8

On Slate magazine, I read the following news [emphasis in bold, mine]:

On Wednesday, a member of the Arizona election audit team that has been heavily touted by former President Donald Trump revealed that its examination of the 2020 vote in Maricopa County will include a “forensic” analysis of ballots to determine if the paper is made of bamboo—in order to determine whether or not China delivered tens of thousands of fraudulent ballots to tip the state to Joe Biden.

In a live interview posted on Twitter, John Brakey, an official helping oversee the audit of the 2020 Arizona election, explained

Accusations of 40,000 ballots were flown into Arizona and it was stuffed into the box. OK? And it came from the southeast part of the world, Asia, OK. And what they're doing is to find out if there's bamboo in the paper.

[…] so they're doing all sorts of testing to prove if it was or wasn't, and that's very important because the only way you can persuade people on changing is having facts, and we're on a mission for facts. […] And what we do is not about the right or the left.

I looked up Chinese paper exports to the US (which among cardboard also includes: napkins, tissues, kitchen/paper towels, and sanitary paper e.g. toilet rolls and diapers.)

The top three exporters of paper in 2019 were

  1. China: US$22 billion (12.9% of total paper exports)
  2. Germany: $20.7 billion (12.2%)
  3. United States: $15.1 billion (8.8%)

Paper Exports by Country

While the top three paper importers between 2018 and 2019 were

  1. United States $17,332,676,000 -4.2%
  2. Germany $13,971,259,000 -7.1%
  3. France $8,527,818,000 -2.9%

source

It is also true that a sizable percentage of paper produced in China is made from bamboo. According to the Sichuan Paper Association, in 2017 1.1 million tonnes of household paper was from bamboo, equivalent to about one-tenth of China's total paper production for household purposes. Source

Question If traces of bamboo is discovered in the Arizona paper ballots, is that sufficient proof of election fraud. Especially when we consider a significant amount of paper in the US, with its derivatives, are already imported from China?

Addendum

If we watch the short interview posted on Twitter, it's clear that no one is putting all their eggs in the Chinese paper basket, and if the team already knew that paper was imported from China then why even bother doing the forensic test in the first place? The auditor mentions they are on a mission for "facts" in order to persuade people. I am humbly suggesting that traces of bamboo, were they found, is itself inclusive proof of foreign interference–and not only for the aforementioned reasons. I am confident that there is more than one person out there who can state confidently “It makes no difference to the election results in Arizona if traces of bamboo are detected or not because.....”

In other words, the discovery (if it happens) of bamboo strands in the Arizona ballots is worthless UNLESS someone can state confidently–with supporting evidence–that US ballot paper must not only be printed in the US but it must also be produced there.

The modest question is just focusing on one tiny element that's all.

