QtheArsenal

Somebody else needs to help me do this with charts and graphs but I’ll try with words first. - In a normal election, you have 2 candidates, R & L. People cast votes. Proportionally, the votes of each candidate rise and fall in little chunks but take an overall steady line due to the force of averages. One of the lines eventually tops out, and that candidate wins on election night. - In a mail in election, you have 2 candidates R & L. In this instance, some mail ins (if allowed) may come in after Election Day. But still, due to the force of averages, their lines with have little ups and downs but maintain a steady upward trajectory both during and after the election until one wins. Now it has become the norm that after the election in mail in states, Dem candidates tend to go from tied or losing to drastically ahead AFTER the election, against the force of averages. How? There are two legal, non fraudulent explanations: 1) that “Dems vote late by mail.” Dubious, considering that it used to be that Rs were known as absentee voters, but technically possible that for some never explained reason, Ds vote later than Rs by mail and that explains the statistical anomaly of why Dems lines shoot up after Election Day. 2) ballot harvesting. The far more likely explanation. Legal in California, this is when huge amounts of ballots are collected by political activists (unions, NGOs etc) and submitted on behalf of large populations of people in churches, workplaces etc. Both sides do it, but it is technically possible that Dems are much better at it. This is how insiders explain the “red mirage” statistical anomalies in 2020 and that have become so common since. Also explains why the prediction markets clinched Raman as winning while she was still down. However, there is something different happening in Pratt v Bass election. A third candidate, a second, much less popular and less well known Dem is in the race, Nithya Raman. And this time, the late mail in ballots—mailed on Election Day or just before which is why they are “late mail in”—didn’t go to “the dems” they went specifically to Nithya Raman. Pratt stayed flat. Bass stayed flat. Nithya went way up after the initial count was reported. Unprecedented. Oddly, the mail in mailed any time before Election Day did not favor nithya at all. Only the late mail ins counted after initial numbers were reported massively favored her. So we’re meant to believe that Nithya voters specifically voted not just by mail by late by mail, while the other Dem and Pratt voters did not. Bass voters stopped voting late mail in entirely, as they had last election against caruso, and Nithya voters started? Could it be “Dems vote late by mail?” No, because then both Nithya and Bass, both Dems, would have risen at roughly the same rate, only without Pratt. But nithya massively over performed just enough to oust pratt, which would not have been possible had she and bass split the votes. Could it be ballot harvesting? Also no. You can harvest a church or workplace and predict roughly that your harvested votes will favor Dems, but how could you feasibly predict which Dem out of two? Nithya’s support, always squarely in third place during the polls, is mostly educated white women, definitely not the type to vote late or be harvested. But that’s actually besides the point. How could a vote harvester, who is supposedly delivering filled out and sealed ballots from a constituency the harvester believes will lean left, know which left wing candidate this or that batch favors? And moreover, why would they then send only those batches after the election, while submitting all the other mail in ballots for bass before the election? Occams Razor points to the much simpler explanation. Whoever is harvesting the votes isn’t just harvesting them, they’re somehow controlling the votes themselves, whether by filling them out or throwing away competing votes they don’t like. This is the definition of voter fraud.