The question about the Arizona 2021 recount is closed and the message says: Update the question so it focuses on one problem only.
I am finding it challenging to make the question more focused than it presently is.
I was particularly interested in the search for bamboo fibres in ballot papers, and how that would influence or support the many claims and accusations–seemingly hundreds–of election fraud that continue to haunt the 2020 US Presidential election results. Google News reveals an impressive 644 results for the search list: accusations Arizona bamboo "election fraud" 2020. Obviously, not all the pages are specific to the Arizona recount but it does suggest that the issue has stirred considerable interest and reactions across the globe.
As for narrowing the scope, the auditor and observer mentions that many of these ballot papers were not folded when 92% of the ballots arrived in envelopes. As well as that, he notes the importance of the ink's "signature" used in the printing the ballots; a theory advanced by Jovan Pulitzer who states that ballots must be printed in the US by law and “in some cases the ballots have to be printed in that exact state” and adds that a number of marks on ballots were clearly falsified by computers.
In the interview with Brakey, we learn that the audit team has been in the business of auditing for 17 years. The person being interviewed says that the company's name stands for Americans United for Democracy Integrity and Transparency (in elections), and states confidently that their job is not about the left or the right but about facts.
Now, I could have asked about the validity and veracity of each of the aforementioned claims by the auditor, Brakey, and those presented by Jovan Pulitzer. I could have struck down the reasons for the audit, attacking each and every thing said in that short interview, including the acronym for AUDIT, along with the whole premise of the recounting then maybe the question would have been more popular–although it did hit briefly the HNQ. But I didn't. Instead the question focuses on only one aspect: the possible discovery of bamboo fibres in the Arizona ballots and whether that is in itself sufficient proof of foreign interference and election fraud.
Sometimes an answer cannot be a straightforward "Yes" or "No", sometimes answers are far more complex, and the truth requires digging and fact searchings, and that starts with the small details. That's how I see it, perhaps some might interpret that viewpoint as being naïve and without logic. Maybe it is.
One of the moderators commented:
-1, [for the downvote] 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.)
A second mod left this comment
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.
I disagree that I jumped to any conclusions or made the assumption that baboo traces suggest that the election in Arizona was rigged. In fact, I provided evidence that suggests the US may import paper products from China and that some of that paper may be made with bamboo. As other commentators hinted, maybe China is not the only nation to make paper from bamboo.
These observations and criticism of the question and its apparent lack of structure could have been formulated in an answer which was supported by evidence and not reliant on common sense. I left that opportunity to the community which appears to be doing a good job of debunking the dozens of vaccine controversies: claims supported by anti-vaxers and even by some doctors.
The post focuses on the issue of discovering bamboo fibres in ballot papers. The Q asks whether this is relevant or not in the accusations of election fraud.
I cited the source, I included links to that source. I did some research and shared it with the community. The interview posted on Twitter has been viewed over a million times and retweeted several thousand times.
- How do I make this question more focused *without invalidating Schwern's answer which has attracted 36 upvotes and three downvotes. I would prefer to keep the attention on the bamboo fibres because of its extraordinary nature.
Any guidance much appreciated.
I find it inexplicable for someone with 80K rep on EL&U, +20K on Meta and +20K on ELL cannot see who or how many users closed the question on Skeptics but I'll leave that peculiarity for another day.