The so-called "bullet ballots" and too many voting for president only

[soandso]

This comes up several times a day with the assertion that swing states had far more ballots voting for president (presumably Trump) only and skipping the rest of the ballot/voting top of the ticket exclusively. So, I finally took a look and posted the following in another thread where it's not really going to been seen much. I'm reposting here for anyone interested:

I took some random states, some swing states and some not, and compared the difference between the number of votes for president to the number of votes in their senate races. I used Decision Desk for the latest totals.

California

Presidential Votes: 15,104,778
Senate Votes: 14,638,283
Percentage Difference: ((15,104,778 - 14,638,283) / 15,104,778) * 100 ≈ 3.09%

Arizona

Presidential Votes: 3,378,651
Senate Votes: 3,337,566
Percentage Difference: ((3,378,651 - 3,337,566) / 3,378,651) * 100 ≈ 1.22%

New Mexico

Presidential Votes: 923,319
Senate Votes: 903,201
Percentage Difference: ((923,319 - 903,201) / 923,319) * 100 ≈ 2.18%

Minnesota

Presidential Votes: 3,242,938
Senate Votes: 3,186,151
Percentage Difference: ((3,242,938 - 3,186,151) / 3,242,938) * 100 ≈ 1.75%

Wisconsin

Presidential Votes: 3,415,154
Senate Votes: 3,387,420
Percentage Difference: ((3,415,154 - 3,387,420) / 3,415,154) * 100 ≈ 0.81%

Washington

Presidential Votes: 3,845,914
Senate Votes: 3,752,419
Percentage Difference: ((3,845,914 - 3,752,419) / 3,845,914) * 100 ≈ 2.43%

Texas

Presidential Votes: 11,559,607
Senate Votes: 11,269,112
Percentage Difference: ((11,559,607 - 11,269,112) / 11,559,607) * 100 ≈ 2.51%

Pennsylvania

Presidential Votes: 7,025,367
Senate Votes: 6,953,319
Percentage Difference: ((7,025,367 - 6,953,319) / 7,025,367) * 100 ≈ 1.03%

Virginia

Presidential Votes: 4,482,075
Senate Votes: 4,436,419
Percentage Difference: ((4,482,075 - 4,436,419) / 4,482,075) * 100 ≈ 1.02%

Ohio

Presidential Votes: 5,647,668
Senate Votes: 5,585,865
Percentage Difference: ((5,647,668 - 5,585,865) / 5,647,668) * 100 ≈ 1.09%


As you can see, the swing states did NOT have a greater %age difference in top of the ticket and down ballot. In fact, it's California (blue state) that has the greatest discrepancy and Wisconsin (swing state) the lowest.

https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/President/
https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/US-Senate/

[Sympthsical]

1. Was just about to ask you in the other thread to make this an OP

Glad to see you did.

[soandso]

2. I hope it adds a bit of clarity

I try to make a habit of checking everything if it's significant enough to bother. I do the same with news articles and claims that they make.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. What does that even mean? Define %age difference, I don't know what you're talking about.

[soandso]

5. The percentage difference between

how many people only voted in the presidential race vs down ballot races, in a particular state. There's been some claims that swing states had zillions of ballots only voting for president and nothing else and that that's fishy, indicating fraud. So, I checked.

[onenote]

7. It's the percentage of votes cast in the presidential race in excess of the votes cast in the Senate race

It happens every four years that some number of voters cast a ballot for president and leave the rest of the ballot blank. The percentage of voters doing that in 2024 in the swing states is not out of line with the percentage doing it in non-swing states. It's also not out of line with the percentage doing it in 2020. For example, the percentage in Arizona in 2024 is almost identical to the percentage in 2020.

[soandso]

25. And what this reveals

is that a number of people (probably not midterm and primary voters) are motivated by the general presidential race and just want to be heard/counted in that.

[onenote]

63. Yep. There are lots of low information voters who simply choose not to vote in a race they probably don't know

much about.

[soandso]

76. I'm good with that

in that I would rather someone not vote if they don't know who or what they're voting for. In that way, it may be the intelligent choice.

A lot of people simply are not into politics but can't help but be aware of the presidential race since it's in our faces so much. They may know a lot about Harris and Trump but the guy running for drain commissioner, not so much.

[Silent Type]

4. Thanks, but don't expect 2024 "election deniers" to accept facts.

[Igel]

48. The scare quotes should be dropped.

To stop protecting those in "error".

Ahem.

