A c99 Challenge sponsored by EdG

I will pay $250 by certified check to any c99 member that can go head-to-head against me on any Trump campaign election fraud claim and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that widespread fraud actually occurred. The challenge may be based on any of the plethora of fraud types alleged by Trump, Sidney "Kraken" Powell, Lin Wood, or any other well-known fraud theorist.

I say no widespread fraud occurred, and I believe I can debunk any claim or conspiracy theory currently being promoted on any website including OANN, Breitbart, and their brethren.

Debate will consist of the challenger presenting a claim, me debunking the claim, a second attempt by the challenger, and a final rebuttal by me if needed. I'd like 3 c99 members to volunteer as judges -- one who supports the challenger's theories, one that supports me, and a 3rd who hasn't weighed in on either side. The 3rd judge must and declares themself neutral and their neutrality must not be disputed by another c99 member.

The Election Fraud Challenge begins as of the publication of this essay and shall run through December 4th. Knowing how theorists like to move goalposts when they're proved wrong, I reserve the option to reject any new or modified fraud theory not in existence at time of this publication.

I will create an official list of rules and make it available to any challenger prior to commencement of their challenge.

Warning: I have worked in the technology industry for over 45 years. I have a Bachelor's in Business Administration and am fairly well-versed in statistics. My research skills are above average, and people pay me $75 per hour to conduct Internet research for them. If you want to see my CV, PM me and I'll send you the link.

Share
up
9 users have voted.

Comments

mimi's picture

I would suggest that you ask all the challengers, you might have to pay the 250 dollars, to donate half of it to JtC and C99p.

hmmm, can you search what Mr. Besoz exactly did in 1993 to 1995? Who was the first company or person he bribed or bought? What exactly were the reasons why we wanna-be first online booksellers should preferably incorporate in Delaware? What role played Biden in this? I incorporated in Delaware I think it was 1995 and de-corporated roughly a year later. I still have my tax returns for that, but am too lazy to dig it out to get the exact dates..

You guys are lucky to work in the IT sector. At least you can help yourself. Like the lawyers around here.

up
8 users have voted.

"heh, as they say, if you don't dig the blues, you got a hole in your soul" - JS

edg's picture

@mimi

I could give half the money to c99 and half to the challenger if I lose any challenges.

Bezos worked on Wall Street from college graduation in 1986 to 1994. He founded Amazon in 1994.

Delaware is a tax haven and has lax corporate governance. BIden helped bring that about.

Biden did not create this system, but he used his influence to strengthen and protect it. He cast key votes that deregulated the banking industry, made it harder for individuals to escape their credit card debts and student loans, and protected his state’s status as a corporate bankruptcy hub.

Mother Jones, Nov 2019

up
11 users have voted.

if there is a monetary challenge to enhance this sight...
it can be proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, election fraud
thrives in this voting system. I've seen it personally on the local and
state level, sure it is happening on the federal level.

No hard proof, so I can't win your bet.
It's the little things that add up, if one
pays attention to the details.

up
6 users have voted.
edg's picture

@QMS

Would you consider being a judge on the fraud side? I think you'd be good at it if your comments are any indication. I've already got a candidate for my side.

up
3 users have voted.

@edg

so maybe I learned something growing up
not sure, but if there is wiggle room
(it's the law) ill eagles

up
3 users have voted.

But I have a suggestion that you may be able to answer.
When ballots are counted those left blank are also counted. That means the total number of ballots cast can be determined. If there is a fraud it is extremely unlikely the perpetrator would go down ballot to make sure the totals match - this would be nearly impossible with weighted ballots, ie. compare the number of votes for senator or governor and if there is a discrepancy it would be proof of fraud. (for example if in a senate race the vote totals were winner 100, loser 75, no vote/3rd party 25 but in the presidential Biden 200, Trump 175, no vote/3rd party 25 something funny went down)

up
4 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

edg's picture

@doh1304

Jo Jorgensen for prez, Dem for Federal and local political offices (unless I didn't know the candidates, like those for the county board of commissioners), and nothing for 2 dozen or so judgeships. I don't know the commissioners and judges and didn't want to spend time researching them. It would be interesting to find out how many people, especially younger people, actually know or care who the downballot candidates are. Fusion poll from 2015:

More than three-fourths of millennials cannot name one of their home state’s senators, according to a new poll.

In Fusion’s “Massive Millennial Poll” released on Tuesday, 77 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 could not name one senator in his or her home state. Twenty-three percent answered the question correctly.

up
5 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@doh1304

I voted in some races, others I skipped. How would this prove fraud, or that “something funny” happened? It wasn’t funny or fraud, I simply chose not to vote in some of the races while participating in others. You seem to think everyone must vote in everything on the ballot. But selective participation is probably far more common than people who religiously fill in every single one.

up
4 users have voted.
Shahryar's picture

@CS in AZ

I voted for President, Senator, Secretary of state, state treasurer, mayor. I did not vote for state Senate, state house, any judges.

