You could go interview people at nursing homes with unusually high rates of return. See if any of the voters have severe dementia.
Seniors vote at high rates. How exactly is the testimony of a person with severe dementia proof of anything? Last I checked they don't remove dementia patients from the voter roles, yet there's no way to prove that their vote went to the person they wanted to vote for (if they could even identify a person).
We've had operatives admit that they use orderlies to coerce votes from nursing home patients. This isn't speculative.
Other people have gotten voters to sign a ballot the first person completed in exchanges for minor payments or food (also voter fraud), how do you show it changed the course of an election? We catch that every single election, and more people will admit to voting in that manner than you'd believe, yet they don't know the name of the operative that did it.
How do you detect which postal workers threw away ballots from people registered for the other party? Illegal voter manipulation, which by the way is trivially easy in many states where registrations are a public record.
Again public records, find who requested a ballot and never voted. Go ask them if they voted.
Which proves what? Every single time you could claim - rightly - that there is no way to prove there was an intentional act. With enough data and time you could identify carriers that have unusually high "default" rates on a route, but unless election officials do an investigation there is no recourse. How much incentive do you think DNC officials that control an election have in doing an exhaustive search to find postal carriers that have an "off" statistical anomaly in the number of returned ballots that correllates to the party of the voter? If you found a carrier that had a return rate of 40% for Republicans and 75% for Democrats, when the local average was 50%/55% did you prove something?
Commit to exactly what you accept as proof of fraud.
How do you detect fraudulent votes where the ballot request was fraudulent as well? In GA for example they eliminated the requirement to compare the ballot signature to the original voter registration in favor of only comparing it to the ballot request - thereby ensuring that any vote harvesting group would get away with it (and we have multiple accounts of voters showing up and being told they had already voted by mail - literally evidence that such a system is present).
Track down those people and ballots and make your case. Here's the place to start, the individuals should be motivated to file a complaint and you can track down their return envelopes and check for irregularities.
Your response doesn't make sense. The GA rule change resulted in separation of ballots from envelopes without the required checks being completed. There's no way to unscramble that egg. You'll note that GA refused to do a signature audit until after the results were certified.
Do you agree that GA should flip if the number of ballots where the signature on the envelope matches the
signature on the ballot request but not the signature on file exceeds Biden's margin?
If all you did was call them then yes you'll have a large non response rate, go door to door to check. The response rate should be able to get large enough to detect some level of fraud. Its expensive but Trump has 200 million dollars to investigate so use it and prove that out of 10k voters you checked you found 150 that will swear they never voted.
So you have not done such a survey. The response rate I was discussing was for a door to door study with multiple contact attempts. You will never get to the number of responses it would require to establish certainty, no matter how you follow up.
If you agreed that such a result itself is some kind of proof that the vote was illegitimate (how could these individuals have been reachable to vote if they can't be reached) then we could discuss it, but we already know the answer. The DNC has fought repeatedly to prevent the removal of voters from the voting roles when they are not capable of being located at their registered address, even with diligence.
Here's a clever move of the goalposts.
Its not moving goal posts its another game. Illegal votes, by the laws of every state are not permitted to be counted. Yet, we had hundreds of thousands of votes that could be viewed as illegal under the laws of those states counted.
That's separate than fraud, and it's largely unarguable that it happened if you agree with the Constitutional interpretation in question.
Now we don't care about fraudulent votes or voters but now we're looking to see if we can find any policy or procedure announced and followed by any election officials that would allow us to disregard the votes cast by voters following the procedures prescribed by election officials. This is where you get tossed out on standing. The Trump team in Wisconsin was challenging a form that had been in use for a decade, saying all those votes should be cast out, but only in democratic leaning counties. The time for those suits was prior to the election and there were tons of them all around the country. After the election tossing out ballots that the courts had deemed legal on election day is pure crap.
And honestly that's partially a fair point. However, it discounts what you never paid attention to, there were literally thousands of law suits filed prior to the election (and and overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of them where by the DNC and it's partisans) to modify the election rules. You hear about them when they act to change the congressional districts, but you ignored them while they systematically trimmed anti-fraud protections one piece at a time from the laws. And lest you jump to the idea that they were "illegal" rules, you'd be wrong, they weren't illegal rules. Sometimes the changes were absolutely arbitrary, like the PA SC determining that the express rule that ballots had to be received by a specific time on election day really meant they could be received up to 3 days later with or without a valid post mark. That was purely their preference.
Other times they caused friendly settlements with DNC AGs that "bound" their states to changes in the electoral laws that their legislature had considered and rejected. It's hard to understand how that was even "plausibly" constitutional.
The RNC doesn't care about anti-fraud measures. They support voter suppression measures and call them anti-fraud. I posted weeks ago about what I would support for anti-fraud in elections. It didn't generate much discussion.
It's fun that you just repeat talking points. There's no evidence (for real this time) that anti-fraud measures have disenfranchised any legal voters. Yet you pretend to have the moral high ground from protecting "no one" to create systems that let thousands of illegal voters get away with it.
Democrats are masters of rationalization. Since they always have to believe they are the good guys, they'll buy in and publish completely false statements that sound plausible.
So prove it.
