You clearly lack a fundamental understanding of the issues involved here... The voting process used by the Dominion machines involves a physical paper trail that is verified by the voter. Random sampling is done routinely comparing the electronically tabulated results against the paper audit log.

In the case of Georgia, a full recount (by hand) was done on the paper ballots.

Seems trivial to 'randomly' sample a select subset of the votes. And that does nothing to guard against vote dumps. Non existent voters cannot validate their votes.

Do you know where the Dominion validation process is clearly documented so it is easy to see whether it is easily subverted? I will bet the answer is no, and the software and hardware are all trade secrets and impossible for voters to verify :D. Sounds like a totally trustworthy system to me.

It is not "Dominion's" process, it is the local board of election's process. All Dominion supplies are fancy printers and optical scanners.

The verification process in Georgia involved physically counting all of the paper ballots. The Dominion machines were totally uninvolved in the hand-recount (and, unsurprisingly, the hand-recount found that the original machine tally was extremely accurate)

Again, I think it's pretty clear you don't understand what role the machines actually play in the voting process.

Perhaps what you say is correct, but I have no way to verify the vote records myself. All I can do is trust the vote counters, and at this point that is the very matter under dispute. Someone in the know really should do an in depth write-up of why it is we can trust this election result. As it is the third Peter Navarro report appears very suspicious and it is hard to believe there is absolutely no reason to doubt the election results. On the contrary the election could very well have been the steal of the century.

This is very "conspiracy theory" type thinking you're engaging in... There is no evidence supporting any of the claims of fraud, any evidence that doesn't support your position is automatically dismissed as untrustworthy.

Your claim seems to be that the Georgia Secretary of State (a staunch Republican and Trump supporter) along with the governor managed to pull off a huge operation to secretly change the results of the election (which would have involved hundreds of people and require that none of them speak out). That's a really outlandish claim, and requires supporting evidence, of which you have none.

Isn't a stolen election precisely a conspiracy?

I would prefer not to believe the election was stolen. I wanted Trump out, and Biden seems a reasonable replacement. I also debunked a number of the fallacious statistical 'proofs' the election was stolen. Believe me I would like nothing better than to believe everything is fine. But especially Navarro's report makes me unable to dismiss the allegations off hand with a clean conscience. I've also looked into the PA court's reasons for dismissing Trump's lawsuit from back in Sept, and the reasoning is all based on technicalities and does not address the substance of the concern that the loosening of the rules has opened the door to major fraud. The fact all the coverage of the lawsuits is frivolous dismissal or even in some cases the courts rule in favor does nothing to set my mind at ease.

Peter Navarro is a _highly_ partisan source, and not someone you should assume to be arguing in good faith.

Are there other, more credible, sources that are influencing your thinking? There is zero evidence supporting the claim of widespread fraud. Unless you have some evidence of some kind, it really seems like you would prefer to believe there is some vast conspiracy and you are writing off all the evidence to the contrary.

I am looking at the lawsuits and articles linked from Navarro's report. The lawsuits sound pretty credible to me. When I read the court's reason for rejecting the lawsuit it sounds like the judge is looking for technical reasons to reject the lawsuit.

When I look for articles explaining why the lawsuits are rejected en mass, every article I have found is very hand wavy, stating the judges are appointed by Trump so we should expect them to be unbiased. However, no one actually dogs into the opinions or takes the reason why the election seems highly suspicious seriously.

To pick out one specific piece of evidence, in PA they found 200k more votes than voters, which is more than enough to change the result for that state. The counts are all from state government databases.

http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmaker...

Navarro has over 50 such claims linked in his report, totalling over 3M potentially fraudulent votes. Regardless of what you think of the man, the evidence itself I find hard to set aside, even though I am like you and would tend towards dismissing Navarro as a partisan hack. But when he has laid out the claimed evidence like this in detail I must at least give it a spot check and the spot checks hold up so far.

Ok... but the 200k thing is easily debunked... The SURE system is not the official record of votes, the certified county results are. It is not unexpected that those wouldn't match (the counties were prioritizing getting the elections certified and hadn't yet published their results to SURE (which, again, isn't the official source of truth, and therefore wasn't a priority). Several large counties had not uploaded their data to SURE, as of the time of the press release you linked to.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9887147...

You claim that the "spot checks hold up", but the one example you chose to cite (presumably one of the ones you believe holds up) falls apart with just a tiny bit of research.

Very interesting. Do you know of a way I can confirm this discrepancy is resolved? I can find registered voter counts and votes tallied, but not votes cast counts.

> Seems trivial to 'randomly' sample a select subset of the votes. And that does nothing to guard against vote dumps. Non existent voters cannot validate their votes.

