4 ms·

“Widespread” and “nearly every” are notable wiggle words. In a tight election in a few states swung by a few counties, “widespread” has never been a requirement

by aksss 6y ago

“Widespread” and “nearly every” are notable wiggle words. In a tight election in a few states swung by a few counties, “widespread” has never been a requirement. Anyone can be forgiven for doubting the integrity of our election process in the face of worrying anecdote. The answer isn’t to call for blind faith by ignoring the red flags, but to shore up the process and improve its systemic integrity. What would your standard be if this concerned the finances of your own company? You wouldn’t be telling the organization to not worry and ignore warning signs. Some states eliminated witness signature requirements on absentee ballots; some states allowed new votes with no postmark up to a week after the election; videos showing the eviction of poll watchers, political placards posted at the entry of polling places; a “reporting error” with an extra zero corrected only after being called on it, software “glitches” resulting in 3000-vote over-count in one county corrected only after being challenged; a box of ballots produced after Election Day, 100% of whose contents went to one candidate; counting paused in the middle of the night. None of it helped by being refereed by a media plurality that clearly wanted a specific outcome all year. There’s enough widespread questionable anecdote to warrant a top to bottom audit, which nobody can afford. Every time the media (trusted by the public less than Catholic priests and politicians, btw) says there’s “no evidence of widespread fraud” in the face of this, it doesn’t help - it only raises another red flag. And this isn’t just the Presidential election, btw. That we are incapable of building and executing a process with inherent integrity is getting increasingly risky/dangerous.

slg 6y ago
Biden is winning PA by 30k, MI by 150k, and WI by 20k. That alone wins it. It seems there would have needed to be 200k fraudulent votes for this election to have been changed. How is that not "widespread"? Also it isn't just the media that investigates voter fraud. Academics and political institutions have looked into it also and not found a problem. Trump's Administration even looked into it and couldn't find any significant problem. Is there anyone who you would trust that could certify this isn't a problem?
- aksss 6y ago
  Pennies make dollars, baby. Instead of saying, we see no evidence of widespread fraud - where we have no idea in what context you’re using the word - let’s turn the conversation to making solid attestations about the integrity of the processes, which we certainly don’t hear. Instead we hear “don’t worry about it”. I think the accounting analogy is the best suited. You won’t say, with whistleblower reports in hand, that there’s no evidence of _widespread_ problems and leave it at that. The presence of recurring whistleblower reports about financial irregularities demands a different conversation: these are the preventative and detective controls we will put in place, and here’s the evidence that they worked, such that we can be assured a high degree of integrity in what we’re reporting. Right now, the evidence doesn’t even exist to be challenged. Party A puts the onus on Party B to prove that ballots without postmarks weren’t submitted on time and then say there’s no evidence of a problem. No, the problem in that example is the lack of postmarks to even begin to evaluate the suitability of the ballots. It’s hard to interpret the willful reticence to have this kind of conversation as a nation, especially because the shoe can absolutely be on the other foot some day. When the integrity of the institution is in question, the right response isn’t to tell people to look the other way. What I’m trying to convey is that nobody believes that a talking head on the news has any authority or personal expertise to tell people “everything’s fine” when the anecdotes just keep coming, particularly in places run by people with a conflict of interest in the outcome. You ask what authority would have credibility to be taken on their word that everything’s fine. The right question is how do we demonstrate that the processes have integrity. How do we increase the integrity of the processes such that we’re not relying on me accepting integrity on faith. You used the word “certify”. That’s a good word and we should dig into the strength behind those attestations. Right now they’re based on very weak control structures.
  - barumi 6y ago
    > Instead of saying, we see no evidence of widespread fraud - where we have no idea in what context you’re using the word - let’s turn the conversation to making solid attestations about the integrity of the processes, which we certainly don’t hear. If that was the case then why has the Trump campaign failed to present any evidence whatsoever to substantiate it's baseless accusations of electoral fraud? I mean, the Trump campaign complains that the election was stolen from them as a result of this hypothetical electoral fraud campaign that no one sees or has any tangible proof of existing. Heck, the Trump campaign is even accusing elections organized by Republicans of having been compromised. If there is indeed a problem then how come no one is able to see it anywhere, no matter how may times everyone asks? If no one is able to find any problem anywhere, is there really a problem to begin with?

by aksss 6y ago

slg 6y ago

Biden is winning PA by 30k, MI by 150k, and WI by 20k. That alone wins it. It seems there would have needed to be 200k fraudulent votes for this election to have been changed. How is that not "widespread"? Also it isn't just the media that investigates voter fraud. Academics and political institutions have looked into it also and not found a problem. Trump's Administration even looked into it and couldn't find any significant problem. Is there anyone who you would trust that could certify this isn't a problem?

aksss 6y ago
Pennies make dollars, baby. Instead of saying, we see no evidence of widespread fraud - where we have no idea in what context you’re using the word - let’s turn the conversation to making solid attestations about the integrity of the processes, which we certainly don’t hear. Instead we hear “don’t worry about it”. I think the accounting analogy is the best suited. You won’t say, with whistleblower reports in hand, that there’s no evidence of _widespread_ problems and leave it at that. The presence of recurring whistleblower reports about financial irregularities demands a different conversation: these are the preventative and detective controls we will put in place, and here’s the evidence that they worked, such that we can be assured a high degree of integrity in what we’re reporting. Right now, the evidence doesn’t even exist to be challenged. Party A puts the onus on Party B to prove that ballots without postmarks weren’t submitted on time and then say there’s no evidence of a problem. No, the problem in that example is the lack of postmarks to even begin to evaluate the suitability of the ballots. It’s hard to interpret the willful reticence to have this kind of conversation as a nation, especially because the shoe can absolutely be on the other foot some day. When the integrity of the institution is in question, the right response isn’t to tell people to look the other way. What I’m trying to convey is that nobody believes that a talking head on the news has any authority or personal expertise to tell people “everything’s fine” when the anecdotes just keep coming, particularly in places run by people with a conflict of interest in the outcome. You ask what authority would have credibility to be taken on their word that everything’s fine. The right question is how do we demonstrate that the processes have integrity. How do we increase the integrity of the processes such that we’re not relying on me accepting integrity on faith. You used the word “certify”. That’s a good word and we should dig into the strength behind those attestations. Right now they’re based on very weak control structures.
- barumi 6y ago
  > Instead of saying, we see no evidence of widespread fraud - where we have no idea in what context you’re using the word - let’s turn the conversation to making solid attestations about the integrity of the processes, which we certainly don’t hear. If that was the case then why has the Trump campaign failed to present any evidence whatsoever to substantiate it's baseless accusations of electoral fraud? I mean, the Trump campaign complains that the election was stolen from them as a result of this hypothetical electoral fraud campaign that no one sees or has any tangible proof of existing. Heck, the Trump campaign is even accusing elections organized by Republicans of having been compromised. If there is indeed a problem then how come no one is able to see it anywhere, no matter how may times everyone asks? If no one is able to find any problem anywhere, is there really a problem to begin with?