A lot of folk in late 2004 suffered from "ED"--election denialism.

[tritsofme]

6. So you mean the spoon guy is full of crap? Who could have guessed?

[soandso]

8. IIRC, he was claiming software was hacked

flipping votes from Harris to Trump. I'm unable to check that claim.

[tritsofme]

10. He has made lots of baseless claims, I'll give you that.

[HereForTheParty]

11. It's up to the people peddling this crap to show back up

Not up to you.

[JanMichael]

75. This guy?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DT0_zzCLLRvE&ved=2ahUKEwiappa-l-eJAxVNtYQIHSoxOnUQ78AJegQIHRAB&usg=AOvVaw35Hh35Sn_YniVlZ_wwqSVq

[Takket]

9. thank you for posting this.

I have been very disheartened watching some DUers post the exact same conspiracy theories we saw drumpf pushing 4 years ago, from bloggers who are more upset Harris lost than they are interested in what really happened.

I hope an injection of facts gets people to focus on what they can do to help rather than inventing excuses.

[soandso]

19. My pleasure

I just had to verify it for myself (a good habit). A lot of claims have been made and that one was actually something I could check.

[ERW]

83. Not the same

DUers not posting the same conspiracy theories as the GOPs in 2020. Theirs were not credible because of who they were claiming did the vote rigging. Wild claims. The GOP has manipulated votes in the past i.e., the 2004 election. They have also engaged in conspiracies to prevent Dem presidents from winning (Nixon - interfering in Johnson's Vietnam peace talks, Reagan interfering with the hostage negotiations during Carter's campaign). The possibility for computer rigging is real and we should always seek to verify the results. If we did, then people Dems or GOPs wouldn't be as suspicious. We have a faith based voting system because the results are rarely verified by comparing hand counts of ballots with the computer vote totals.

[Takket]

93. first post huh? funny all these low post count numbers trying to whip up DU into an election conspiracy frenzy

not buying it, comrade.

Especially since "hand counting ballots" has been debunked as a right wing tactic designed to do the exact opposite of ensuring election accuracy, to sew lack of confidence in the system

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-judge-blocks-election-rule-requiring-hand-counting-of-ballots/

[SnoopDog]

12. Your analysis is just meaningless numbers...

Choosing presidential votes vs senate votes and using the percentage difference is meaningless.

Providing meaningless data like this appears to be nothing ore than a diversion from the truth.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. If a bullet ballot

is defined as a ballot with a Presidential vote only and no other votes, then showing the percentage of Presidental ballots that don't have a Senate vote is exactly how you determine the number/percentage of bullet ballots.

It's pretty basic math.

[SnoopDog]

51. How about the House votes?

The Senate race was equally important.

The president and senate race each had more votes than the combined House votes.

The op’s analysis is meaningless. A recount is definitely warranted.

I am amazed that some many Democrats here just want to give up…wonder why?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

56. It doesn't matter

A bullet ballot is a ballot that has ONLY a Presidential vote and no others - no Senate, no House, no ballot questions/intiatives.

When there are 3,378,651 Presidental votes and 3,337,566 Senate votes, the maximum number of bullet ballots is 41,085.

For a 7% bullet ballot rate, that number would need to be 123,540 bullet ballots.

Doing math and proving the numbers is not giving up, it's accepting basic math.

[SnoopDog]

68. Well, the Senate race in PA was important too

The so-called bullet ballot could include the Senate race to.

I am always amazed how Dems are so quick to give up.

VP Harris could easily call for a recount. It would show Democrats that 'trust but verify' is a good policy.

[onenote]

78. You don't seem to understand what a "bullet ballot" is.

It's a ballot in which the voter only casts a vote in one of the contests on that ballot. It is common for a number of voters to limit their voting to just the presidential race and to ignore all of the other races on the ballot.

In Pennsylvania, there were a total of 7,022,625 votes cast for president and only 69,527,722 in the Senate race. That means that the number of bullet ballots in the presidential race could not exceed 70,903 or around 1 percent. There might be some bullet ballots in the senate race -- voters who only cast a vote in the Senate contest and not any other contest, including the presidential contest. But even if there are, it wouldn't change the maximum number of bullet ballots that could have been cast in the Presidential race.

BTW, the number of presidential ballots cast in Pennsylvania in 2020 was 108,687 -- or around 1.57 percent - more than the number cast in the only other statewide race that year. Does that mean that Biden's victory in Pennsylvania in 2020 is suspect? Of course not.

