Ohio Non Resident Affidavit 2016: Fill & Download for Free

It depends on what you mean by “rigged”?What's the probability of there being fraud? 100%.What's the probability of there being significantly more fraud than in previous elections? 100%.Is proving fraud necessary for Trump to win? No.Does proving fraud mean that Trump will win? No.Is proving fraud demonstrably independent from Trump winning? Yes.What is the probability of additional, more significant allegations of fraud? Near 100%. So far, the media has only debunked the worst allegations. (Surely you agree that allegations vary in credibility) I will agree that you probably find this part not too credible - but did you find allegations from the media quoting anonymous sources to be credible? Regardless you only have me and my anonymous source, I can't do better than that sorry. But, I did correctly predict the 2016 election as well as the fact that the rust belt would flip. I also predicted that the Israel embassy change wouldn't cause much lasting uproar, that Trump would increase his share of minority vote in 2020, that 2020 would be close, and countless other things that the media got wrong. Does that give me more credibility than the media? Just a thought. Not bragging but my prediction record is certainly much better than the media's so that leads me to believe that my narrative is more correct. I'm not perfect or close to it but how well your framework predicts things is the only indicator you have. Regardless I understand if you want to disregard me and my anonymous source on this. But just wait a few weeks.What's the probability of the existing fraud being disproportionately skewed towards happening in swing states? 100%. (Ignoring for convenience states which allow ballot harvesting and for this one only looking at presidential elections)What's the probability of the results in every state being hugely tainted by fraud? 0%.What's the possibility of Trump casting a very high amount of doubt on the results? Very high bordering on 100%. He's already created a good amount of doubt and the best is yet to come.If Trump casts a high amount of doubt on the results, what's the chance he uses this to win [by win I mean still be sworn in president]? I don't know.What's the chance, given he doesn't get sworn in for 2020, he uses the high doubt to create a new media company, overthrow the struggling Fox news as the default right wing news source, and remain a serious force in politics? Very good. Even if he doesn't create a media company, he's not going away.What's the chance, given he creates a media company, that he runs in 2024? Good.What's the chance, given running in 2024, that he wins the primary? Very good.What's the chance, that he wins the presidency in 2024? It's certainly decent.If he wins the presidency in 2024, what's the chance that he wins the house and senate? It's very decent.What's the chance, given all of the serious doubt about Biden's legitimacy, and his general fragility, that he resigns before the end of his term, letting Kamala run as an “incumbent”? high.The point of these questions is simply to show definitively that, regardless of how successful the fraud allegations are, they will have a significant and long lasting effect on politics. This providing that the election is “rigged” is far too strict a criteria and is the wrong question to ask. Trump has a few levels of success, imply heavily that the election was fraudulent, prove there was some fraud, price that there was a lot of fraud, prove that the fraud changed the outcome, win the election. These outcomes are all a win to some degree. He's already on the first level of winning.The usual argument against lots of fraud is that the risk-reward ratio is not good. But let's look at this election.A large portion of the population appears to legitimately believe that Trump is in fact Orange Hitler. This would very clearly suggest that in fact, the “reward” side of this equation is significantly higher. You are fighting hitler, after all. You should be a coward if you didn't cheat a bit when you had the chance. I would be shocked if this didn't motivate some to commit fraud when they wouldn't normally.Second, the sudden implementation of widespread mail in voting in states which do not have practice doing this, obviously decreases the chance of getting caught, to some extent. Minor cases of fraud become easier to get away with. Not only is the system more complicated, but the ballots have a much, much higher period of time where they are in contact with people, and they are in contact with more people. And in person forms of fraud are generally the worst ones, easier caught and less effective. Mail in voting creates several categories of fraud which are very easy to do and don't have much risk. Vote from your swing state vacation home, pay someone directly for their ballot as you watch them fill it out, manipulate a senile person into voting, etc. All impossible or difficult with in person, easy with mail in ballots (may vary by state). I'll touch more on this later, but these are all generally easy things that one person can do to get a few fraudulent votes.So we have established that the risk to reward ratio is much better, by simple logic. We have also established that the amount of possible opportunities for fraud is higher.This would imply heavily that fraud this election will be more than previous ones.Now, we have to look at how much fraud there is exactly. If we look at verified cases of fraud, we will find a lot of cash for vote schemes, hiding of ballots, harvesting shenanigans, and the like. Many local races have been proven to be seriously rigged. There was a mayoral election this year in New Jersey. that was rigged to the point of invalidating the outcome. Regardless, we have several thousand clearly verified counts of fraud in the last few years of elections.Now you need to ask, what is the proportion of people who actually get caught? Obviously it's not 100% or close to it, we aren't born yesterday. Given that many of these schemes required significant amount of resources to uncover, we can estimate a conservative ballpark of 20% catch rate.I'll take a moment to remind you of two facts, 95% of bank robberies are unsolved, 95% of bank robbers get caught. This is simply a reminder of how statistics can easily be misused to imply multiple widely different things. Don't trust the weasels.The weasels will point to only the most risky, and the least effective forms of fraud and say that the rates are low. Stuff like voting