“Something you would do well to remember, is I am not and never had asserted that tampering occurred - I am saying that the security holes are too large to deny reasonable probability that it occurred.”

First, this line of thinking is a fallacy - appeal to probability. Just because something could happen, doesn’t mean it will inevitably happen

Second, you restated your argument yet again to include “probability that it occurred”. Is such mere probability is sufficient justification to claim elections were stolen? Don’t think so.

“Second you say "Second, you are asserting that magnitude of tampering was significant enough to change the outcome of historically not close (332 v 206) election."

Those electoral votes stem from individual votes, which as I have already demonstrated was a spread of 300k. Therefore the only figure worth looking at is the number of individual votes required to change the electoral votes.”

You 300K definition of “election closeness” is flawed. It doesn’t account for population, it doesn’t consider county-by-county situation and most importantly it doesn’t account for the fact that there are multiple “close” states, there are might be some states (Alaska for example) that would not be considered contested but end up classified ‘close’ by your standard..

You have to justify your definition of what you call close election in order for me to accept it as a premise. At minimum, you have to consider on case-by-case basis electoral vote impact, total population and how many individual counties were close calls. Any possibility of tampering has to happen on a very local polling station or county level and this is what you should be focusing on. Or are you suggesting that Romney’s campaign and GOP as a whole was incompetent enough to allow vote fraud to happen on the state level despite having an army of presumably bad or incompetent monitors and lawyers?

” Since your argument rests on the distance of electoral votes, not of individual votes - you have again invalidated yourself.“

Electoral vote is an accepted standard and standard way of looking at election results, onus is on you to show evidence why should not continue with this standard practice. So far you only came up only with “probability of fraud” and “300K vote spread” – both are unjustified assumptions that I do not share.

“Secondly since we are talking about electronic voting…”

We weren’t talking about electronic voting up to this point. If you want to bring electronic voting into conversation you will have to justify why it is relevant. Additionally you have to prove breakdown of continuity, that is demonstrate that electronic voting is so fundamentally different that we cannot compare it to other historical examples of similar “close” elections.


I’d think you would get tired of being wrong at this point, but I do admire your stamina.

[Linked Image]