Mari-Lou A
  • 1,041
  • 8
  • 16
  • An explanation for the DV would be useful. Is this Q off-topic? – Mari-Lou A May 06 '21 at 11:56
  • 1
    Asking whether something is "sufficient proof" is more of a philosophical question than something that can be addressed with empirical evidence. – jwodder May 06 '21 at 12:15
  • 1
    @jwodder my rationale is can "we" use or discard the evidence of bamboo paper as proof of Chinese interference? How relevant is it, if for example Chinese paper was also used in California ballots and in, say, Alabama? If the paper is found to be imported/smuggled but printed on US soil, will that invalidate claims of forgery? – Mari-Lou A May 06 '21 at 12:37
  • 26
    So, the claim is that IF the paper contains bamboo, it comes from China AND that means China interfered in the elections? Seems like quite a leap of faith there. – Jerome Viveiros May 06 '21 at 12:52
  • 30
    So China was devious enough to influence the US elections by fraud, clever enough to stuff ballot boxes without detection, but stupid enough to use Chinese bamboo paper to give the game away? Nobody can seriously believe all three things. – gnasher729 May 06 '21 at 13:42
  • 1
    I feel the two downvotes are by users who feel exhausted by the umpteenth claim of fraudulent elections, after six months, than by my question itself. At least, that is my gut feeling. Disagree with the audits, disagree with the validity of the accusations, but don't use the downvote to vent this frustration. Post an answer instead! – Mari-Lou A May 06 '21 at 15:00
  • 5
    I don't know for sure why two people downvoted (I haven't voted on this), though I think it's because they don't think this is answerable. Part of that is you already clearly put effort into doing some research of your own. (e.g. I want to say "Especially when we consider a significant amount of paper in the US, with its derivatives, are already imported from China, having ballots printed on paper from China isn't surprising." But then to have a good answer on this site, I need sources, and I am not likely to get much more than you already found.) – Barry Harrison May 06 '21 at 15:35
  • 11
    @JeromeViveiros: "[So, if she weighs the same as a duck...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g)" – Nate Eldredge May 06 '21 at 15:37
  • 8
    The key problem with this claim is there is no evidence to link the source of the paper to fraud. Is there any reason why the paper used for the ballots can't be purchased from China or made from bamboo? The problem is it is a large leap to make to say that what the paper is made out of means that fraud happened as has already been pointed out. – Joe W May 06 '21 at 17:37
  • 1
    Only if it can be shown that there was more bamboo-paper used for the allegedly fraudulent ballots than was imported from China. But to do that it's no use just *guessing* at the number of such ballot papers, they will have to test *every one*. It's a very strange argument though: they higher the guessed number of fraudulent ballots, the more likely it is to be true! There seems to be a bit of a presumption, as in all the claims, that fraudsters wanted only one guy to win, or that no Republican supporter was capable of fraud. – Weather Vane May 06 '21 at 18:23
  • At least you have an answer now. Felt you deserved to know why this question isn't that well-received here. – Barry Harrison May 06 '21 at 21:43
  • I've removed my DV after the amount of effort put into this question with the edit, but I still don't think it's answerable. The only answer is more like an extended comment pointing out the slippery slope of assumptions and the fact that the source is garbage. It being garbage doesn't mean it is untrue and I don't think you can address the claim per this site's standards. – Jerome Viveiros May 06 '21 at 22:08
  • 6
    -1, but not because I am frustrated, but because the *structure* of the question makes no sense. Experiments don't "prove" things. If you are Bayesian, you would say the results of the experiment can be used to update your priors. (A positive test for bamboo might make you think it (perhaps very slightly) more likely that the hypothesis is true.) If you are a Popperian, you might argue a positive result for bamboo would disprove the null hypothesis that the paper is made in the USA (if you could also demonstrate US paper doesn't contain bamboo, but that would be a different test.) – Oddthinking May 06 '21 at 23:46
  • 11
    It boils down to: no single test by itself is sufficient proof of election fraud, and I don't think there is a notable claim that would be the case. It is one test in a larger investigation. – Oddthinking May 06 '21 at 23:48
  • 3
    I downvoted this questions because as far as I can see, it (as posted at this time) does not really relate to the source. The fact that the auditors are looking at whether the paper contains traces made of bamboo doesn't mean that they think that they (or anyone) can prove Chinese voter fraud merely by the existence of traces of bamboo. They would probably also consider if there was more of the bamboo than expected, and they probably know whether the paper used in Arizona is imported from China or not (which we don't.) – sgf May 07 '21 at 13:29
