll monitors are present in virtually equal numbers. In a close election the ballots will be closely examined and recounted if there is any question re their legitimacy. But it would be a waste of time, other than for statistical purposes, if the outcome could not be affected. Why would the election results be far different than the polls indicated? As it is, the results are very much in line with the polls. That does not suggest skulduggery. (There were those saying that the results were different from the polls, but that was before the votes were counted!) In this election, in some states, the mail-in ballots exceeded by a wide margin the election day voting, and the breakdown of mail ballots is different from the same day vote breakdown. That's also consistent with what we've learned about the voters who favor mail-in balloting over showing up at a polling place. I continue to be amazed at how accurate, on average, modern polling has become. It can't always accurately predict the electoral college because of winner take all rules affecting close races in key states where polling shows ties within statistical error. But other than that insurmountable challenge for the polls, polling seems surprisingly accurate. If there is any statistically significant election fraud going on, it should be revealed by disagreement with the poll averages beyond the margin of error, shouldn't it? Both the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institute, and other agencies too, have looked for voter fraud in past elections. It does exist and people have been prosecuted for it, but the relative amount of fraud is small.. From the Heritage Foundation results I estimated that the probability of fraud when the number of ballots cast was on the order of 2xE7 was on the order of 1xE-4. So statistically it should only be a factor in an extremely close election involving a handful of ballots in tens of millions cast. In other words, while it does happen, it's not something we should be concerned about, with the possible exception of poorly supervised small local elections, to which the findings do not apply. . See: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud and: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...-states-show-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/
Trump is the ultimate in con man and cheating, ready with a pack of lawyers at all times to clean up the mess when he gets caught. Should be fun seeing if he's guilty of tax evasion and/or had anything to do with corruption that sent several of his associates to prison.
Modern polling, LOL. Please answer one question, how can a precinct have more votes than registered voters? And we’re not talking just a handful, in some cases it’s 25-50% or more?
I think we are saying the same thing. The point I am making is that you (and the "rest of the world") don't quite understand why this happened. And you should.
So you know better and potential indications of election fraud should be ignored because it is justified to overturn an election because the electorate is stupid and crazy and because foreigners don’t like Trump? Go over your line of thinking in your head at least a few times after relaxing and to try to address the central issue: The multiple indications of election fraud and the right of the American people to be represented by the person of their selection, not by and enity committing fraud, or a commitee who believe they know what is best for Americans. The multiple indications of election fraud need to be addressed in the real world and here if you want to maintain credibility. What would you like to see done about the multiple indications of election fraud that you have certainly read that has been posted by several sources?
I'll ask you the same question I asked Tsing. What is the source of your "information?" Which election is that data from? I know you have to be aware that we are in the age of disinformation, so everything has to be checked out and confirmed. Do you realize that the courts are throwing out Trump suits for lack of evidence. If what you say is true wouldn't that be evidence?
Piezoe, I've provided the evidence in the thread of the statements I made. Which, I have to say, is more than you've done when I've asked you to provide evidence. Feel free to read the thread and then ask a specific question. I'll be happy to respond.
All mail in ballots require a witness signature. Also you think it is that easy to get something notarized? I had to get a trust document notarized and that was a bitch to find one notary still doing that, imagine 20,000 people in a small area doing a mail in?