NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 25,355
- 5,136
JOHN LOTT affirms nothing. As usual if you can’t name the criminal if you cannot name the crime.This study strongly states its purpose is NOT to contest the outcome of the 2020 election, but affirms that there was widespread fraud:
![www.metabunk.org](https://www.metabunk.org/files/Metabunk-logo.png)
John Lott's Paper on Election Fraud
there was an excess 70,000-79,000 "Fraudelent votes" across GA, according to NAS award winner economist john lott, which was published in the Social science research network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988 The paper is by John R. Lott, the economist, and Trump...
![www.metabunk.org](https://www.metabunk.org/files/Metabunk-logo.png)
But let's look at the study.
This study provides measures of vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election. It first compares Fulton county’s precincts that are adjacent to similar precincts in neighboring counties that had no allegations of fraud to isolate the impact of Fulton county’s vote-counting process (including potential fraud). In measuring the difference in President Trump’s vote share of the absentee ballots for these adjacent precincts, we account for the difference in his vote share of the in-person voting and the difference in registered voters’ demographics
Content from External Source
A study like that is not proof of anything. All it can do is point to a change that has happened, but it can't explain the change. A major change that happened in Georgia is that Stacey Adams and many other activists got a lot of voters registered who had been falsely struck off the voter rolls; that would change the outcome of the vote.
You need to prove that the explanation for this must be fraud; and if you can prove the fraud, you don't need the study. It's legally worthless, even if its findings were reasonable. By itself, the study does nothing more than to say "things were different this year"; and that's not evidence of a crime.