16 ms·

There is fraud every election. It doesn't typically change any of the results, though, and can (and should) be ignored. If Trump voters are really upset about

There is fraud every election. It doesn't typically change any of the results, though, and can (and should) be ignored. If Trump voters are really upset about it, states can audit the vote and show that fraud was a very small percentage, and didn't change any outcomes. (Both sides commit fraud, so they tend to cancel each other out.)

submeta 6y ago
That‘s not the point (that fraud may happen in any election). Trump asserts that there was systematic fraud in large numbers, in a way that the outcome of the election was changed. And many of his 70mm voters may subscribe to his point of view. This will increase the hostility between the two parties in the US. When I see Trump talk, I wonder if he really believes what he says or if he knowingly and willfully lies. What this man has done in four years has put a great damage to the democratic culture in the US, and he badly harmed the reputation of the US around the world, especially when it comes to old allies in Europe. Edit: If Trump was not a narcisstic egomanianc („I WON THIS ELECTION BY A LOT“?!? Wtf?!), he would have stepped up in dignity, conceded his loss, congratulated Biden and wished him well. The US is confronted with many challenges in the midst of a huge pandemic, the nation is divided, and all he has to say is he won by a lot (in big letters)?!? This is it?
- erichocean 6y ago
  > This will increase the hostility between the two parties in the US. The solution to this problem is California: Make the US a one-party state. That'll happen due to demographics as early as 2024, and almost certainly by 2028. It's critical that Biden gives a path to citizenship for all undocumented workers. Also: No one cares what Trump voters think or want, they can go pound sand.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    Isnt there pretty much constantly front page posts on here complaining about California's inept government? Hardly the Golden standard we should be shooting for
    - erichocean 6y ago
      California is easily the most successful state in the country with a 2.79 TRILLION GDP. That's more that France, and 6th worldwide. We should all be so lucky to "fail" that badly...
      - kortilla 6y ago
        Per capita GDP puts California at 8th place in the US - behind other liberal bastions like Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
        erichocean 6y ago
        Wealthy state with open borders has influx of poor immigrants working hard for a better future: News, at 11.
        sk5t 6y ago
        Ah yes, comparisons with GDPs based on resource extraction.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    > Make the US a one-party state. That'll happen due to demographics as early as 2024 That sounds like you believe parties don't always adjust to the electorate. No major party can have a platform that doesn't allow them to get a majority of the vote. So if demographics means the country becomes liberal, then so do both parties. That doesn't mean the conservative party isn't the more conservative one. It might mean that they want single payer healthcare or, for example.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      Well, I can only tell you what happens in California (which has been for decades the path the US as a whole takes): Republicans will become a minority party with no power at all. Democrats will get mad that there are Republicans on the ballot, so the rules will be changed to allow two Democrats on the ballot, a progressive one and a "liberal"/moderate one (and no Republican). This allows progressive policies to continue, and the legislature ends up being a supermajority mix of progressive Democrats and liberal Democrats, with some useless Republicans from a few low-population counties. There's absolutely no reason the US won't follow this same pattern: it works. (You can also see the Democratic Party's progressive/liberal split today with the DSA. That's just the CA dynamic going national.)
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > There's absolutely no reason the US won't follow this same pattern: it works. Just not in California. But it would be different federally, right?
      - alkonaut 6y ago
        This sounds like a divisive unsubstantiated rant. Do you have anything to backup the claim that Californa D's want to have no republicans on the ticket? If not, please refrain from even mentioning it. Not even as a rant. Thanks. Also why would that happen? There are tons of republicans in California. Obviously, California republicans running for state offices should have a platform that might resemble a D platform. Because as I said - you adjust to the elctorate. What parties stand for isn't written in stone. Parties that think it is will become irrelevant. Annd no, not because they are banned from running. If they bothered to break democracy, why hold elections at all? There is no legitimacy coming from a one party election. Multi party and ranked choice I hope will bring some sanity to the system.
  - dhimes 6y ago
    The irony here is that of the "undocumented" immigrants that became "documented" I've talked to they are almost all conservative. The famous ones of course include Arnold Schwartzenegger. But before DJT, even the other, not famous, ones painting houses and mowing lawns are. When they say why, it becomes understandable. "I came here with $7.23 in my pocket and didn't even speak the language. I'm making a living. Get off welfare and get a job." The Dems are painted as the party of handouts and the handouts torque the immigrants off. The immigrants are working extremely hard,sending money home to their families and so on.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      And that's why California is the most conservative state in the nation! Oh, wait…
      - pc86 6y ago
        Why are you being so needlessly hostile? A lot of hispanics voted for Trump in this election.
        _prototype_ 6y ago
        People like erichocean is the reason why Trump was elected. People like him are insane
        Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
        Sure. They were also victims of highly targeted propaganda. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/florida-latinos-disinformation-413923 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/florida-latinos-dis...
        alessivs 6y ago
        It would be ludicrous to think that, all other things being equal, they, or any other group of people, would switch their pick due to being victims of hyperbolic propaganda such as the one described. Pretty sure Hispanics can think for themselves, with factual references at hand. I believe the linked article paints them in an unfairly gullible light, while it does nothing to discredit what it claims as being conspiracy theories. They point to current developments happening in their home countries, only becoming discreditable 'theories' because of the absurdity in which they are framed (in the article). To name an example, The Open Foundation (associated with philanthropist Soros) has been funding parties and congresspeople all over S.A. who are looking to advance certain social causes. This is part of funding declarations by the recipients, and since it's not unlawful, and not a secret, it's not a conspiracy; and since it's not fiction, it's not a theory (in the sense of supposition). One of such causes is the decriminalization of abortion, an issue that's been traditionally (fiercely) opposed. Considering Trump's aim to defund Planned Parenthood, and the appointment of a fitting (Catholic) judge to the Supreme Court, couldn't they not lean towards him in this aspect on the grounds of a proven track record, rather than just propaganda?
