Årsager til, at præsidentvalget i 2020 er dybt forvirrende

Patrick Basham
The Spectator
fre, 27 nov 2020 19:22 UTC

© Getty

Afstemninger gentælles i Gwinnett County, Georgia

At sige det højt, at du finder resultaterne af præsidentvalget i 2020 underlige, er at invitere til hån. Du skal være en krumtap eller en konspirationsteoretiker. Markér mig derefter som en krumtap. Jeg har stemt, og jeg finder dette valg dybt forvirrende. Jeg tror også, at Trump-kampagnen stadig ligger inden for sine rettigheder til at bestride tabellerne. Der skete noget meget mærkeligt i Amerikas demokrati i de tidlige timer onsdag 4. november og de efterfølgende dage. Det er rimeligt for mange amerikanere at ønske at finde ud af præcis hvad.

Overvej først nogle fakta. Præsident Trump modtog flere stemmer end nogen tidligere siddende, der søgte genvalg. Han fik 11 millioner flere stemmer end i 2016, den tredje største stigning i støtte nogensinde til en etableret. Til sammenligning blev præsident Obama komfortabelt genvalgt i 2012 med 3,5 millioner færre stemmer end han modtog i 2008.

Trumps stemmetal steg så meget, fordi han ifølge exit-afstemninger klarede sig meget bedre med mange vigtige demografiske grupper. Femoghalvfems procent af republikanerne stemte på ham. Han klarede sig ekstraordinært godt med landlige mandlige arbejderklassehvide.

Han tjente den højeste andel af alle mindretalsstemmer for en republikaner siden 1960. Trump voksede sin støtte blandt sorte vælgere med 50 procent i forhold til 2016. Nationalt faldt Joe Bidens sorte støtte godt under 90 procent, det niveau under hvilket demokratiske præsidentkandidater normalt taber.

Trump øgede sin andel af den nationale spanske stemme til 35 procent. Med 60 procent eller mindre af den nationale spanske stemme er det aritmetisk umuligt for en demokratisk præsidentkandidat at vinde Florida, Arizona, Nevada og New Mexico. Bellwether-stater svingede længere i Trumps retning end i 2016. Florida, Ohio og Iowa trodsede begge Amerikas medieundersøgelser med enorme sejre for Trump. Siden 1852 har kun Richard Nixon mistet valgkollegiet efter at have vundet denne trio, og det nederlag mod John F. Kennedy i 1960 er stadig genstand for stor mistanke.

Kommentar: Delvist oversat fra Best of the Web: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling

Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump's direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden's 'winning' margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a 'red wave' in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump's party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.

Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates' respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.

Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump's reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.

Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.

The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:

1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers

2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio

3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions

4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures

5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden's narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, 'If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election'

6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing

7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard's Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden's margin is 12,670 votes

8. Serious 'chain of custody' breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law

9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden's favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.

If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, maybe the weirdness lies in you.

Patrick Basham is director of The Democracy Institute

Kommentar: Speaking of Georgia, registered Democrat and former Oregon state elections official Rick Hanson's comments are worth reading. From his Twitter thread:

I've finished reviewing the Georgia filing and I have a few comments to share with the socialverse in my capacity as a 30-year registered Democrat, former Oregon state elections official (with policy and admin experience), and former CIO.

I will not comment on the legal claims because, while I have familiarity with the law and court filings, I'm not a lawyer. I am also going to mostly stay away from alleged behaviors, too, as I wasn't there and, anyway, they add color but are more open to dispute.

The original intent of the software code (acc'd to affidavits) was to manipulate votes without detection. When you start with one goal in mind, it's tough to pivot to the opposite goal later — no matter how hard you might try. Not that it seems anyone tried... Absence of secure audit log (to record every action in the software) is so indefensible that I LOL'd when I read it. This fact alone should be enough to negate the results when there is ANY question about fraud because it cannot be proven that fraud DIDN'T occur Elections administration.

Lawsuit alleges that many procedures required in state law — for good, common sense reasons to ensure the one voter, one ballot rule is adhered to — were not followed, including Receipt of absentee ballots in their return envelopes was not recorded (this reduces risk of ballot box stuffing, i.e., to ensure that only one real ballot has been submitted by one real voter). Signatures were not verified against voter registration on return envelopes (same reason as 6, above). There might be missing envelopes, too; it wasn't clear to me in my reading or I missed it. Ballot processing is not allowed before Election Day in Georgia (this varies by state); in this election, by rule inconsistent with state law, Secretary of State Raffensperger allowed counties to start 3 weeks early. Absent a rigid accountability processes, this risks double or counterfeit voting.

Conducting one election with INTEGRITY is hard enough; when you overlay what is, in effect, a 2nd election (by mail) that has to be reconciled with what happens at the polls ... this is very high risk this "2 concurrent elections" risk was a primary argument for all elections being conducted by mail in Oregon, which was adopted after 20 years of practice with dual polling/mail elections — practice that none of these states whose elections are in question have had Observers were not allowed during the original count or the recount. There is no defense for this and intrinsically implies that elections officials had something to hide. There are other things to pick on, but these I cannot think of a way to defend and probably are sufficient to meet the apparent (according to the lawsuit) standard of "preponderance of the evidence" to "doubt the result." Eager to read defendants' response!