I saw this in another sub, and wanted to post it here for US politics Thursday. I thought it an interesting way to present potential fraud fingerprint detection using the Klimek method. I will quote the OP text in a comment.
Especially interesting, considering 1984 was the last year Minnesota used entirely hand-counted paper ballots.
Source: https://electiontruthalliance.org/analysis/minnesota-then-and-now/
OP: https://www.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/s/KhAPqqjMMR
by Robsurgence
4 Comments
Where is the beautiful data?
Utilitarian at best chart with no meaning unless you also read the link, especially given the lack of any other charts in the actual post for comparison. I get that you want to increase attention to whatever the underlying research/agenda is, but doesnt feel like this is the right sub. Â
Also, having skimmed the link, I find it very weird that they compare three elections to one election. No idea about their claims or methodology, and maybe I missed a justification, but especially since some of their conclusions rely on the patterns in the recent election, using just one comparator that is itself from a relative outlier year is a weird choice.
Interesting article and read, but the graphic shown is not going to get traction on this sub.
The claims seem false, because (as they note), MN regularly performs hand-based audits and compares those to the results given by the vote-counting machines, and those audits do not find fraud.
For the machines to be doing fraud, the machines would have to know in advance which precincts will be hand-audited, in order to avoid doing fraud at those locations. I personally don’t know enough of the protocol to explain how that isn’t possible, but I am confident that MN SoS Steve Simon _does_ know, and that the audits are conducted so as to make that impossible.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t have an enormous amount of trust in electronic voting machines. I remember when the CEO of Diebold publicly told Bush he could count on winning the election (in OH, IIRC). I am extremely aware of the fact that voting-machine vendors have fought tooth-and-nail to prevent election judges from performing validation tests of their machines prior to the election, using the spurious excuse of “trade secrets.” The makers of voting machines seem eager to create enough space for them to manipulate election results, and violently opposed to anyone proving it can’t happen.
But MN already does randomized hand-audits, and they don’t find fraud. MN even did a _full_ hand recount in 2008, when Franken defeated Coleman.
If someone is doing fraud by manipulating our vote counting machines, they seem to have incredible future knowledge that has allowed them to evade fairly robust detection measures.