  • Also, I imagine that if our instruments were sensitive enough, we could find traces of bamboo on any piece of paper. – sgf May 07 '21 at 13:30
  • @sgf if you watch the video, it's clear that no one is putting all their eggs in the Chinese paper basket, and if the team knew that paper was imported from China then why even bother doing the forensic test in the first place? The auditor mentions they are on a mission for "facts" in order to persuade people. I'm suggesting if traces bamboo were to be found that is itself inclusive (and not only for the reasons mentioned in the OP) UNLESS someone proves that ballot paper must not only be printed in the US but it must also be produced there. Establishing facts becomes more challenging. – Mari-Lou A May 07 '21 at 17:24
  • 3
    Yeah, I've downvoted too. It's almost a strawman. Yes, they're looking for bamboo in the paper, but it's you that's jumped to asking whether that's "sufficient proof of election fraud". I'd VTC, but don't want to mod-hammer. –  May 07 '21 at 18:09
  • 3
    Whether they find any may or may not be meaningful. Perhaps there's already plenty of bamboo in legitimate paper ballots, for example. I don't think current site rules would allow a question asking about the meaningfulness of finding bamboo in the ballots, though I certainly agree that would be an interesting question. –  May 07 '21 at 18:14
  • @fredsbend it is the auditor who said **Accusations of 40,000 ballots were flown into Arizona […] And it came from the southeast part of the world, Asia, OK. And what they're doing is to find out if there's bamboo in the paper.** Not me. – Mari-Lou A May 07 '21 at 20:18
  • There are articles about bamboo growing in Arizona so bamboo paper does not have to be from China. Bamboo paper can come from parts of the world besides China. https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/foliage/bamboo/growing-bamboo-in-the-desert.htm – Joe W May 07 '21 at 22:08
  • If ballots printed on bamboo were found, AND if it was found that genuine ballots were not printed on bamboo paper, then we would know that something dodgy was going on. That could be someone responsible for printing ballots using cheaper paper and putting the difference in their own pocket. It could be Republicans importing Chinese paper, printing fake ballots, submitting them with Trump votes, and claiming election fraud when they didn’t stuff the ballot enough. – gnasher729 May 10 '21 at 06:49
  • @Mari-LouA The question still asks whether finding traces of bamboo would constitute _sufficient proof_ for voter fraud, which is not claimed in the source. If you ask whether it would be _relevant_, that would be another story, but also only really open to appeal to common sense: Yes, it would be relevant if the normal amount of bamboo traces is known and the amount found is significantly different. We don't know if the auditors know the normal amount, but it would indeed be weird (or useless) for them to look for bamboo traces if they didn't. – sgf May 10 '21 at 08:15
  • As I lack the reputation. I don't know if the Q was finally closed by a mod or by 5 users. – Mari-Lou A May 10 '21 at 08:17
  • @sgf the reason stated for closure is that it is too broad. Asking whether bamboo fibres is *sufficient proof* is not much different from asking if the discovery is *relevant*. Lastly, I don't know if US paper produced in the US contains traces of bamboo, that bamboo is grown in the US does not mean it is used in the production of paper, the US has an abundance of tree plantations which makes it unlikely. P.S did 5 users close the Q or did a mod intervene? Thank you for responding. – Mari-Lou A May 10 '21 at 08:20
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA I definitely agree that the question should have been closed as off-topic, and not as too broad. – sgf May 10 '21 at 08:25
  • @sgf The Q is "off-topic" is too vague, how do I know what to improve or fix? Could you please tell me if 5 users closed the question or a mod intervened and closed it. When a mod closes a Q it's best that I ask on meta, but if 5 users closed it, I can edit my Q and it automatically enters the reopen queue. I just looked at your profile, you have been a member of Skeptics longer than I have but you have less reputation than I to see who the closers were. – Mari-Lou A May 10 '21 at 08:28
  • @Mari-LouA I see two non-mods and one mod in the list, but I don't know precisely what that means. As for editing, you'd really have to come up with a source that makes the claim you're questioning, I think. – sgf May 10 '21 at 08:33
  • OK, it was a moderator who intervened and unilaterally closed the Q. Thank you for telling me. :) – Mari-Lou A May 10 '21 at 08:34
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/124061/discussion-between-mari-lou-a-and-sgf). – Mari-Lou A May 10 '21 at 08:41
  • 2
    @Mari-LouA No, unilateral means solitarily decided. There are 3 close votes, plus I'd commit to the fourth right now if it was needed to close it. But [you've asked on meta now for more feedback](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4740). –  May 10 '21 at 15:32

