6 ms·

Okay this will probably not be popular but I am what I consider a good faith conservative so I'll answer your points in reverse order. 1st: "Every group that h

by hpoe 6y ago

Okay this will probably not be popular but I am what I consider a good faith conservative so I'll answer your points in reverse order. 1st: "Every group that has looked into it" and "widespread". First at this point I don't trust many of the groups and institutions, because I have repeatedly over the past 4 years seen various groups act in a concerted manner to try and slander, libel and misrepresent trump while trying to drive people to be angry and irrational about. There have been multiple I've seen things reported that I've said to myself. "Okay if Trump really said that then I am way off of supporting him" but then I go look at the actual remarks and it is radically different from what he said. Any else remember a 2 week news cycle on whether or not cofeve was a racist dog whistle? Ultimately at the end of this my faith in mant previously authoritative institutions has been shaken. Also I don't know anyone that is claiming "widespread" voter fraud, no one believes there was "widespread" voter fraud in this election it was targeted specific voter fraud at particular places and counties is the contention. Everyone knew going into this what states needed to be won for biden to win. Many of these states were decided by less than 10,000 votes. In response to your contention about being against making it easier to vote. The fact of the matter is that the more room for error in the voting process the less likely people are to trust the outcome. If we imagine for a second we lived in a non-Covid world right now and there everyone voted like normal do you believe as many people would doubt the veracity of the election? Ultimately I consider integrity of the election to be of higher value than ease of access, because it doesn't matter who gets to vote if no one trusts the process. Again you asked how could a good faith conservative believe this. This is how, I could be wrong I could be off, but that is how I see things right now. Maybe that'll change but for right now that's how I reconcile being good faith and conservative.

lisper 6y ago
> I am what I consider a good faith conservative > I don't know anyone that is claiming "widespread" voter fraud This makes it very hard for me to take your claim of good faith seriously. Yes, perhaps the exact word "widespread" did not come out of Donald Trump's mouth, but there can be no doubt in anyone's mind (if they are indeed dealing in good faith) that Donald Trump has in fact been consistently and emphatically -- and, most important, falsely -- alleging wide spread voter fraud. Try doing a web search for "trump claims wide spread voter fraud" if you don't believe me.
- aksss 6y ago
  This summer, in PA, a judge of elections pleaded guilty to stuffing ballot boxes for democrats in exchange for cash.[0] Maybe it’s an isolated incident, really. The media response that “there is no evidence of fraud” shifted to “no widespread fraud” at some point in last three years. I remember noting the appearance of the new qualifier. That rhetorical shift was their own nuance in the face of recurring anecdote. But let’s accept that - no widespread fraud. The concern - regardless of Trump or this election - is over a critical mass of fraud in counties that are won by narrow margins. “Widespread” has never been a requirement of the good faith critique of voter fraud. So when you hear the catchphrase “no evidence of widespread fraud” realize that it signals buy-in to a straw man argument which talks past the issue at hand. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-elections-convicted-conspiring-violate-civil-rights-and-bribery https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-ele...
  - lisper 6y ago
    > This summer, in PA, a judge of elections pleaded guilty to stuffing ballot boxes for democrats in exchange for cash.[0] A single individual is hardly evidence of "widespread fraud". If you want to play dueling anecdotes, I'll see your PA and raise you Republican vote tampering in North Carolina [1]. None of this is relevant to the substance of my comment, however, which is that I have a hard time seeing how anyone dealing in good faith can honestly say that they "don't know anyone that is claiming widespread voter fraud" [emphasis added]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictm...
    - aksss 6y ago
      Your anecdote reinforces the critique of fraud and I welcome it. The argument is to increase the integrity of elections, not offset fraud by one side with fraud by the other and call it even. There are a lot of anecdotes of fraud, and they keep coming up, enough to undermine the integrity of our elections (as evidenced). If this was an issue of financial accounting in an organization, I’d wager your behavior pattern would be different - the recurring anecdotes would indicate a substantial risk that needs to be mitigated by putting controls in place to ensure the integrity of the accounts. Instead, in this instance we are being told not only to look the other way, but are being told recurring anecdotes of abuse don’t warrant substantial procedural changes and improvements in accountability. As Glenn Greenwald said the other day, this situation is either by choice or ineptitude. But it’s not a non-issue.
slg 6y ago
>First at this point I don't trust many of the groups and institutions The Trump Administration itself couldn't find evidence of widespread voter fraud.[1] >Also I don't know anyone that is claiming "widespread" voter fraud, no one believes there was "widespread" voter fraud in this election it was targeted specific voter fraud at particular places and counties is the contention. Everyone knew going into this what states needed to be won for biden to win. Many of these states were decided by less than 10,000 votes. The 2016 election was one of the closest elections we have ever had and it still would have required roughly 100k votes changed to change the result. This election is even less close. Biden is winning PA by 30k, MI by 150k, and WI by 20k. That alone wins it. You can ignore the close states like GA, NV, or AZ and Biden still wins. This would have needed widespread fraud in order to switch a true Trump win to a Biden win. >The fact of the matter is that the more room for error in the voting process the less likely people are to trust the outcome. This flows the other direction too. Voting being suppressed makes people trust the outcome less too. How can an election have integrity if people who want to vote can't? If that is the outcome of strict voting laws, shouldn't we require some higher level of evidence of voter fraud in order to justify this cost of people losing their vote? [1] - https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d
- hpoe 6y ago
  Couple of points. 1. The link you provide is indicating there was no voter fraud in the 2016 election not the, 2020 election. 2. As for "widespread" I think we are disagreeing on what it means, in this case you seem to indicate I am talking just about 1000s of people going out and voting multiple times, there are also concerns around counters through some means, providing a different number for the counted whether by introducing false ballots, lying about the number they counted, etc. For example there was a machine in Detroit that read in 8,000 votes that were listed for Trump as votes for Biden [0] now that could very well be a simple technical error but it indicates how easy it is cause voting totals to not match the reality of the voting. As for the final rejoinder, I think maybe we are having different opinions in mind as to what we are discussing. For me I fully support having many polling places that are easy to get to for many people in multiple locations and that on election day we should make it as easy as possible for people to vote; however I also think there should be tighter integrity checks on who is voting and on the counting of votes itself. [0] https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/06/antrim-county-vote-glitch-software-update/6194745002/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/...

