>>13118032>theres no scientific or mathematical way to prove election fraud, is there? There is, actually. Exit polling (wait outside voting place as people leave and ask them who they just voted fot) was always a 99.99% predictor for the outcome of the elections (with one exception in 2000) until around 2004 after they passed the "help america vote act" which introduced electronic voting. If your party controls the district and rewards corruption, any official in the position to do so can fuck around with the ledger while everyone else turns a blind eye. That's not a conspiracy, it's systematic election fraud, and it's easy to verify. Look for where exit polling deviates impossibly from the outcome, the district will be one that is controlled by the winning party, usually one with electronic voting. The states are responsible for certifying the elections, it can't be investigated at the federal level, that is my understanding.
>>13118090>they could liestatistically it never happens, the polling is anonymous, the exit polling was always an exact predictor prior to 2000
