Was 2020 election stolen or not?

[Flash]

which explains why 25 GOP state legislatures have passed voter suppression laws since 2020

My point was that those laws have obviously not suppressed votes since turnout keeps increasing including for minority voters. 2018 was the highest midterm since 1914 and 2020 was the highest presidential turnout since 1960. So, all those people found a way to vote despite any barriers. Even with decreased voting hours it is still easier to vote with more voting hours (early voting) than years ago.

I think you underestimate Democratic voters.

[martin]

Trump is still leading his desperate effort to steal the election. It has never gotten beyond the noise stage, lots of noise, and you hear some of it right here, but only noise. And noise is the most it ever can be.

[Flash]

[QUOTE=Into the Night;4478155]Congress is not authorized to synthesize electoral votes.

synthesize: to combine (a number of things) into a coherent whole:

"The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;"

Congress performed its constitutional duty by counting all the electoral votes and combining them into a coherent whole.

There was no election process. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats.

Denial of reality with 0 evidence of voter fraud. The states and Congress make this decision and found no evidence. Your opinion is irrelevant.

[Into the Night]

Trump is still leading his desperate effort to steal the election.

What election?

[Into the Night]

Congress is not authorized to synthesize electoral votes.

synthesize: to combine (a number of things) into a coherent whole:

Nope. That's 'combining'. Semantics fallacy.

"The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;"

Congress does not have authority to make up electoral votes.

Congress performed its constitutional duty by counting all the electoral votes and combining them into a coherent whole.

Congress does not have authority to make up electoral votes.

Denial of reality with 0 evidence of voter fraud.

Already presented. Argument of the stone fallacy. RQAA.

The states and Congress make this decision and found no evidence.

Lie. At least seven State never chose electors. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats. At least 25 States are changing their election procedures because of it.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Don't think so.

[Flash]

at least seven State never chose electors.

Total lie defying all reality and certified documents presented by all states with the signature of electors according to state law.

False authority fallacy and furtive fallacy.

[LV426]

My point was that those laws have obviously not suppressed votes since turnout keeps increasing including for minority voters.

Correlation is not causation, and whether or not turnout increased doesn't change the fact that turnout only increased for 2020 because of ease of ballot access.

2018 was the highest midterm since 1914 and 2020 was the highest presidential turnout since 1960.

Right, but these new voter suppression laws weren't on the books in 2018 OR 2020.

So, all those people found a way to vote despite any barriers.

So you admit that barriers were placed. Why were they placed?

Even with decreased voting hours it is still easier to vote with more voting hours (early voting) than years ago.

Only because in 2020, ballot access was improved mainly due to mail-in voting, which most of these suppression laws will reduce or make more difficult.

I think you underestimate Democratic voters.

No one should have to vote IN SPITE OF SOMETHING. If you're putting up barriers to voting, regardless of whether or not those barriers are overcome, you're still putting up barriers to voting with no justification.

[LV426]

What election?

The one you said was stolen for three months before 1/6, but then didn't go to DC on 1/6 to save the Republic you screamed was under assault thanks to a stolen election.

So either you don't believe the election was stolen, or it wasn't stolen enough to be a threat to the Republic.

[Flash]

Correlation is not causation, and whether or not turnout increased doesn't change the fact that turnout only increased for 2020 because of ease of ballot access.

What factors are you correlating? We've been told for years that voter ID suppress voting. Those have existed for several elections so obviously they did not suppress the vote.

Since correlation is not causation, it is unlikely that voter access is solely responsible for the high turnout in 2018 and 2020. There are other factors affecting turnout.

--For example, in several states there was very little increase in mail-in voting yet voter turnout also increased in those states.
--Blacks were less likely than other groups to use mail-in ballots but their turnout also increased.
--States with universal main-in ballots also increased their voter turnout
--states which did not change their laws regarding mail-in ballots still had increased mail-in voting and increased turnout
--there was an increased turnout of Trump voters although 2/3 voted in person on election day

Right, but these new voter suppression laws weren't on the books in 2018 OR 2020.

But voter ID and other laws were already on the books which many have been claiming suppress votes. You are talking about measures which are not yet in effect.

So you admit that barriers were placed. Why were they placed?

I said more people chose to vote "despite any barriers." Some things I don't see as barriers. For example, reducing poll opening times from 7:00 until 8:00 during a 3 week early voting periods is not a barrier although it reduces voting times. It obviously did not suppress voting.

They were probably placed because of those who feared voter fraud. In a few cases the number of of voting precincts was reduced because they had so few voters and a shortage of poll workers. In some cases they eliminated individual precincts for county-wide voting to eliminate the problems for those moving from one precinct to another.

