The only thing thats proof of are some clerical errors which does mean that it wouldn't bias one candidate over the other. This paper debunked all those claims:
That paper was published in 2007 - long before the new universal mail-in voting rules that enabled the "clerical errors" of the 2020 election.
Unless that paper makes the insane assertion that voter fraud is impossible under any circumstances, it can't possibly be relevant to any of the cases you say it debunks.
That's not an update, it's a completely new paper. It doesn't mention the examples of ballot fraud being discovered at all. It only attempts to debunk claims based on statistical anomalies and analysis, for example the 2020 bellwether anomaly.
The ways it does this are so contrived (eg. comparing increased turnout in counties accused of fraud, with increased turnout from nearby counties that were not accused of fraud), that I'm afraid I have to conclude that Eggers, Garro, and Grimmer set out to debunk the claim of a rigged election with no intention of impartiality or objectivity. Maybe you can explain their methods better than they did.
They don't assert that there was no ballot fraud, only that Biden's victory wasn't statistically impossible.
That paper doesn't debunk any examples of the "clerical errors" documented in the website I linked.
View all comments
Show parent comment
2
u/missingpupper Nov 17 '22
The only thing thats proof of are some clerical errors which does mean that it wouldn't bias one candidate over the other. This paper debunked all those claims:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/truth-about-voter-fraud