It really is just simple math.

[SnoopDog]

80. Right...bad guys would think to themselves...

Oh, we can only steal one race so let it be the presidency - we have to stick with the definition that the 'bullet ballot' only applies to one race.

Ridiculous...

[tritsofme]

86. So why didn't they steal the Senate races in Arizona and Wisconsin too?

Why not give themselves a little more cushion in the House? Didn’t want to be greedy? lol

It’s actually quite interesting to watch these election denial conspiracy theories morph in real time.

[EdmondDantes_]

87. The guy pushing the conspiracy theory that the race was stolen is using that definition

So it's absolutely correct to use that definition to demonstrate that his "evidence" is nonsense. That and it's the definition of the term.

[onenote]

91. Spoonamore provided the definition:

From his letter:
North Carolina is the most extreme. The public results indicate over 350K voters cast a ballot for Trump and no other race making up over 11% of Trump’s voters in NC drop off votes or bullet ballots.

The problem is that his claim of 350,000 bullet ballots -- ballots for Trump and no other races is resoundingly debunked by the fact that difference between the number of votes in the presidential race and the governor's race is nowhere near 350,000.

And whether you intended to do so or not, you point out another flaw in Spoonamore bullet ballot allegation: if you were going to manufacture 350,000 fake ballots for president why would you make them bullet ballots? Why not include a vote for another republican candidate? Wouldn't that be less suspicious? Did the alleged manufacturers of these alleged ballots not want to flip the North Carolina governor's race, or the Senate races in in Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada and Arizona -- all states where Spoonamore claims were impacted by bullet ballots -- and all states in which the actual numbers thoroughly debunk any such claim.

[reACTIONary]

79. By definition, a so called "bullet ballot" does not include...

... a vote for a Senate candidate. That is why it is alleged to be "suspicious".

The election was free and fair. We have to focus on reality and stop with these parinoid CT grievance fantasies.

[SnoopDog]

81. See above post 80...

[reACTIONary]

94. Your post 80 is exactly right, which means...

..... all of this "bullet ballet" brew-ha-ha is not just factually wrong, it also doesn't comport with what we would expect from a "bad guy". It's just plain old bullshit.

Every election there are always all sorts of so called "statistical anomalies" brought up some among the losers that are said to be suspicious or outright prove a "rigged" election. It's all bullsit.

The election was free and fair. It's a time for serious reflection and analysis, not CT bullshit.

[reACTIONary]

96. Concerning serious reflection and analysis....

... here is an article I found interesting:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/16/sherrod-brown-democrats-00189956

[Ms. Toad]

103. Thank you for the article! n/t

[soandso]

61. Yeah, how about those

Go compile the numbers. You can do that at decision desk, too.

[tritsofme]

16. lol, right...These are actual numbers, unlike the Spoon guy's make-believe numbers.

But I know some folks like to play pretend…

I honestly almost thought you wrote that in jest or as satire or something.

[soandso]

21. lol

Meaningless data? Get real. How would YOU begin checking?

[SnoopDog]

53. Are you a mathematician? An election specialist? Statistician?

These are legitimate questions for you.

[soandso]

66. The numbers I posted are those posted by the states

Nobody has to be a mathematician or election specialist to look at what's posted online.

[Takket]

84. I'm not, but let me ask you this... do you think the DNC employs such people?

And do you think such people have looked at the election numbers?

[SnoopDog]

90. I don't know.... Does the Democractic Party have any leadership?

Has the Democratic Party Leadership issued any plan to fight the repubs? I haven't received any such plan.

[Think. Again.]

13. Yeah, it's crazy that some swing states showed as much as 5% and 7% of "President Only" ballots..

...when the average is usually less than 1%

I know people will ask me to prove it but I can only refer you to this interview with Thom Hartman...

(Spoonamore interview starts around 2:15)

https://m.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. The numbers provided in the OP

prove that the states didn't report 5% & 7% bullet ballots.

Unless you think the state election officials are providing one set of numbers to the public and a different set of numbers to Spoonamore. And if that's the case, then Spoonamore should provide the numbers to the public and call out the state election officials.

[Think. Again.]

26. Oddly enough...

The OP show ALL Presidential and Senate vote numbers when Spoonamore is clearly and obvioysly speaking about trump and red down ballot votes:

Let's just take the real numbers from the site provided in the OP for Arizona (which Spoonamore specifically mentions along with Nevada)...

