Not endorsing the idea of fraud, but fraud isn't just pulling something shifty and hoping the other guy doesn't notice. Successful frauds are hard to detect by design. Measures and countermeasures. More time means more opportunity to get it right. The allegation is not that some doofus is printing off a bazillion extra ballots and throwing them onto the pile. The allegation is than some smart people have time to analyze the math (partial returns) and engineer a fix that is not statistically obvious. You can argue this is not happening, but it would be silly to say that it is impossible.
EDIT (Reason: Brain fart): Left out the answer to your question. Slowing results gives a would-be-fraudster time to work because it limits the flow of information and allows fine tuning. Think of it more like a PID control system; if you don't have to make a one shot correction, why would you? Tune the fix as the data comes in.
Not endorsing the idea of fraud, but fraud isn't just pulling something shifty and hoping the other guy doesn't notice. Successful frauds are hard to detect by design.
Absolutely. Isn't that why it's impossible to absolutely demonstrate fraud in Chicago in the 1960 presidential? However, delaying an election count until freaking CHRISTMAS sort of beats the "hard to detect" part.
When Brazil can count all ballots in a day, what excuse does Arizona have?
The allegation is than some smart people have time to analyze the math (partial returns) and engineer a fix that is not statistically obvious. You can argue this is not happening, but it would be silly to say that it is impossible.
Nothing is impossible. However, if I wanted to conduct fraud, I wouldn't do it like this. This seems like the dumbest way to do it - in a way that even if you are not committing fraud, everyone thinks that you are.
Slowing results gives a would-be-fraudster time to work because it limits the flow of information and allows fine tuning. Think of it more like a PID control system; if you don't have to make a one shot correction, why would you? Tune the fix as the data comes in.
Makes sense. But if you do it like that, everyone will suspect fraud. Hell, even though I don't believe in fraud making a meaningful difference, next time someone here (in Europe) complains about BLUMPF alleging fraud, I'm going to answer: hey, how come the richest country in the world takes weeks to count ballots when third world countries do it in a day?
Florida had probably the MOST secure elections in the US, voted one day got results really quickly in the night. So the results are probably right
Everywhere else, put it this way, you're STILL waiting for results, that says it all.
Even if they're using the time to commit fraud, what excuse do they have for such tardy fraud?
Not endorsing the idea of fraud, but fraud isn't just pulling something shifty and hoping the other guy doesn't notice. Successful frauds are hard to detect by design. Measures and countermeasures. More time means more opportunity to get it right. The allegation is not that some doofus is printing off a bazillion extra ballots and throwing them onto the pile. The allegation is than some smart people have time to analyze the math (partial returns) and engineer a fix that is not statistically obvious. You can argue this is not happening, but it would be silly to say that it is impossible.
EDIT (Reason: Brain fart): Left out the answer to your question. Slowing results gives a would-be-fraudster time to work because it limits the flow of information and allows fine tuning. Think of it more like a PID control system; if you don't have to make a one shot correction, why would you? Tune the fix as the data comes in.
Absolutely. Isn't that why it's impossible to absolutely demonstrate fraud in Chicago in the 1960 presidential? However, delaying an election count until freaking CHRISTMAS sort of beats the "hard to detect" part.
When Brazil can count all ballots in a day, what excuse does Arizona have?
Nothing is impossible. However, if I wanted to conduct fraud, I wouldn't do it like this. This seems like the dumbest way to do it - in a way that even if you are not committing fraud, everyone thinks that you are.
Makes sense. But if you do it like that, everyone will suspect fraud. Hell, even though I don't believe in fraud making a meaningful difference, next time someone here (in Europe) complains about BLUMPF alleging fraud, I'm going to answer: hey, how come the richest country in the world takes weeks to count ballots when third world countries do it in a day?
So, the goal of the operation is not to commit fraud, but to show to everyone that the people of the US are powerless to stop the fraud.
And what would the goal of that be?