1 Answers1

33

No.

This is a logical fallacy of the form: some men are tall, you are tall, therefore you are the man who stole $20 out of my wallet because because I think I'm supposed to have $20 more.

There's a long chain of assumptions in the claim. They're not even looking for "Chinese paper" they're looking for paper made of bamboo.

  1. Bamboo paper = Paper made in China.
  2. Blank paper from China = Printed in China.

The first claim is of the form: some paper made in China is of bamboo, therefore all paper made of bamboo is from China. Their "expert" claims to be able to identify specific strains of bamboo, but as we'll see their "expert" isn't.

There is no explanation given for the second claim which renders the whole thing moot.

Additionally, there are some questions one might ask about this idea that it's important to audit for ballots printed in China.

  • How did the false ballots bypass election security?
  • Who coordinated all this?
  • Why would you print the ballots in China and ship them to the US?
  • Wasn't there already supposed to have been rock solid evidence of election fraud?

Bamboo = China

They're not checking if the paper came from China, they're checking that it contains bamboo. Why do they assume paper in China is made of bamboo? Why do they assume no one else makes paper out of bamboo?

Blank paper from China = Printed in China

Let's say the paper was made in China. So what? Arizona bought blank paper made in China and printed ballots on it. Where paper is made doesn't change what's printed on it. Arizona didn't even have to make contact with anyone in China, some 3rd party government contractor might have supplied the paper because it was cheap.

Paper made in China does not mean it was printed in China. Because of this basic missing logical link there isn't much point in looking at who makes paper out of bamboo and where US paper is imported from.

How did these false ballots bypass election security?

There's multiple redundant safeguards to prevent tampering with the ballots. How did these ballots get printed correctly in China, shipped to the US, and inserted into the stack with nobody noticing?

Who coordinated all this?

The Chinese had to have multiple conspirators in Arizona with the ability to bypass election security. They'd need to coordinate with China to print the ballots correctly so they won't be detected as fraudulent. Ship them to the US. And get past customs. All in time for the election. And then insert them as legit ballots... somehow.

This brings up Occam's Razor.

Why print the ballots in China?

Instead of having to do all that coordination to have someone print the ballots correctly in China and delay in shipping them to the US and then to Arizona risking getting caught with a container full of ballots... seems it would be easier and safer to have an agent in the US use US printing press. The claim has already invented an airtight conspiracy within Arizona Elections, an unscrupulous print shop doesn't seem a stretch.

Wasn't there already supposed to have been rock solid evidence of election fraud?

Before the election, during the election, after the election Trump and his miasma of enablers claimed to have incontrovertible evidence of election fraud. They didn't. Now, six months and dozens of failed lawsuits later, here's their new hypothesis about folds and inks and bamboo also lacking any evidence. You'll excuse me if I don't go racing off to check paper manufacturing statistics.

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer

This bamboo claim appears to originate from Jovan Hutton Pulitzer. He appears as an expert witness in MARICOPA COUNTY v KAREN FANN which claims that "Cast ballots can be reviewed by software to ascertain whether counterfeit ballots have properly been rejected by the system".

Their support for this is an affidavit by Jovan Pulitzer who claims to be "a document pattern recognition expert" but has no background in election security nor printing nor paper manufacturing. He instead cites how many patents he has, specifically Predilution sets for distributing antigens and System and method for using a mobile device as an input device for surveys at a live event and System and method for haptic mapping of a configurable virtual reality environment. What these have to do with his being a document pattern recognition expert is beyond me.

He claims he can "recognize in a document whether or not the document has been folded or bent... the type of paper used in paper documents... the type of ink that is used to make patterns in the document and whether the ink is commercial or ink used in personal marking devices or pens and pencils". He gives no evidence for this being true.