Arizona
trump (President) 1,764,862
lake (Senate) 1,591,318

((1,764,862 - 1,591,318) / 1,764,862 * 100 = 9.83%

Edit to add: red vote numbers from the same source as OP: https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/Arizona/

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. But Spoonamore says it's 7% in Arizona

And you're saying it's almost 10%, so obviously the way you calculated it isn't the way he's calculating.

A bullet ballot, per all of the Spoonamore acolytes, is a ballot in which only a Presidential vote was recorded on the ballot - nothing else - no Senate, no House, no ballot question.

All your numbers show is that 173,544 people who voted for Trump didn't vote for Lake. But since the overall delta for the state of Arizona between the Presidential race and the Senate race is only 41,085, then a whole bunch of voters (132,459, to be exact) voted for Trump for President, and then someone other than Lake for Senate.

[Think. Again.]

42. Lake is the only red Senate candidate on the ballot.

[tritsofme]

45. I'm not sure why you think that matters in any way? Not everyone votes a straight ticket.

All you have found evidence of is ticket splitting

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. Exactly

And a split ticket is, by definition, not a bullet ballot.

[Takket]

88. maybe Kari Lake should be the one asking for a recount then LOL

[tritsofme]

38. All this means is that a bunch of Trump voters also voted for Gallego.

If the total difference in vote casts between the presidential and Senate race is only around 40k, this theory is literally impossible.

[soandso]

41. All that shows is that people split tickets

which happens in every election. It does NOT show 9.83% of people who voted for Trump voted in no other races because you and Spoonamore do not have access to those ballots.

[Think. Again.]

43. And neither do you.

Let's find out by recounting.

[soandso]

49. I never made any claim that necessitated access to ballots

You and Spoonamore have. A recount will also not provide the information you and he are making claims about.

[Abnredleg]

44. This just demonstrates split tickets

Lake was not a popular candidate. Same thing happened in NC - lots of people voted for both Trump and Stein. Same thing happened in MI, WI, and NV.

[Igel]

50. States prevent split ballots?

That strikes me as being "in error as far as the truth is concerned."

[tritsofme]

18. lol...wow. There's no evidence to support the claim, but here's some guy who called into a radio show.

Providing zero evidence of his fantastical claims.

And just ignore the numbers in the OP…because you don’t like them. This would be funnier if it wasn’t so pathetic.

[tritsofme]

29. There is certainly a group of folks who are eager to be scammed

Whether it happens to be pillows or spoons.

[Think. Again.]

31. Feel free to check my math in post # 26

[onenote]

85. Your math in post #26 has nothing to do with the claim that there was an inordinate number of bullet ballots.

For the umpteenth time, a bullet ballot is a ballot in which the voter cast a vote in one race and ignored all the other contest on the ballot. All of them. So the number of bullet ballots in the presidential race in any state cannot be larger than the total number of ballots cast in any other state-wide race on the ballot, such as Senate or Governor. It's just simple math.

Spoonamore could not be more clear in how he defines a bullet ballot, and it is not how you are trying to define it. From one of his letters:
"North Carolina is the most extreme. The public results indicate over 350K voters cast a ballot for Trump and no other race making up over 11% of Trump’s voters in NC drop off votes or bullet ballots.

Of course, Spoonamore has absolutely no way to know how many bullet ballots were cast in North Carolina let alone how many were for Trump alone. By his analysis, you would have to subtract 350,000 votes from Trump, not add any to Harris so that the total number of votes cast in the presidential race was 5,328,667 while the total number of votes in the governor's race would still be 5,590,469. The idea that more than 260,000 voters cast ballots in the Governor's race but not in the Presidential race is ludicrous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. But remember: " His number estimates aren't important"

See https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19737718

[soandso]

24. How about instead of relying on somebody else

you actually go and verify the numbers like I did?

https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/President/

[Think. Again.]

33. See post #26

[paleotn]

65. Actual numbers just aren't backing the claim.

I thought it strange too but the data isn't backing it up. Sorry.

[Think. Again.]

69. And after viewing the interview again...

...I noticed that Spoonamore said "I beginning to think the bullet ballots aren't there".

[paleotn]

72. There's a dozen ways to slice and dice the data, but no smoking gun so far.

What I do know is Elmo literally paid a bunch of people to register and vote. Doubt those motivated by such would spend a whole lot of time perusing the city alderman race way down the ballot. Elmo should be prosecuted for that as it's patently illegal. But he won't. Thanks, Merrick.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. How are we supposed to avoid the emotions of the election results if we can't claim the results are fraudulent?

