That's quite a jump from 'broken link' => 'must be propaganda'.
Rebuttals should be analyzed just like the target of the rebuttal. Just as you say the original article should not be taken as gospel, the rebuttal should not be taken as gospel either. The author's accounting of the 28M votes breaks down into 2 categories:
1. 12M voluntarily not cast from the 3 states that auto-send to every registered voter. The author arrives at this calculation by taking an average vote percentage of those states, and applying it to the mail ballots. You can't just apply general vote rate to the mail ballots, then further assume the EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 12M remaining vote was due to people just not bothering to vote. Baked into the author's calculation is that none of the mail ballots in those 3 states could have been involved in fraud...
2. 16M (building on the previous flawed calculation) the author just assumes were people who manually requested the mail ballot, but just decided not to send it in. Why? because there were a total 120M mail ballots sent and 16M / 120M amounts to 13% not voting, which is way lower than general population 50% not voting. This is an assertion with no evidence, and we would expect the percentage of people who do not vote when they MANUALLY request a mail ballot to be much lower anyways. Even a fraction of 16M should raise eyebrows.
So as I understand it, the author's calculations are very hand-wavy and unjustified. But you say this is a 'clear' rebuttal. Can you share how you interpreted the article?
That's quite a jump from 'broken link' => 'must be propaganda'.
Rebuttals should be analyzed just like the target of the rebuttal. Just as you say the original article should not be taken as gospel, the rebuttal should not be taken as gospel either. The author's accounting of the 28M votes breaks down into 2 categories:
1. 12M voluntarily not cast from the 3 states that auto-send to every registered voter. The author arrives at this calculation by taking an average vote percentage of those states, and applying it to the mail ballots. You can't just apply general vote rate to the mail ballots, then further assume the EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 12M remaining vote was due to people just not bothering to vote. Baked into the author's calculation is that none of the mail ballots in those 3 states could have been involved in fraud...
2. 16M (building on the previous flawed calculation) the author just assumes were people who manually requested the mail ballot, but just decided not to send it in. Why? because there were a total 120M mail ballots sent and 16M / 120M amounts to 13% not voting, which is way lower than general population 50% not voting. This is an assertion with no evidence, and we would expect the percentage of people who do not vote when they MANUALLY request a mail ballot to be much lower anyways. Even a fraction of 16M should raise eyebrows.
So as I understand it, the author's calculations are very hand-wavy and unjustified. But you say this is a 'clear' rebuttal. Can you share how you interpreted the article?