Voter fraud? What voter fraud?

This was a point I made elsewhere - the water is poisoned once you start playing these games, and it becomes a case of "you complained last time so I'm complaining this time". There is something in the old saying that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

There were some significant differences between this election and the last. 1) If one counted the actual number of votes, the Democrats had a quite significant majority even though the way that the Electoral college works put Trump as winner. I don't think there was any dispute about that - only that, of course, many Democrats wished that the system were different. In this election, there was a clear majority of the popular vote which is almost certain to be reflected in the Electoral College vote in December. 2) There was certainly a great deal of interference in the Election on social media from unidentified bodies, many of which were either proved to be or suspected of being linked to Russia. Whether or not, and to what extent, that influenced the voting cannot really be assessed, I think. Since then, Facebook and Twitter have been much more careful about what they allow to be published (though, in my opinion, not nearly careful enough, even so). What has astounded me in this election is not that Trump seems to be unable to concede - his chronic egotismm bordering on mental illness was already well known and his continued insistence that he actually 'won' was very predictable in the light of that. It is the statements made by people like Pompeo ('there will be a smooth transition into a second term of office for Trump') and others which make it seem as if, for them, the election was all just a bad dream and so now they carry on as if it never really happened!

@owlwings You are quite right - the alleged shenanigans then and now were of very different kinds. Hilary probably lost because some people were persuaded that she was "crooked", to use Trump's term, and either voted the other way or withheld their vote. The allegations this time have to do with fraudulent voting, and the two cannot really be judged by the same criteria. I like "bordering on mental illness", and would only question "bordering"! (just ask his psychologist niece about that!)

@indexer Well, in the polling booth a family member not liking the choice can decide to vote differently... As a vote counter I would consider void any ballot paper with a distinctive mark here, they have to be dropped like they have been printed, with no addition possible except in small places with less than 1000 voters.

@topffer Identifying marks are always grounds for rejection. A ballot paper is only to be marked with a cross in one box, but there is more than one way of putting a cross in a box and it can sometimes look as though the same hand has marked two or more papers.

But you did not have a pandemic raging in 1975. Postal voting has increased in the UK, and has not been called into question. As a vote counter, the only doubts I have had when counting postal votes is the occasional recognition of identical marks on papers grouped together. The suspicion is that heads of household in homes occupied by several people of South Asian origin (and there many such in Leicester) are taking all the papers of the whole family, marking them, and returning them in the same envelope. But that is just the cultural norm - you always expect such families to vote the same way, whether they are sent by by post or if they all turn up at the polling station together.

And every time a case has come before a judge, it has almost immediately been thrown out for lack of evidence!

@indexer Courts seem to be dismissing the lawsuits from what I noticed on the scrolling thing while watching a news program. I am not sure why though. Will have to read up on it. Having sworn affidavits is evidence according to what Giuliani said, so if they are dismissing it with the claim that there is no evidence that is crazy.