Only because in 2020, ballot access was improved mainly due to mail-in voting, which most of these suppression laws will reduce or make more difficult.

Not for those who want to vote. That suppression claim was heard about voter ID and still not one voter has been identified who could not get an ID to vote (that I have found).

No one should have to vote IN SPITE OF SOMETHING. If you're putting up barriers to voting, regardless of whether or not those barriers are overcome, you're still putting up barriers to voting with no justification.

The biggest barrier to voting is registration. Should we also eliminate that?

People have to be motivated to vote no matter how easy it is. I think the intense feelings for or against Trump had much more to do with 20 million new voters than ballot access. Voting by mail still involves many steps in most states and people have to really want to vote to complete that process.

[LV426]

What factors are you correlating? We've been told for years that voter ID suppress voting. Those have existed for several elections so obviously they did not suppress the vote.

Correlation is not causation.

Since correlation is not causation, it is unlikely that voter access is solely responsible for the high turnout in 2018 and 2020. There are other factors affecting turnout.

Which are...?

--For example, in several states there was very little increase in mail-in voting yet voter turnout also increased in those states.

What states are you talking about? Show your work.

Blacks were less likely than other groups to use mail-in ballots but their turnout also increased.

OK, so you say they were less likely than other groups to use mail-in ballots...where did you get that data point from, and did your data point account for increases to mail-in voting?

What you're doing here Flash is called conjecture and it's total bad faith.

--States with universal main-in ballots also increased their voter turnout

Right...and what was their turnout vs. the states without universal mail-in voting?

You really need to do more work here, Flash, because I doubt you would accept this level of bullshit from one of your students when you were a pretend professor.

--states which did not change their laws regarding mail-in ballots still had increased mail-in voting and increased turnout

Which states and by how much? So this is you right here saying that states who didn't change their laws saw an increase in turnout. So...no laws were passed to suppress turnout, and both kinds of voting increased. BECAUSE OF MAIL IN VOTING.

-there was an increased turnout of Drumpf voters although 2/3 voted in person on election day

How does this classify as a factor for turnout? You set it up as if it did, but it turns out all of your points here don't actually explain your position!

This is sloppier work than usual, Flash, because you don't even cite sources to back up any of the points you said here.

It's all "take my word for it", topline analysis but when we dive deeper into it, we find you are obscuring things.

[LV426]

But voter ID and other laws were already on the books which many have been claiming suppress votes.

And what was their turnout vs. the states without those voter ID laws?

You can make this argument only if you can prove that turnout in voter suppression states was higher than turnout in universal voting states. Can you prove that? Of course you can't, because it would never be true.

Here's the final turnout %'s for the 2020 election. The states at the top have fewer voter laws than the states at the bottom: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ut-rate-state/.

Colorado, which has universal mail-in voting and automatic voter registration, was #2 in turnout. WA and OR, both universal mail-in states, were #5 and #6.

[LV426]

I said more people chose to vote "despite any barriers."

Right, but in saying that, you're admitting that barriers are being placed.

Why are those barriers being placed?

And do you think all voters will universally overcome those artificial barriers?

[LV426]

Some things I don't see as barriers. For example, reducing poll opening times from 7:00 until 8:00 during a 3 week early voting periods is not a barrier although it reduces voting times. It obviously did not suppress voting.

So this is where almost all your arguments eventually end up: with you making a subjective judgment about something while thinking you're entitled to your judgment being the standard.

Reducing poll times from 7 to 8 will throw up a barrier for anyone who needed to vote before 8.

And why is that barrier even being placed?!?!? You want to focus on how those barriers affect people without even focusing on the need for the barrier in the first fucking place.

So we can't debate how those barriers affect people if you don't even know the reason they are being placed.

[BartenderElite]

No.

The only reason anyone believes it was stolen is because a pathological liar said so.

[LV426]

Some things I don't see as barriers. For example, reducing poll opening times from 7:00 until 8:00 during a 3 week early voting periods is not a barrier although it reduces voting times. It obviously did not suppress voting.

So this is where almost all your arguments eventually end up: with you making a subjective judgment about something while thinking you're entitled to your judgment being the standard.

Reducing poll times from 7 to 8 will throw up a barrier for anyone who needed to vote before 8.

And why is that barrier even being placed?!?!? You want to focus on how those barriers affect people without even focusing on the need for the barrier in the first fucking place.

So we can't debate how those barriers affect people if you don't even know the reason they are being placed.