> The rules were changed prior to the election, in a way that clearly favours the democratic party. That should raise suspicion.
Meaning voting was made easier for millions, hence they voted. Meaning Republican suppression of Democratic voters was less effective, hence more voters.
There is one of the two parties fighting for election security and it's not the republicans. Mitch McConnell has a few election security bills on his desk that were never brought to a vote.
1. If huge swaths of Americans are forced to vote by mail, wouldn't you expect the rate to decrease?
2. Trump is incredibly polarizing, so, sure
3. What was the previous turnout / percentage increase?
4. The GOP specifically passed laws that disallowed counting ballots until election day in many districts, which, combined with lots of mail-ins, makes things much slower
1. No, I would expect people filling out a mail-in ballot for the first time to get it wrong (and thus have the ballot rejected) more often than people who have done it before. This would track with previous elections, where first-time mail-in voters are more likely to have their ballots invalidated.
Protections on mail-in ballots have unambiguously been reduced this election - many states skipped signature validation, for instance. This may be acceptable, but IMO should not have been implemented due to being easy fodder for conspiracy theorists. Yes, the mere appearance of illegitimacy is reason enough to not do something when it comes to potentially contested elections.
2. This election turn out was 2 standard deviations above average. That has never happened in the past.
3. Detroit region of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. Oakland had a 15% increase in turnout compared to 2016 and Macomb was up 18%. More black people came out to vote for Biden than Obama in these historically Black counties.
1) "The total rejected ballots data is not yet available for 2020." from the fact check. So how can the fact check be used to disprove Trump's statements, or that it "Didn't happen".
More worrying, its been weeks since the election, and we still don't have definitive results. You don't find that suspicious?
Most countries have final results on election night.
Okay, so if the total rejected ballot data isn't available what is your basis for claiming that it did happen? The burden of proof rests on the accuser. In any case we know that the signature rejection rates for Georgia in past elections were low.
What do you mean we don't have definitive results? Biden's win was certified by the states in the last week, in accordance with the law. It will only get more definitive when the electoral college votes next week. This is nothing new in the U.S., it's the way the process works.
These seem to be the most up to date numbers.
"Rejected absentee/mail-in ballots as a percentage of total absentee/mail-in ballots returned, 2016-2020"
If you check the footnote there it seems Ballotpedia computed this rate themselves. It seems exceedingly unlikely this has anything to do with fraud, since other states handily won by Trump like Alaska and Iowa show similar large drops in 2020. I think fundamentally the data here is incomplete for 2020 and nothing meaningful can be said about it yet.
We also had :
1. Unusually low mail in ballot vote rejection rate (0.02 vs 6% previous elections)
2. Unusually many voters
3. Unusually high turnout in specific areas (90%+)
4. Delay in announcing results
5. Results that don't match (6000 votes flipped back to Trump after "glitch"
Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190