Incorrect. Voter rolls have information about who voted, and this information is public record. You can simply call up a random sample of recorded 2020 voters in Georgia and ask them to confirm that they voted in the election.

There is no way to undetectably insert additional fake paper ballots (“vote dumps”) unless you are alleging a vast conspiracy that removed the real paper ballots from storage after the election and replaced them with new fake ones, without any whistleblowers on the (Republican-run and Trump-supporting) elections staff speaking out.

Are the specific votes public record? If not, it is impossible to verify votes were recorded correctly. But the addresses being public record is interesting. If that information is public record then it would be easy for citizens to randomly verify enough records to ascertain whether enough votes were dumped to make a difference. If what you say is correct then I can try verifying it myself. Why has no one publicly done this? Would be an easy way to put the matter to rest.

UPDATE: I just checked the GA website, and all it gives me is voter IDs and whom they voted for. No way I can verify vote fraud did not occur from that information. No addresses or names.

> UPDATE: I just checked the GA website, and all it gives me is voter IDs and whom they voted for. No way I can verify vote fraud did not occur from that information. No addresses or names.

I would suggest that if you weren’t able to find this information using google, you should think about what that means for your research skills and the skills/knowledge of those who create and propagate the voter fraud lies. Some humility might be in order as to why experts don’t think there was fraud, but others who don’t understand how elections work do....

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/voter_history_files

“ You will need a voter file in order to associate a voter with his or her voter history. The voter and history files both contain the voter registration number and can be linked on this field.

For more information on voter lists, please send an email to [email protected] with the subject “Voter List Files.””

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/verify/verify-can-your-...

“ So is it true your neighbors or friends can find out if you voted? 11Alive verified with the Secretary of State’s website that under Georgia law, “voter registration lists are available to the public and contain the following information: voter name, residential address, mailing address if different, race, gender, registration date, and last voting date.” The information is available by order for a fee on the Secretary of State’s Office website, though is not to be used for commercial purposes.”

Thanks, I will see if I can get ahold of the list.

However, I would still need a second list of valid addresses for each person to create a true validation.

No, the specifics of how people vote is not publicly available. That is important, in order to prevent voter coercion.

How exactly is the possibility of vote dumping and vote flipping eliminated?

> How exactly is the possibility of vote dumping and vote flipping eliminated?

You cannot simply add ballots to the election as the totals would then be incorrect. (There would be more votes than people recorded as voting)

What is “Vote Dumping”? Do you mean inserting fraudulent paper ballots into the stored ballots to be counted?

The election was recorded on physical paper ballots. Are you alleging a vast conspiracy of bipartisan election workers and Republican Secretary of State monitors to replace the legitimate physical ballots with fake ones?

All ballots were hand counted and the initial Dominion machine count was confirmed accurate, so the allegation would be a conspiracy where Dominion scanners inaccurately counted the original paper ballots, then the paper ballots were secretly replaced with fakes to match the inaccurate Dominion counts? And this would have had to been done state-wide without a single whistleblower. It’s a ridiculous conspiracy theory if you try to write it out.

An election theft is conspiracy by definition. The question is whether the conspiracy is feasible. But it is feasible if only a few counties or cities committed fraud. What makes conspiracy infeasible is widespread collusion without a mechanism of coordination and ensuring secrecy. Collusion in a few large municipalities does not seem obviously out of the question.

> An election theft is conspiracy by definition.

No, its not.

Either a single actor with appropriate access or multiple independent actors not acting in coordination could effect the theft of an election without any conspiracy.

Conspiracy requires an agreement to work together; that might help with an election theft but it is not “by definition” necessary for election theft.

Multiple conspiracies of one?

Diebold is not a previous version of Dominion.

Dominion acquired all of the material assets of Premier, which was a renamed Diebold, from ES&S due to an anti-trust lawsuit.

Now, ES&S has issues, but you're not going to hear anything about that. Because ES&S machines are used in places like Kentucky, South Carolina, and Florida.

Sure, but this exception proves the point. There are indeed electronic voting machines widely considered to be suspect. So the notion that electronic voting machines could potentially be used to commit fraud in this election is not out of the question.

You were specifically trying to cast doubt on Dominion. And now that your statement has been outed as false, you're moving the goalposts to "voting machines in general".

No, Dominion purchased these questionable voting machines, so they clearly possess questionable voting machines. So my major claim that Dominion possesses questionable voting machines is substantiated. In fact ES&S equipment is used by Georgia.

Dominion won the contract in Georgia.

And just because they purchased the assets doesn't mean they just used them without checking them.

Well, the question remains then. Definitely they are not beyond question. There is a traceable lineage of questionable machines leading right up to the region where vote fraud allegations through electronic vote machines. Enough that a decent look by a disinterested party is warranted.