"Suspicion" is, of course, not proof. It's merely suspicion which would lead to looking for something else.

up
5 users have voted.

@CS in AZ
You turned in a ballot, it just left a line blank. so you "voted" for nobody. that lack of vote was also counted. What if 100 people handed in ballots but 125 votes were counted? Where did the extra 25 votes come from?

up
4 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

Shahryar's picture

@doh1304

or are you proposing a hypothesis? A "what if"?

up
3 users have voted.
Shahryar's picture

In the sense that certain groups control who is nominated, who is on the ballot, who is praised or condemned.

They'll allow candidates we don't like and let us vote among those.

If a good candidate sneaks through you know it won't be long before we find out he's a rapist or an anti-Semite or a child molester. And if their approved candidate *is* a child molester then "he was younger and has overcome his problems in a satisfyingly sentimental way to be a true leader. What a heartwarming story!"

I mean, how is Jeremy Corbyn considered questionable and Bill Clinton considered a statesman?

So...rigged in that way.

up
14 users have voted.

@Shahryar

They'll allow candidates we don't like and let us vote among those.

It's a put-on.

up
6 users have voted.
edg's picture

@Shahryar

Any small amount of actual fraud was canceled out by fraud by the other side. But rigging? That likely occurs. It's otherwise difficult to explain how we keep ending up with "lesser of two evils" elections.

up
6 users have voted.
Roy Blakeley's picture

While the voting system is certainly not secure, Trump appears to have done much better than Biden with respect to the Election Day vote, which would have a higher percentage of electronic machines and, more importantly, tabulators. Biden won by having many more paper mail-in ballots. Also, it looks like Georgia had a real paper trail and a fair and comprehensive recount.

up
7 users have voted.

@Roy Blakeley

was why trump didn't want the mail-in
too much paper trails

up
4 users have voted.

@Roy Blakeley

and the ability of observers to be in a position to inspect and challenge mismatches is critical to the integrity of the processing of mail-in ballots.

Anything short of that is open to fraud and abuse.

Chain of custody is also critical to the integrity of the process.

I will get down to cases in other posts, but in general there are numerous affidavits to the effect that there were major problems WRT the above in many of these states.

up
1 user has voted.
edg's picture

@Blue Republic

that Democratic AND Republican poll watchers were not allowed to be in a position to inspect? Or was it that Democrats weren't allowed to do so in Republican counties and vice versa? Or were only Republicans singled out, and if so, how did election officials know which party they represented?

up
1 user has voted.
earthling1's picture

I researched and voted for every category on my ballot.
Quite time consuming, but I am retired and locked down.

up
6 users have voted.

After six years, still getting robo-calls from Marriot Hotels.
They're like herpes.

gulfgal98's picture

published on November 19 has spurred this challenge. For the record, I never claimed that election fraud occurred, only that our voting system is so insecure that it is able to occur.

There is absolutely no way anyone can prove that election fraud (not voter fraud) occurred simply because the software that runs the vote tabulation machines is proprietary and cannot be accessed by the public. However the very fact that we have basically turned our election tabulation over to the private sector without any way of checking it or auditing it (outside a manual count of paper ballots) is case for fraud waiting to happen.

I stand by my essay which points out serious flaws in the way votes are tabulated in our elections which could allow election fraud to occur without anyone knowing. For the outcome of an election to be manipulated, it would not take wholesale or widespread fraud to occur, only the manipulation of some key precincts or counties.

Instead of arguing if widespread election fraud occurred, we should be arguing for safeguards to be in place that would make it very difficult to occur. Hint, proprietary software that no one can access is not the way to go.

up
6 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

edg's picture

@gulfgal98

Your essays and other essays and comments on c99 may have contributed, but I had already published 2 election fraud related essays before you published yours. Here, and here.

The biggest driver of my essay is time I've spent reading and responding to Fox News comments since the election. I want to knock down oft-repeated fraud claims here. c99 has a good mix of opinions and the often thoughtful comments keep me on my toes.

My research thus far has led me to conclude that it would take wholesale or widespread fraud for the outcome of an election to be manipulated enough to favor the losing candidate.

I'm all for more secure voting. My personal preference would be a phone-based system with callback plus 2FA like PINs and fingerprints or facial recognition that provides immediate ballot confirmation such as an email or PDF.

But I also see that measures already implemented like HAVA caused many state to update their voting equipment. Currently, all but 8 states use paper ballots. Even the 8 states that are paperless do use paper ballots for absentee and mail-in voting.

Part of the problem is there's no national standard for Federal elections. The "we're a republic with 50 individual states" mantra conflicts with standardization goals. Other problems include Republican disenfranchisement of voters and Democratic failure to support voter ID and make sure every one that needs ID gets ID.

up
4 users have voted.