He claims "all mail-in and absentee voting ballots (and any other ballots that were placed in the mail) should have kinetic markers as a result of being handled and folded many times in the process of mailing prior to voting... Absentee and mail-in ballots which were fraudulently manufactured and not mailed to the voter would be devoid of these markers." That is its own set of unsupported assumptions. And that "a voting ballot that has not been mailed and not processed through the mail system will be pristine" which is packed with its own assumptions.

It is unclear what his exact methods are, whether any of it works, whether it's been independently verified, and is loaded with assumptions. The more I read from Pulitzer, the longer the chain of assumptions gets.

Schwern
  • 17,034
  • 7
  • 63
  • 66
  • 3
    This is not a good answer (and is further evidence that once a question reaches the HNQ, the upvotes are an indication of how bad people want the conclusion to be true). This is a collection of appeals to common sense, interspersed with attempts to poison the well. A good answer would reference an actual expert. – Jordy May 07 '21 at 08:58
  • 1
    @Jody would you care to explain as to why this answer is not a good one? Any specific holes in the argumentation etc.? – Hobbamok May 07 '21 at 09:35
  • 7
    @Hobbamok, I'll just repeat myself: we need to reference an actual expert on this matter. This is a community based around scientific skepticism, this is not commonsense.stackexchange.com. This post is nothing more than a personal review of the matter from a laypersons perspective, combined with a couple of ad hominems. Both are very much off-topic. – Jordy May 07 '21 at 09:59
  • 2
    @Jody what expert opinion would you want or need? Most people are based on logical reasoning on their own, and the required facts (e.g. paper exports globally etc) are very much in the question already. It's just that you disagree with the answer for sentimental reasons yet don't have any real arguments to formulate your own answer. Yes, the answer derails a bit towards the end, but the first half perfectly answers the question: No, it wouldn't prove anything and is a ridiculous assumption – Hobbamok May 07 '21 at 10:05
  • 4
    But what if it turned out that pro-Biden ballots had significantly higher bamboo contant than pro-Trump ballots (and it were possible to exclude local differences in voting patterns as an explanation)? – Jan May 07 '21 at 10:05
  • 6
    @Jan Could still just be a matter of different areas receiving different blank paper from different suppliers. In fact would it really be surprising if Republican-leaning counties didn't like buying stuff from China? – user253751 May 07 '21 at 10:11
  • @user253751 Indeed. That's why I added a half-sentence in parentheses. – Jan May 07 '21 at 10:17
  • 2
    @Hobbamok,"it is just that you disagree with the answer for sentimental reasons yet you don't have any real arguments to formulate your own answer". Okay, so first: I am not American, I don't care about the results from the US elections, heck I am devoutly apolitcal. It's just one tiny simple thing that I am trying to point here: speculation and personal opinions about how likely or unlikely an event is are - say it with me - OFF-TOPIC FOR THIS SITE. – Jordy May 07 '21 at 10:22
  • 5
    But since you got me going I'll elaborate. This post assumes that bamboo ballots are normal, or common [citation needed], there are multiple redundant safeguards to prevent tampering with ballots [citation needed], "it would be easier and safer to have an agent in the us" [citation needed]. See where I am going with this? – Jordy May 07 '21 at 10:28
  • 3
    The fact that you thought I was "sentimental" and that I "disagree with the answer" and I don't have any "real arguments", is the same reason why this isn't a good answer. Because a narrative that takes all facts into account does not automatically mean that the narrative is true or even meaningful. – Jordy May 07 '21 at 10:34
  • 1
    [Comment 2] but they server a direct purpose: because the theory's citation for these assumptions is directly (and exclusively) the guy whose credibility is questioned. An important fact that apparently did not register with you. – Hobbamok May 07 '21 at 12:55
  • @Jan, yes indeed, that would constitute a proof. But your specifications in parentheses are absolutely required for that, plus a margin above statistical error. [And at that point we are out of scope of OPs original question] – Hobbamok May 07 '21 at 12:56
