Artful Revealer
Star
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,563
Yes, I did deliberately bait you into the Michigan irregularities. It's clearly the only way to draw your attention to them since you've been ignoring evidence, pretending it to be nonexistent, throughout this entire thread. It's borderline suspicious. But I'm glad it caught your attention now. At least you're no longer ignoring it.It took me a second to realize how you manipulated me with the original message. So, to be clear, you knew about the av counting boards when you were making the original argument that precincts were reporting around 20% voter turnout even though news reports were reporting 49% turnout?
Therefore, you knew when you were saying this that the difference between these two percentages was when the absentee votes were counted. So were you intentionally excluding this information to make an argument that would appear to demonstrate something more fraudulent than you knew there would be in reality if you included the absentee votes? There is something very dishonest about the fact that you are saying you knew about the av counting boards, but you didn't include them when you were originally making an argument about this.
Then, you appear to be trying to link to a crowder video that I can't view, because it is not linked correctly, so I cannot verify what this says in relation to what I have been able to find about this. However, I'm guessing that Crowder didn't do his homework either because you respond to my question about voter population size with a comparison to New York. This means that Crowder has not informed you of something as basic as seperation of states regarding this subject. What happens in New York is completely irrelevant to what happens in Michigan in many ways concerning this subject. They are seperate states with their own policies and procedures.
You would need to compare with other cities within Michigan to find trends for how larger cities handled the increased number of absentee votes. This would only serve to show correlation or that Detroit was not the exception that it is being made out to be. This wouldn't give background on why this process of creating counting boards is allowed within the state of Michigan.
It looks like the use of absentee counting boards in Michigan was proposed in 2018 from what I can tell. It looks like this was proposed in 2018, but there is a lot of verbage to go through, so it could have been before this.
https://www.governing.com/next/Just-Seven-Weeks-Out-Michigan-Considers-Election-Law-Changes.html
Whenever, this may have officially been included, it wasn't orginally added for this year's election and it is thoroughly detailed in their election legal code.
The law continues to detail how the counting boards can be created. There are provisions for workers to be protected from intimidation. There are details about supplies that are to be used at these counting board locations. Most importantly regarding your argument that you appear to be deriving from Crowder, who unfortunately doesn't seem to have done his homework, an absent voter counting board is by law considered a seperate precinct. Therefore, they are not expected to redistribute votes by precinct within the official results when absent voter counting boards are used in a city with 250 or more precincts like Detroit.
"Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, an absent voter counting board is a separate precinct for the purposes of this act. If a municipality has 250 or more precincts and absent voter counting boards are used, each ballot form which contains identical offices and names may be considered a separate precinct for the purposes of this section"
So Detroit didn't decide on a whim that there city would manage the absentee votes with counting boards. This was clearly defined within the legal code for the state of Michigan. Counting boards are mentioned 114 times within the election law for the state of Michigan. The use of counting boards within Detroit and the absence of seperating out votes by precinct within the results, would have a strong defense in a courtroom. Another reason Guilianni can't bring a case of fraud against the city of Detroit for any of the reasons that you have given so far. He has no case. They are acting completely within the boundaries of their own legal code regarding absentee voting.
In addition to this, The Guardian is nice enough to include the total number of votes that were collected in the city of Detroit for the years of 2008 and 2016 for comparison.
"Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Detroit voters who cast a ballot during presidential elections dropped from 335,000 to 247,000."
So in the year Obama was elected, there was almost 100,000 more votes collected in the city of detroit. The article references this as a way of highlighting the factors that led to Trump winning the Michigan eletoral votes in 2016. This win was a slim margin of around 10,000 votes at the time, and Detroit is a city used to highlight the reason for this win since their overall voter turnout dropped significantly in 2016.
There were 250,138 total votes in Detroit this year. What part of this is unreasonable? Biden didn't win Michigan with a margin of around 10,000 votes. He won with about 150,000 votes. The number of votes in Detroit did not change much between 2016 and 2020. This is why Guilianni can't argue overcounts in court or that fraud in Detroit is the reason that Trump lost in Michigan.
Furthermore, the Detroit Free Press explains that overcounts found in 2016 did not exceed 12 for a grand total of 782 overcounted voted.
"Most of those overages were by small amounts — on average about 3 votes — with the largest being 12 votes in a single precinct. Those small numbers added up to 782 total spread out across more than 200 precincts. "
The problem with arguing a problem with overcounts and using 2016 as your example is that there were also undercounts recorded in 2016, which means that this number is actually lower when you subtract this value. Which means that the potential for overcounts when it is based on the history of 2016 does not present an argument that overcounts could have changed the outcome of the election.
And again, this is why Guilianni cannot make a case of fraud against Detroit, but people like yourself can get up on a soapbox and continue to make suggestions like this. You are basically sensationalizing reality, but the true reality is that all of the information that you would need to know that what you are saying is actually crap, is freely available and uncensored so that I can for an opinion form myself on the subject.
It is just unfortunate that you didn't question Crowder more when you had first gained awareness of the information he presented. He clearly was doing a poor job of presenting you with all the facts.
Detroit's election woes: 782 more votes than voters
A Free Press analysis finds that voting discrepancies in Detroit weren't big enough to swing the outcome in Michigan in the presidential racewww.freep.com
Apologies for the erroneous link. I have no idea how that happened.
Here's the video:
In it Crowder brings up this law (12:50) that allows for these AV counting boards when there's over 250 precincts, but none of that takes away from the legitimate arguments, which you do not address. You circle around them with insignificant voting numbers from 2016 (which I only used as an example that overcount is not something made up out of the blue in 2020). What you're doing is a clear case of strawmanning. You are not addressing the actual arguments or the statistical improbabilities, near impossibilities, and it's looking more and more like deliberate deflection. You're already even parrotting the inception created by the media that team Trump is planning the actual coup while ignoring the blatant electoral coup that already happened.
You are still ignoring those anomalous ballot drops after the closing of the voting boards at 6am in the morning with 95+% Biden votes as if they don't even exist, or as if they're not anomalous at all. You're ignoring that it would only have taken Trump to get 36% of the 16,41% election day voter turnout to require Biden to have gotten 100% of a 100% absentee ballot voter turnout to win Detroit with 94,04%. Meaning, if Trump had 37% or more of the election day voter turnout in Detroit, it is not just statistically impossible, but physically impossible for Biden to have won Detroit with 94,04%.
Biden? Really? He wouldn't even get 94,04% if you only had registered democrats vote between him and Trump.
Even if the setting up of independent counting boards for absentee ballots wasn't decided on a whim, why then did they not include the data of registered voters for those counting boards, for which they had plenty of time to organise?