Thanks for the evidence-based reality check.

[Think. Again.]

32. It's this OP that is wrong, they used the numbers from both Dem and red ballots together.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. The bullet ballots are the reason we won so many close Gov. Senate and House races

Imagine if those single candidate voters had voted down ballot races…

No Baldwin, Gallego, Stein or other Dems would have been elected.

[soandso]

22. Exactly right

If, say, Arizona had some huge excess of "bullet ballots" (and they don't), you'd think the Trump peeps would have included Kari Lake.

[Think. Again.]

30. I'd say over 9% is a big excess of bullet ballots (see post # 26).

[SickOfTheOnePct]

39. It would be

if it were actually true.

[soandso]

46. I saw your post and addressed it

You and Spoonamore do not have access to the ballots. You don't know how many people voted for Harris and no one else, Trump and no one else, or how many split their tickets and how. You would have to have access to the ballots to get that information. Trump did very well with Hispanic men who could have easily voted for Trump and Gallego.

[Think. Again.]

52. You do realize that our lack of the actual ballots...

...makes you position unprovable also, right?

We need to do recounts.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

58. You don't need to see the ballots

to do basic math.

41,085 does not (and cannot be made to) equal to 123,540.

[Think. Again.]

60. Explain what those numbers mean please?

[soandso]

64. What position?

I posted the percentage difference in presidential and senate votes in several states, all proved with the actual numbers. You, OTOH, keep making claims that require detailed audits (not recounts) of ballots you and and spoon guy don't have access to.

[ERW]

89. close races don't need huge numbers

Close races don't need huge numbers of manipulated votes. They just need a few to make it believable.

[soandso]

97. True enough

and some races may be recounted because they were so close.

Define "manipulated" votes. Do you mean fake/inelligible/dead/whatever voters or what?

[Think. Again.]

28. Hi, you used numbers from both Dem and red ballots...

The claim is that RED ballots have a large percentage of President only ballots and when I did the math in post #26 it turns out Spoonamore is right.

[soandso]

34. Show your work

Because you don't have access to ballots that voted for Trump but not anyone else, just as you don't access to ballots that voted for Kamala and no one else or ballots that skipped the top of the ticket and voted for other candidates. IOW, you didn't "do the math".

[Think. Again.]

36. See post # 26

I did the same math as the OP and used the same source for the vote numbers.

I took the Pres. vote total, subtracted the Senate total, just as you did.

[Zeitghost]

100. No you didn't

In order to account for split ticket voting, you need to include all votes in a race, not just one party.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. Nope

You simply proved that 132,459 people who voted for Trump didn't vote for Lake, but they did record a Senate vote.

Which means it's not a bullet ballot.

[Think. Again.]

40. Lake was the only red Senate candidate on the ballot.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

54. So what?

Not everyone votes a straight ticket.

For there to be a 7% bullet ballot rate in Arizona, looking at only Trump votes, there would need to be 123,540 ballots that voted for Trump only, and no other down ballot races.

1,764,862 * .07 = 123,540

There were only 41,085 ballots that had only a President vote (doesn't matter which party).

There is no way to turn 41,085 into 123,540 no matter how hard you try.

[jimfields33]

55. And many republicans didn't like her and voted for the democratic

nominee. This happens every election.

[Think. Again.]

59. And then how did the green Senate candidate end up with over 50k more than stein?

[jimfields33]

62. Many voters think the environment is priority

I agree. But voted for our democratic candidate. But obviously some felt going full vote on green was important to them. Stein was an after thought this election. Her damage was in 2016.

[Think. Again.]

70. So you think some trump voters also voted for the green senate candidate?

[tritsofme]

71. People splitting tickets differently than you think they should have is not evidence of fraud.

At least you seem to have backed away from the magic bullet ballot?

[Think. Again.]

74. Actually, I may be heading that way...

I've watched the Spoonamore interview again and at one point he says "I'm beginning to think the bullet ballots aren't there".

[jimfields33]

92. No.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. Because there will have been people who voted Trump for president, and Quintana (Green) for senator

They may have taken a look at Lake and thought "wow, she's just crazy". They are anti-Democrat, however, and so they gave the Green their senatorial vote. And that means they were not a "bullet ballot" voter. They are a significant indicator that Spoonamore is talking out of his behind.