multiple times in person, and the like. There are forms of fraud that area far less risky, and simultaneously more effective. A single mailman acting alone, losing a few mail in ballots from a house with a campaign sign on their lawn. Hacking an election machine (this is possible to do). If the machine has no paper trail, there's no way to catch this . Finding mail ballots in unsecured mailboxes (essentially all public mailboxes are trivial to access). Incorrectly throwing out a ballot or two. (0% chance of being punished for such a small mistake). Voting incorrectly in neighboring swing state instead of in your home state (unlikely to be imprisoned for this). Illegally voting in your Arizona vacation home district instead of in your non-swing state real home (you won't go to jail - plead ignorance). Fill out your senile uncle's ballot, get him to sign, drop it off. Much easier than bringing him in to the polls physically, you can't be in the booth with him but you certainly can be with him when he fills his mail in ballot . Watch someone fill out a ballot in person and give him $20 for the right choice, mail it for him so he can't change it. These are all much lower risk, and higher reward, than other forms of fraud.So if I'm giving a serious estimate - extremely ballpark here, more of a thought exercise- in a usual election there's according to previous records of people actually being caught - between 5k and 10k ballots worth of fraudulent activity of various forms. Very conservative estimate here. Let's assume that only 25% of fraud is caught. This is loosely based on financial crimes, very few of which are caught (look back to the bank robber analogy here - they get caught because they commit these crimes constantly but because it's easy to catch) this gives us 20k-40k fraudulent events. In this election we have both the numerator and denominator changing significantly in the risk reward ratio - maybe we double this to 40–80k. Now we are actually at election changing levels, with conservative estimates, especially when combined with simple mistakes.So the point here, is that the very small victory in the election is clearly within the range of plausible error, if we take into account mistakes, fraud, and unverified ballots. These numbers are again a thought experiment, simply meant to show that any statistic about the # of fraud cases in previous elections is not reliable in making any definite statement about this election, with so many changes parts of the equation. [Side note - nobody would disagree that 2000 was within the range of being changed by fraud. But why did Gore give up so easily? In the long term this didn't even help calm divisions, it arguably increased them]None of this counts as “widespread fraud” or “a conspiracy” or anything. All of these are independent, so if you catch one guy, you can only prove that a couple votes are fraudulent. Likely a few people will be caught. But these forms are so easy to get away with that in many of these cases, really only an undercover journalist catching someone in the act would have a chance of catching them. (surprise, we have video of just this). How else would you catch someone doing cash for vote in a private residence? How would you catch someone manipulating/forcing senile uncle Rick into voting in their own home?Side comment that the media have only said that there is no evidence of widespread fraud, or no coordinated fraud. These denials are rather specific in nature. A bit odd. They all use basically the same wording in denying stuff that no politician has actually alleged. Nobody has alleged wide country ranging fraud. The risk to reward ratio for commiting fraud in Hawaii or Utah is terrible, so we'd expect almost nobody to do it. Fraud would logically be focused mainly in swing states where the risk reward equation is optimal.Another side comment that the fellow in Pennsylvania that made an affidavit regarding mail in votes did NOT fully retract his statements - he simply clarified some points, his statement still exists but it's narrower in scope. This is exactly what you would expect in the case that a layperson makes any kind of technical or legal complaint - thus this is not evidence of his claim being fake despite what it sounds like in the news. It's also not evidence of it being real, to be clear. It's just a completely expected thing regardless of whether the complaint is a) honestly put forward and b) correct. Just another example of how the media narrative is not honest.Now I'll ask a question - if you find one count of these easy to get away with, minor counts of fraud, is this really evidence of one count - or is it evidence of many more? I wasn't born yesterday, there aren't enough undercover reporters in the world to catch everyone.Now I'll simply leave your with some statistical facts that are interesting. I am not saying these are evidence of fraud. They would certainly at the least be very strong evidence of something, and they certainly aren't coincidences. They are simply remarkable outliers.We all probably know that Ohio and Florida are considered bellwether states- they almost always vote with the winner. Trump win both so very unusual. But but not really interesting. However - there are also bellwether counties. These counties have voted for the president in all our almost all modern elections. Over 80% of these voted for Trump this time. You'd normally expect some counties to lean the other way, but but suddenly 80% of the most reliable indicators to suddenly get it wrong. This is statistically impossible to be a coincidence. This is clear evidence of something. Fraud is just one explanation, a fundamental change in the republican/democrat split (incredibly complex to analyze so I won't try) might be another option. I'm not sure why else this would happen.There are a statistically high - outlier - amount of ballots in certain counties in Michigan and elsewhere that vote only for Biden and are otherwise blank. This is not a coincidence. Fraud is one explanation. People who dislike Trump but don't care enough to make additional check marks on the ballot is another. But Biden certainly had no coattails, republican senators outperformed Trump, so did the House. This is unusual as well. Maybe completely apolitical people who for some reason voted against Trump? I don't know. It's not anti Trump republicans, they would have voted GOP downballot.The turnout was remarkable, especially in certain states. Biden outperformed Obama in many places. Very interesting for such a