If they are machine counted. Only hand counted paper ballots are fraud resistant. Many of the paper states are using electronic tabulators that read the paper ballots. There is no way to tell if your vote for x wssn't tallied for y.
How many counties have hand counted paper ballots?
I will volunteer to be the neutral judge. I don't believe right wing conspiracy and I believe our elections are generally rigged on a county by county basis.

up
5 users have voted.
edg's picture

@Battle of Blair Mountain

We have one solid instance of proof that machine counting of paper ballots can be highly accurate. That's in Georgia. Georgia installed Dominion Voting Systems this year. There have been 2 hand recounts so far, with a 3rd requested by Trump. There were discrepancies -- humans had misplaced batches of ballots in 3 counties and not put them through the machines. The machine count of ballots that weren't misplaced was correct.

There are only 8 states still using paperless systems. And of course, all mail-in and absentee ballots are paper. But hand counting all ballots is costly and will likely never happen, as you noted. States and localities employed nearly 1 million temporary election workers for the recent election. Even with machine assistance they're barely keeping up with the workload.

You're acceptable for the neutral judge spot. The trinity is complete.

up
3 users have voted.

@edg

ballots accepted does not, by itself, mean that the result is legitimate.

We have one solid instance of proof that machine counting of paper ballots can be highly accurate. That's in Georgia. Georgia installed Dominion Voting Systems this year. There have been 2 hand recounts so far, with a 3rd requested by Trump. There were discrepancies -- humans had misplaced batches of ballots in 3 counties and not put them through the machines. The machine count of ballots that weren't misplaced was correct.

Even if the count is correct the result would not be legitimate if ballots are counted that should not have been accepted in the first place.

Absent signature matching (of the signature on the ballot envelope compared to that on the voter's registration) with representatives of parties involved present and able to inspect them *on being opened* then a principal safeguard against illegitimate ballots being introduced and counted is eliminated.

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

@Blue Republic

(B) Upon receipt of each ballot, a registrar or clerk shall write the day and hour of the receipt of the ballot on its envelope. The registrar or clerk shall then compare the identifying information on the oath with the information on file in his or her office, shall compare the signature or mark on the oath with the signature or mark on the absentee elector's voter registration card or the most recent update to such absentee elector's voter registration card and application for absentee ballot or a facsimile of said signature or mark taken from said card or application, and shall, if the information and signature appear to be valid and other identifying information appears to be correct, so certify by signing or initialing his or her name below the voter's oath. Each elector's name so certified shall be listed by the registrar or clerk on the numbered list of absentee voters prepared for his or her precinct.

Source: GA Code § 21-2-386 (2019)

up
2 users have voted.

Could you define a little more precisely what you mean by "widespread fraud"?

Fraud, I believe, in the legal sense requires some evidence of intent.

For purposes of your challenge is that a requirement? Or would showing the existence of illegal activity that compromised or invalidated a large number of votes suffice?

Just in the interest of making things clear up front.

Cheers,

BR

"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
(attributed to) - Mark Twain

up
1 user has voted.
edg's picture

@Blue Republic

The classic definition of fraud is: An intentionally deceptive action designed to provide the perpetrator with an unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.

That's a pretty tough standard.

I would certainly allow an affidavit that was presented to a court, was not disqualified by opposing counsel, was not disavowed by the affiant, and was not contradicted by affiant statements or answers made in a formal deposition. I would accept such an affidavit as fact. Of course the counterargument would be determining whether the observed activity was in fact illegal.

I'd also examine whether the activity was not justifiable by election officials as established and provable procedure. For example, in Detroit there were multiple affidavits claiming Trump observers were not allowed back in after leaving for a lunch or other break. Detroit officials proved there was an established maximum count and that other observers had taken the allotted spots.

up
3 users have voted.

are you willing to agree up front that the Dominion/Smartmatic voting systems have the capability to fractionalize (weight) votes and that outcomes can be manipulated by anyone having administrator-level access to their system?

And/or could you stipulate what you see as being the critical features of the system and how they rate in terms of security and reliability?

TIA

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

@Blue Republic

I would be willing to thoroughly research each vendor's machine capabilities and features and stipulate to that effect if weighted voting exists in them. Have you seen my comment on weighted voting? I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that a voting machine company that sells internationally has weighted voting capability. There's more to the world than just the United States.

[Edited to add:] I don't know how much you know about software licensing, but many software features are controlled through the license key. If you don't pay for a feature, you can't access it. Weighted voting may be an extra-cost option if it exists.

[2nd edit] Here's why weighted voting wouldn't work. Let's say Biden has 1,000 votes and Trump has 1,500 votes. That's a total of 2,500 votes, right? Multiply Biden's 1,000 by 1.25. Equals 1,250. Multiply Trump's 1,500 votes by 0.75. Equals 1,125. Woo-hoo!! Biden wins!! Except when you add the weighted numbers together it only totals 2,375. Which is less than the paper ballot count of 2,500. The hand recount would immediately expose the discrepancy. So if Biden gets 1000 votes, you need an algorithm that adds 251 to his count and subtracts 251 from Trump's 1,500, resulting in a 2 vote lead for Biden. That's the only way to keep the vote total in balance with the total number of paper ballots. But the counts per candidate would now be off by 1 vote each on their respective paper ballots, which would be caught in the hand recount.

up
2 users have voted.