  • 3
    @Hobbamok, (1)"Logic does not need citations mate" ... who every suggested otherwise? You don't need citations to apply logic, you do however need citations to make sure your premises are valid. This answer provided no support for it's premises and is therefor a bad answer. – Jordy May 07 '21 at 13:17
  • 1
    (2) "cry about"? Pretty emotional wording for someone who is accusing me of being sentimental. And there is a reason why they invented terms like "ad hominems" and "poisoning the well", because they essentially proof nothing. The boy who cried wolf was right after all no matter how unreliable he was. The trustworthiness of the person making the claim is NOT an important factor in objectively determining if the claim is false or not. – Jordy May 07 '21 at 13:19
  • 10
    The question was "Does X prove Y?". Just because X is consistent with Y it doesn't mean it proves it. If you can point out numerous obvious ways that X can be true without Y being true, you can answer the question "no". – Barmar May 07 '21 at 13:35
  • 8
    @Jordy: *Because a narrative that takes all facts into account does not automatically mean that the narrative is true or even meaningful.* - Yes, that's *exactly* the point this answer is making, about the original claim. The question is whether bamboo-paper ballots prove Chinese-backed election fraud. Any alternative explanation that's plausible and not ruled out by any known facts means that X *doesn't* prove Y. This answer doesn't need to enumerate all possible explanations, and finding a problem with *one* of its suggested possibilities doesn't invalidate the others. – Peter Cordes May 07 '21 at 14:44
  • 4
    @Jordy Because I've published dozens of Open Source libraries, I'm an expert in detecting bias in text. I've analyzed the word frequencies and timing of your replies and found they match those of Elbonian government sock puppet accounts determined to destroy Skeptics.SE. You must now provide expert linguistic testimony to show you're not an Elbonian agent. – Schwern May 07 '21 at 17:50
  • 4
    @Jordy Because I've published dozens of Open Source libraries, I'm an expert in detecting the fiber content of clothing. If you'll please send me a scrap of each article of clothing you own, I will examine their content for yak fiber. As everyone knows, Elbonia has a lot of yaks. If I find yak fiber in your clothes that proves you are an Elbonian agent here to destroy Skeptics.SE. If you do not send me the samples, what are you trying to hide? Please prove you are not an Elbonian spy with testimony from a forensic textile expert. – Schwern May 07 '21 at 17:53
  • 4
    @Jordy Because I've published dozens of Open Source libraries, I'm an expert in nutritional forensics. Elbonians are known to drink a lot of yak milk with trace amounts of strontium from their failed nuclear power plant. I merely need a small blood and bone sample... I trust you see where this is going. I can crank out unfounded claims like this all day and demand you provide expert testimony for each of them. Instead, it's merely enough to attack the weakest part of the logical chain, the many many assumptions. The weight of showing my methodologies are correct falls on me, the accuser. – Schwern May 07 '21 at 17:57
  • 2
    @fredsbend This one does not need any qualification. It's a straightforward fallacy of the form: some men are tall, you are tall, therefore you are the man who stole my wallet. – Schwern May 07 '21 at 18:20
  • 2
    If I were to criticize this answer I would note that it seems to be mostly generic reasons for being skeptical of the claim. So though long and well-thought-out, it doesn't really seem to be giving much. However, there's bigger problems with the question itself. –  May 07 '21 at 18:20
  • 2
    The edit was to note that your answer highly stresses the logic problem. A flat no might allow readers to conflate that you're answering the related question, that is, whether there was election fraud in the first place. This is partly why we don't allow logic questions and logic answers. The rules are different when arguing and discussing based in logic, otherwise people start reading things that aren't there. –  May 07 '21 at 18:22
  • 2
    @fredsbend That answer has been extensively explored for the past six months. The answer is also no, there is no evidence for election fraud. – Schwern May 07 '21 at 18:24
  • 1