  - 2020election 6y ago
    There was an unprecedented shift in Latino vote towards Trump this election. Those workers that risk their lives to enter the US illegally have more in common with the working-class majority that voted Trump then the costal elites working to usher in socialism. Identify politics (Latinx) were a massive failing in the Latino demographic.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Lol, as if the parties don’t adapt to pull in more electorate.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      I live in California. The state Republican Party has not "moderated" at all, despite being a permanent minority with no power at all. It ain't happening.
      - alkonaut 6y ago
        I think that says everything about whose fault the insignificance of california R's is!
        erichocean 6y ago
        All voting in multi-cultural states is ultimately demographic. Republicans represent "Whites" (e.g. 92% of Trump voters in the 2016 election were White). As long as there are conservative Whites living in California in sufficient numbers, there will be a Republican Party to represent their interests—that's how a "representative democracy" is supposed to work. Republicans lose when there aren't enough Whites with conservative beliefs to elect them, and win when there are enough. Republicans today remind me of the Confederacy in a lot of ways, and I expect them to fade away over time in a similar manner. The US can no longer support an effectively White-only national party.
        macintux 6y ago
        The strong Latino vote for Trump in Florida may change the demographics story we’ve believed in the past.
        alkonaut 6y ago
        > All voting in multi-cultural states is ultimately demographic I think this is a gross oversimplification (and demonstrably false if you look at some other countries), but OK, for the sake of argument let's say that one party represents one core demographic. Then one of these is true: 1) their core demographic is a majority or 2) they can attract enough share from other demographics without alienating their core demographic. or 3) they are, and should be a minority party. I think a big part of the problem is that the US is a big and diverse place politically, so having parties with a huge national identity like the donkey and elephant is always problematic at the edges. R's simply have to attract more minority voters, more women voters, more young voters etc. > I expect them to fade away over time in a similar manner. The US can no longer support an effectively White-only national party. Well they will adapt or fade away. That of course goes for any political party, anywhere. A party can't please everyone. But it also can't perfectly please only a tiny core base. They need to broaden their support. But are they capable of that? It's like they think that "Attract voters from demographic X" means "Tell people in demographic X how good Republican policy is". What it should mean is actually change policy to attract that demographic. Now: this state discussion misses a big point with the US political climate and it's that the divide isn't really between states, nor mostly between demographics like age or ethnicity, but between city and rural. I honestly don't quite understand why that divide is so pronounced.
- jstarfish 6y ago
  > I wonder if he really believes what he says or if he knowingly and willfully lies. He will literally say anything it takes, truthful or not, to win the current argument. Anybody familiar with the church has encountered this sort of "playing both sides of the fence" before. In both cases, the Holy Man has all the answers, and it sounds like they know what they are talking about-- even if their answers are contradictory. Questioning that leads to circular logic you can't unravel, and in the end you give up and accept that they know better than you. Institutionalized gaslighting, in both cases.
alkonaut 6y ago
> There is fraud every election Of course. Which is why it's really only worth mentioning in the context of fraud actually changing anything significant. Not sure why either side has anything to do with fraud in this election (I got that undertone from the post). As always extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
throwaway201103 6y ago
Maybe they should. Something needs to restore faith in the process. If we lose that, we lose everything. And a not-small minority believe that the election was fradulent. There's always a fringe that feels that way, but it seems to be growing.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > Something needs to restore faith in the process. If we lose that, we lose everything. If the process results in electing white supremacist like Trump, shouldn't that cause people to "lose faith in the process?" Biden's historic turnout and election is proof the US doesn't want fascism. If that doesn't restore faith in the process, I don't know what would...
  - nostromo 6y ago
    This election is about as far from a clear mandate as you can get, with Democrats (barely) winning a presidency but not the senate and losing ground in the house.
- dhimes 6y ago
  They're just believing what their information-circle is saying. They're not looking at things themselves. For instance, in the discussions I've seen of the Right talking about fraud, they've not mentioned the shenanigans of the USPS not delivering mail that arrived on time (WaPo yesterday had a story IIRC). They need to believe. So they follow those that help them do so.
  - spinningD20 6y ago
    The reverse of that is likely just as true; people that are happy Biden won, have no concern if there was fraud, just like those that wanted Trump to win would not question him winning.
    - nostromo 6y ago
      This is probably the new normal. Republicans have learned a thing or two of after four years of claims about Russia stealing the election. Both sides will work overtime now to delegitimize winners whenever possible.
pc86 6y ago
It shouldn't be ignored, it should be prosecuted when found. We just shouldn't waste tens of thousands of dollars searching for the handful of people in the country who are going to bother doing it. But if we find it, they should go to prison.
- erichocean 6y ago
  Contrarian take: Republicans should be allowed to waste as much of their own money as possible searching for irrelevant "fraud." Might be a useful lesson.
  - pc86 6y ago
    How is "people can spend money on whatever they want" a contrarian take?