by hpoe 6y ago

lisper 6y ago

> I am what I consider a good faith conservative > I don't know anyone that is claiming "widespread" voter fraud This makes it very hard for me to take your claim of good faith seriously. Yes, perhaps the exact word "widespread" did not come out of Donald Trump's mouth, but there can be no doubt in anyone's mind (if they are indeed dealing in good faith) that Donald Trump has in fact been consistently and emphatically -- and, most important, falsely -- alleging wide spread voter fraud. Try doing a web search for "trump claims wide spread voter fraud" if you don't believe me.

aksss 6y ago
This summer, in PA, a judge of elections pleaded guilty to stuffing ballot boxes for democrats in exchange for cash.[0] Maybe it’s an isolated incident, really. The media response that “there is no evidence of fraud” shifted to “no widespread fraud” at some point in last three years. I remember noting the appearance of the new qualifier. That rhetorical shift was their own nuance in the face of recurring anecdote. But let’s accept that - no widespread fraud. The concern - regardless of Trump or this election - is over a critical mass of fraud in counties that are won by narrow margins. “Widespread” has never been a requirement of the good faith critique of voter fraud. So when you hear the catchphrase “no evidence of widespread fraud” realize that it signals buy-in to a straw man argument which talks past the issue at hand. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-elections-convicted-conspiring-violate-civil-rights-and-bribery https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-ele...
- lisper 6y ago
  > This summer, in PA, a judge of elections pleaded guilty to stuffing ballot boxes for democrats in exchange for cash.[0] A single individual is hardly evidence of "widespread fraud". If you want to play dueling anecdotes, I'll see your PA and raise you Republican vote tampering in North Carolina [1]. None of this is relevant to the substance of my comment, however, which is that I have a hard time seeing how anyone dealing in good faith can honestly say that they "don't know anyone that is claiming widespread voter fraud" [emphasis added]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictm...
  - aksss 6y ago
    Your anecdote reinforces the critique of fraud and I welcome it. The argument is to increase the integrity of elections, not offset fraud by one side with fraud by the other and call it even. There are a lot of anecdotes of fraud, and they keep coming up, enough to undermine the integrity of our elections (as evidenced). If this was an issue of financial accounting in an organization, I’d wager your behavior pattern would be different - the recurring anecdotes would indicate a substantial risk that needs to be mitigated by putting controls in place to ensure the integrity of the accounts. Instead, in this instance we are being told not only to look the other way, but are being told recurring anecdotes of abuse don’t warrant substantial procedural changes and improvements in accountability. As Glenn Greenwald said the other day, this situation is either by choice or ineptitude. But it’s not a non-issue.

slg 6y ago

>First at this point I don't trust many of the groups and institutions The Trump Administration itself couldn't find evidence of widespread voter fraud.[1] >Also I don't know anyone that is claiming "widespread" voter fraud, no one believes there was "widespread" voter fraud in this election it was targeted specific voter fraud at particular places and counties is the contention. Everyone knew going into this what states needed to be won for biden to win. Many of these states were decided by less than 10,000 votes. The 2016 election was one of the closest elections we have ever had and it still would have required roughly 100k votes changed to change the result. This election is even less close. Biden is winning PA by 30k, MI by 150k, and WI by 20k. That alone wins it. You can ignore the close states like GA, NV, or AZ and Biden still wins. This would have needed widespread fraud in order to switch a true Trump win to a Biden win. >The fact of the matter is that the more room for error in the voting process the less likely people are to trust the outcome. This flows the other direction too. Voting being suppressed makes people trust the outcome less too. How can an election have integrity if people who want to vote can't? If that is the outcome of strict voting laws, shouldn't we require some higher level of evidence of voter fraud in order to justify this cost of people losing their vote? [1] - https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d

hpoe 6y ago
Couple of points. 1. The link you provide is indicating there was no voter fraud in the 2016 election not the, 2020 election. 2. As for "widespread" I think we are disagreeing on what it means, in this case you seem to indicate I am talking just about 1000s of people going out and voting multiple times, there are also concerns around counters through some means, providing a different number for the counted whether by introducing false ballots, lying about the number they counted, etc. For example there was a machine in Detroit that read in 8,000 votes that were listed for Trump as votes for Biden [0] now that could very well be a simple technical error but it indicates how easy it is cause voting totals to not match the reality of the voting. As for the final rejoinder, I think maybe we are having different opinions in mind as to what we are discussing. For me I fully support having many polling places that are easy to get to for many people in multiple locations and that on election day we should make it as easy as possible for people to vote; however I also think there should be tighter integrity checks on who is voting and on the counting of votes itself. [0] https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/06/antrim-county-vote-glitch-software-update/6194745002/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/...