    @Schwern Regardless of what the answer to that question is, that is not the question on this page. My simple edit is just trying to make clear what question you are answering. –  May 07 '21 at 18:25
  • @fredsbend "Would Chinese paper prove there was an election fraud?" No. – Schwern May 07 '21 at 18:25
  • 1
    @Schwern, I don't have to provide anything, the onus isn't on me. I also didn't force you to post an answer. If you post an answer I CAN point out that this community have standards for what constitutes good questions. And if you provide an answer the onus is on you to show that your methodology falls within the scope of this site. You take one interpretation of the claim and use common sense to attack it - that is a bad answer for this site. – Jordy May 07 '21 at 18:26
  • 2
    @Schwern "So there was no fraud?" I'm not answering that question right now. "So if they don't find bamboo it means there's been no fraud?" I'm not trying to say that either. Only that *by itself* bamboo present in the paper doesn't prove there was fraud. It would be circumstantial evidence at best. -- Do you see the problem now? –  May 07 '21 at 18:30
  • 3
    @Jordy There's no need to refute the individual components because *even if they are true* that the paper contains bamboo and that bamboo means the paper was made in China, one cannot conclude that the ballots are fake, but that's what's being claimed. There's still several very large leaps to make from there. The claim and their "experts" make no attempts to explain those gaps. If you find this to be a fine answer but are merely objecting because of the site rules, don't rules lawyer: *advocate for a rule change*. Or provide your own answer of a form you see fit. – Schwern May 07 '21 at 18:44
  • 2
    @Jordy I've made it more clear what parts of the answer are about the logical fallacy, and what parts are poking holes in the plausibility. I think you're objecting to the "plausible" parts as "common sense" and if they were the entire answer you'd be correct. The logical fallacies are sufficient to make the answer a definitive "no", but the "common sense" parts are too glaring to not mention. The claim is a fishing expedition for an implausible conspiracy theory based on a logical fallacy. – Schwern May 07 '21 at 21:17
  • 3
    We have been over the general problem many times in meta. Logic is based on premises and models of the world. If those those premises are false, it doesn't matter that the logic is valid, it isn't sound. This answer does NOT support MANY of its claims. References should be added or the claims removed. Whether we like it or not, in the topsy-turvy world of Skeptics.SE, the burden of proof is on the answerer, not the claimant. – Oddthinking May 09 '21 at 12:26
  • 3
    @Oddthinking Do I need to cite that if paper is made in a place that doesn't mean it was printed on in that a place? Which journals should I check? – Schwern May 09 '21 at 20:30
  • 1
    Behind the snark is a good question. No such general reference woukd suffice. For all we know, shipping heavy paper is expensive, so cheap ballot paper is always made locally, or laws designed to protect US businesses require the government to use local suppliers, or an official has explicitly stated the ballots were printed on US paper, so to support your answer you need to show an authority or expert we can trust stating that the paper is imported from China, or similar. – Oddthinking May 10 '21 at 01:52
  • @Oddthinking This claim is a hot mess and it's hard to take it seriously. If you would like the individual questions of the claim to be handled separately, ask them separately. 1) Can you detect the origin of paper in the manner described by Pulitzer? 2) If the paper was found to be from China, would that indicate it was printed in China? Then this answer can be about the claim as a whole, and we can also get the individual, sterile answers. If it turns out I'm wrong about #2 we'll deal with it then. – Schwern May 10 '21 at 02:40
  • I agree. The question is a mess. The only reason I didn't close it was because it had an extensive answer. But it isn't up to our standards either. Lets close the question until we can get a notable, testable claim. – Oddthinking May 10 '21 at 05:43
  • *This claim is a hot mess* Thanks for posting what you seriously think of the question. – Mari-Lou A May 10 '21 at 18:42
  • @Mari-LouA To be clear, your question about the claim is fine. Clearly notable. The claim, as I unpack it... it's a lot to address in a single answer. – Schwern May 10 '21 at 18:53