[Igel]

57. I don't think that's the claim at all.

The claim is that there are a lot of people who voted for Trump but did not vote for specific other (R) candidates and the difference between the two--which nobody could ever vote differently on--is proof of single-vote ballots.

That's very different from saying they didn't vote for *any* other candidate. In fact, to show that a significant number of people *did* split the tickets is strong counterevidence.

So, as a thought experiment--purely imaginary, let's magine if you had a state in which the (D) Senate candidate got more votes than Harris.

Say, maybe, Arizona:
Gallego (D) 1,671,985
Harris (D) 1,578,856

Obviously, if such a thing happened, that would entail certain far-out possibilities. Maybe the Harris campaign was subverted and provided, on the QT, 90,000 ballots that simply could not be marked for Harris. Or maybe Gallego's folk provided bullet ballots to replace real ballots! Uh-oh. Because we have to assume nobody could vote against Harris and for Gallego--that's simply impossible.

Except those are the results from https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/races/arizona-president-all-parties-general-election (and the Senate tab at that site). So it's not a thought experiment, it's just counterevidence that Must Not Be Named.

[Think. Again.]

67. So (please correct me if I'm wrong)...

You're saying that people voted for trump AND Gallego and/or Quintana, but not lake?

[wanderer54]

105. Yes

Lake is not popular So some Trump voters voted for the Democratic cantidate and some voted for the Green Party.

[Cirsium]

73. Good job

Good job, well done. Thanks for that.

What is driving this? Are right wingers feeding this crap into social media? It just goes on and on.

There are all sorts of ways that Republicans suprress the vote and distort the information landscape and it has been going on for years. There is no need to make stuff up.

[soandso]

77. It's not the right

It's the left who can't fathom the outcome, just as the Trumpers couldn't in 2020. Then there are people like Thom Hartman, who people give credibility, questioning the results.

There's nothing wrong with questioning but making assertions without proof is useless. What I looked up was easy. Claims about software with malicious code and Starlink counting votes are something else. I think the Starlink stuff was quickly debunked and explained how it was (barely) used but the software stuff requires experts. The Trump campaign made just about all the same assertions and ran into the same problems when it came to software because it's so hard to prove and requires access which they didn't have, though I think they tried. Ironically, some Democrats going down this road about fraud has sparked Republicans saying the millions of fewer votes for Harris over what Biden got, in 2020, proves their own claims that the 81 million contained a bunch of fraudulent votes (which they never proved, either).

[Cirsium]

82. yes, understood

Yes, Democrats are spreading it. But are bad actors from the right fanning the flames?

[soandso]

95. I don't know why they would would

since they won. They haven't asked for a recount, in Michigan, where the Dem candidate won the senate by just .4%/about 20K votes. Thom Hartmann is certainly fanning the flames along with some posters here. I don't find it too weird, though. People want to win.

[Cirsium]

101. Well, that is depressing

You could be right. I know you defended Twitter recently, so you may not be able to imagine that we are being gamed on social media. Have you ever heard of a "false flag" operation?

Here is how that might work. A fake story is generated and disseminated from a troll farm. Democrats bite on it and start spreading it. It is then proved false and Democrats look ridiculous. Any and all subsequent charges against the Republicans, no matter whether they are true or not , are dismissed. Meanwhile the actual voter suppression being done by the Republicans is buried.

You think that just because the Republicans won they are not still working against us 24/7?

[soandso]

102. What's depressing?

Of course, I know what a false flag is. What you're talking about is a disinfo campaign which is not the same thing. Do you think Thom Hartmann and this Spoon guy are picking this stuff up from sus accounts on Tiktok and amplifying it or might they have just jumped to an unfounded conclusion? The poster Think_Again came back to this thread and said the spoonster has recanted and now thinks there were not an unusual number of "ballot ballots". That kind of looks like he may simply have mistaken and was overly zealous. The other stuff about software being messed with may still be something he's alleging but I don't know.

And, yeah, I defended freedom of speech which you oppose.

If you have some social media accounts that you are suspicious of being involved in a disinfo campaign, share what you have. Currently, with this bullet ballot thing, I'm not seeing anything nefarious, just some jumping the gun and incorrect assumptions not backed up by data.

[Maeve]

98. Paper ballot judge, here

Ohio....the number of people who ask "Do i have to vote all this?" always surprises me. The low-info voters are there for one race. Period

[soandso]

99. Jeez

I guess you tell them to vote on what they want to? Like I previously said, I'd rather people not vote when they aren't informed so there's that. We don't want people just randomly checking shit off, lol.