(01-25-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not being an expert on the field for fraud, I can't tell you exactly what methods to use, but I have to imagine there are some techniques out there where you can at least cross check if there were claims of people who tried to vote but couldn't because someone had already signed in their place.

And so I imagine you must feel the opposite about wherever number of votes is less than the number on the registration/rolls? There is human and computer error, and it should be investigated (which it was), but at some point there is a chance that human/machine error caused the discrepancy.

The over/under voting is not EVIDENCE of fraud, but it could be a sign of fraud (hence the need to look into it). Evidence would provide some insight into the reason for the alteration and there being intent of that action, no?

So if you have 100 people registered, and 105 votes, that is not evidence of voter fraud. Interesting.

The overage by itself is a clear indication of something drastically wrong at some level. Not in and of its own concrete proof, but kink of like the presence of festering boil on your leg is saying *something* is very wrong.

If the state had also implemented strong voter id laws, it would be even clearer. But let us not forget, stronger voter id laws are *racist* in nature....

That fact alone is not evidence of fraud. Fraud consistutes someone intentionally doing something else - how in the heck is there evidence of intent in your scenario?

That is evidence of there being an error, but without any other evidence, how would you justify that fraud had been committed based solely on that info? I find it much more interesting that you jump to a fraud conclusion immediately if you held no other facts - not that there was an error in the software, in the registration, in the vote counting, etc. Nope, must be fraud!

I didn't say it was conclusive evidence of fraud, but it is evidence of fraud. Please don't make a strawman argument from my words. "Evidence" does not ipso facto mean "conclusory all by its little lonesome", fyi.

The overage is clear evidence of *something* very wrong (except when dead people vote in Duval County...). It is evidence of fraud, albeit not conclusory. It is also evidence to non-intent real bad issues. Again, not conclusory. I guess the problem is your interpretation of evidence having to be fundamentally conclusory within itself of a singular point....

Again I alluded to that with the "Not in and of its own concrete proof" statement, but tagging the from part, it is a *clear* indication of something drastically wrong at some point.

The fix to this (i.e. nagging problems, perhaps even fraud) is having tighter restrictions on identity at the polling places, as in most Western voting regimes. But, as I said, that is deemed racist here.

You asked if 105 votes for 100 people was evidence of fraud. I said it was not and stated why.

We agree that it is evidence of something being off - the severity of which we could argue.

The problem is that you conflate the word 'evidence' with the term 'conclusive evidence'. Relevant evidence (per the Federal Rules of Evidence) is something that "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence".

Overages are both evidence of fraud, and of horrific f-ups in voting procedures.

Since you assume that the word "evidence" automatically includes the prefix of "conclusory", you disagree that overages are evidence of fraud. Then I guess we shall disagree on whether the overages are evidence of fraud then....