generally agreed on as less inspiring fellow. Perhaps this means that hatred is more reliable than inspiration in driving turnout. Usually negative campaigns don't do this, for some reason this was different this time. Very interesting. Why was this? I'm not sure. Perhaps it was the escalation of negative campaigning, the media wholeheartedly endorsing the negativity, and the Orange Hitler phenomenon. Certainly if the increase in turnout was fraud then it would be widespread fraud, in that case. If high turnout was fraudulent, then the hand recounts in Georgia will likely catch several possible categories of fraudulent events. (Counting a ballot twice, machine hacking, etc). If the turnout is fraudulent, this also raises the chance of discovery very high.Finally - what will be found? This is a very different question than what happened.If ballots were counted multiple times, or various intentional “errors” happened, these fraud instances will be REVERSED in a recount, but probably not prosecuted or proven to be fraud.If senile uncle Andy was forced into voting, this is unlikely to be found.If Billy is paid $20 to vote, this category of fraud will be DEMONSTRATED somewhere in undercover journalist video, but the true number of times that this happened will not be proven. A small portion of these events will be proven. I am not a lawyer so I don't know if any cash for votes would actually be removed from the vote counts.If people voted in Arizona/Nevada instead of their home state, cases of this will be found. May not be prosecuted.If election machines were compromised, this may be discovered, or assumed to be the case after a hand recount. It's possible that we will be sure this is true but won't be able to prove it.If any serious efforts happened at a local polling station level, sworn affidavits will be written about some of these. This may or may not overturn any voresIf individual mailmen “loses” enough ballots it's likely that someone will notice that their ballot wasn't counted. And it's likely that most will get away with it. [Look back to the bank robber analogy]A single person voting multiple times and other or primitive and useless events won't matter.There's a bit of a trend here. The larger individual events are mostly easier to catch but deniable and can be passed off as a mistake. The “crowdsourced” fraud will be caught here and there, maybe prosecuted, and passed off as small and insignificant because there's “no proof” of more cases happening despite this being obvious. The only way that we will seriously be able to display fraud, completely independent of whether the presumed election result is shown to be incorrect, is via statistics of some type. Let's say Georgia, Arizona, and then one or two others flip.This can, as I hope I've demonstrated, happen without actually necessarily proving that a whole lot of fraud actually happened. Many instances of fraud can be corrected without actually proving that they were fraud. But if a recount changes the vote by 50,000 votes in multiple states, then logically we should presume fraud even if we can't necessarily point to how it happened.Then on the flip side, we can demonstrate fraud clearly without actually overturning the results of the election. Let's say that in Arizona we find 2000 instances of “lost” Trump votes, 2000 instances of people voting in the wrong state, and 2000 instances of cash to vote. [Overwhelmingly favoring Biden obviously, for this to matter, numbers demonstration only and not based on relative likelihood of different fraud types] This is sufficient to STATISTICALLY show, given reasonable assumptions, far beyond reasonable doubt, that the election in AZ was stolen by fraud - but - on the other hand - not actually sufficient to overturn the result based on number of votes changed alone. This situation can be repeated in other states, and mixed and matched with Trump outright winning other states, to an arbitrary level of closeness in the certified result, with proven fraud.The courts would need to decide what to do in this situation. This is far, far beyond my expertise so I will just classify this class of possible outcomes as “legal witchcraft”Then, of course, at a certain level of closeness, it will be up to the electoral college to vote their conscience. If the election had been proven to be fraudulent but not able to be certified overturned, and the courts don't throw out the results in any states, and a few flipped to make it close, faithless electors could throw it to Trump from individuals deciding to to what they see as the right thing.And, conversely, if Trump overturns the results but does not prove fraud, and he wins, say, 270–268, it could flip the other way. There of course wouldn't be as clear of a motive to be a faithless elector, but it would only take a few. Believing that Trump won due to “legal technicalities” might do it depending on how exactly each state is overturned. Simply removing tend of thousands of mail in ballots that are obviously technically illegal might fall into this category. It's possible that the supreme court rules to throw out ballots, Trump “wins” 270–268 (ish) but had faithless electors, and the supreme court has to rule again.If results change to the point where the result is tied 269–269, I put the chances of at least one faithless elector at nearly 100%. The chance of at least one is probably very high regardless of outcome, really. I would put the chance of a theoretical college tie being resolved solely by the regular method and not by the courts, at a level of [very low].So - proving fraud is actually neither necessary nor sufficient to overturn the presumed result of the election! Isn't that interesting! It's actually independent of whether Trump will win - and whether Trump will remain in office. There are probably highly unusual possible legal outcomes that will result in Biden losing, or being proven to have stolen the election, but taking office anyway.You certainly won't find a lot of this discussed in the media, with their naive assumption that proving fraud is both necessary and sufficient for Trump winning. I hope I've at least proven that's certainly not the case.I also hope that I haven't implied I think any result mentioned above is likely or my preferred outcome. I've accepted a possible Biden win already, this isn't denial. I am just living by my long standing motto of “it's not over until it's over” and my policy of not letting anything cloud my judgement of facts. (And not letting a lack of facts cloud my judgement).