What you're alluding to as nefarious are bog-standard practices and results that have been true since elections have been a thing. It's been true in every election that the full count takes maybe a week or more to fully tally. During this period, of course people go home and sleep. The counting has always paused and resumed. And given your complaint about inaccurate tallies, why would you want tired people counting 24/7, when they would make more mistakes?
Likewise, the recount total always differs by some margin. That's because counting to large numbers is actually hard. It's not like counting to 10 where you arrive at 10 every time. Counting to a 160 million is error-prone and the results are never 100% the same for any number of innocuous reasons.
> Finally, there was extra-legal processes of voting introduced with very little oversight
The most hilarious of which was Pennsylvania, where PA Republican state legislatures introduced those changes, and then complained about them after the fact when their candidate lost! That just goes to show me the complaints are disingenuous, and wouldn't have materialized had their candidate won.
> What you're alluding to as nefarious are bog-standard practices and results that have been true since elections have been a thing. It's been true in every election that the full count takes maybe a week or more to fully tally. During this period, of course people go home and sleep.
Maybe this is acceptable to you, it isn't to me. That's a system that's ripe for abuse.
> That's because counting to large numbers is actually hard
Nobody should be counting extremely large numbers of ballots. That's why there are smaller voting precincts (curiously, some areas decided to do away with this system because putting everyone in once place was safer for covid...). It should also be possible to know, prior to tallying outcomes, how many ballots were cast in each location. That number should be immediately transmitted, and the total in each race should be no more than that number. I'm confident Disney world can tell you how many customers entered their park on a given day, it's not rocket science.
So, it doesn't really matter to me what the outcome is, it matters what the process is. If I was designing a software system that had the level of controls the election system had (even without considering the electronic portion of the system), I would be escorted out of the building for incompetence.
If someone says there's 'no evidence of cheating' that's because the system isn't designed to collect the evidence. In fact, it's barely a 'system' with a 'design' whatsoever.
This is always the argument, but then when it's time to show that actual abuse is occurring, it can never be shown in a court of law. Cyber Ninjas were saying for months how the Arizona election totals were wrong and posited all kinds of vectors for fraud, but they were unable to prove anything after being given unprecedented access to the election documents. Every claim of potential fraud in GA has been disproven after multiple recounts that seriously investigated every single claim. The official who did this investigation testified under oath to congress as to the veracity of his analysis, yet the people who claim fraud haven't even brought evidence claims before a court (because they don't have any that would withstand judicial scrutiny and meet the standard of evidence appropriate in a courtroom setting). So the continued suggestions about how the process could be abused are really hollow at this point.
> I'm confident Disney world can tell you how many customers entered their park on a given day, it's not rocket science.
Disney is a centralized system by a corporate entity, voting is done in a decentralized way by the states. Centralized systems have their own faults. And yes, maybe the system as it exists has faults, and maybe you could design a better system hypothetically on paper, but you still have to show the faults in the existing system resulted in systemic fraud (which has been the claim since the election), which to date no one has been able to do, despite herculean efforts to prove exactly this. Not the Republican state legislatures, not the Cyber Ninjas, not independent "investigators" pouring over election data, and especially not the former President. Showing that the system has flaws or is subject to a hypothetical attack is not the same as showing the system was subject to that attack or experienced massive systemic fraud.
> Every claim of potential fraud in GA has been disproven after multiple recounts that seriously investigated every single claim.
Here's where the disconnect is. I don't think you or anyone can prove there wasn't fraud because the system doesn't have the necessary controls in place to prove that.
The poster isn't asking for proof that there wasn't fraud. They're asking for proof that there was. Which is a significantly easier ask, since you you only need to point to a single instance.
If you set your DB password to 123456 and open it to the internet, turn off all logging, will you have proof someone unauthorized accessed your system? Probably not, unless they did something really overt.
That's the level of the integrity of the election system.
As laughably bad as the controls are in the system, we know that even still, many of the controls weren't followed. Basic things like counting the ballots with observers present. Chain of custody for large batches of ballots (ballots arriving to counting locations in unapproved containers). Destruction of mail-in-ballot envelopes.
Now, to the credit of people that think the election was fair and square, the people leading the 'fraud' charge is a group of charlatans and morons. Many of their arguments are ludicrous and detached from reality. That doesn't mean the system as a whole isn't broken.
