2 ms·
>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] >A
by 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 agoCouple 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/...
- slg 6y agoThe point is you need to change hundreds of thousands of votes in order for any voter fraud to impact a presidential race. There is no evidence of anything even close to that happening in this or any recent elections. >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. The first half of that goes against the policies of the Republican part and Democrats aren't going to disagree with the second half.