submeta 6y ago

That‘s not the point (that fraud may happen in any election). Trump asserts that there was systematic fraud in large numbers, in a way that the outcome of the election was changed. And many of his 70mm voters may subscribe to his point of view. This will increase the hostility between the two parties in the US. When I see Trump talk, I wonder if he really believes what he says or if he knowingly and willfully lies. What this man has done in four years has put a great damage to the democratic culture in the US, and he badly harmed the reputation of the US around the world, especially when it comes to old allies in Europe. Edit: If Trump was not a narcisstic egomanianc („I WON THIS ELECTION BY A LOT“?!? Wtf?!), he would have stepped up in dignity, conceded his loss, congratulated Biden and wished him well. The US is confronted with many challenges in the midst of a huge pandemic, the nation is divided, and all he has to say is he won by a lot (in big letters)?!? This is it?

erichocean 6y ago
> This will increase the hostility between the two parties in the US. The solution to this problem is California: Make the US a one-party state. That'll happen due to demographics as early as 2024, and almost certainly by 2028. It's critical that Biden gives a path to citizenship for all undocumented workers. Also: No one cares what Trump voters think or want, they can go pound sand.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  Isnt there pretty much constantly front page posts on here complaining about California's inept government? Hardly the Golden standard we should be shooting for
  - erichocean 6y ago
    California is easily the most successful state in the country with a 2.79 TRILLION GDP. That's more that France, and 6th worldwide. We should all be so lucky to "fail" that badly...
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Per capita GDP puts California at 8th place in the US - behind other liberal bastions like Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
      - erichocean 6y ago
        Wealthy state with open borders has influx of poor immigrants working hard for a better future: News, at 11.
      - sk5t 6y ago
        Ah yes, comparisons with GDPs based on resource extraction.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  > Make the US a one-party state. That'll happen due to demographics as early as 2024 That sounds like you believe parties don't always adjust to the electorate. No major party can have a platform that doesn't allow them to get a majority of the vote. So if demographics means the country becomes liberal, then so do both parties. That doesn't mean the conservative party isn't the more conservative one. It might mean that they want single payer healthcare or, for example.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Well, I can only tell you what happens in California (which has been for decades the path the US as a whole takes): Republicans will become a minority party with no power at all. Democrats will get mad that there are Republicans on the ballot, so the rules will be changed to allow two Democrats on the ballot, a progressive one and a "liberal"/moderate one (and no Republican). This allows progressive policies to continue, and the legislature ends up being a supermajority mix of progressive Democrats and liberal Democrats, with some useless Republicans from a few low-population counties. There's absolutely no reason the US won't follow this same pattern: it works. (You can also see the Democratic Party's progressive/liberal split today with the DSA. That's just the CA dynamic going national.)
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > There's absolutely no reason the US won't follow this same pattern: it works. Just not in California. But it would be different federally, right?
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      This sounds like a divisive unsubstantiated rant. Do you have anything to backup the claim that Californa D's want to have no republicans on the ticket? If not, please refrain from even mentioning it. Not even as a rant. Thanks. Also why would that happen? There are tons of republicans in California. Obviously, California republicans running for state offices should have a platform that might resemble a D platform. Because as I said - you adjust to the elctorate. What parties stand for isn't written in stone. Parties that think it is will become irrelevant. Annd no, not because they are banned from running. If they bothered to break democracy, why hold elections at all? There is no legitimacy coming from a one party election. Multi party and ranked choice I hope will bring some sanity to the system.
- dhimes 6y ago
  The irony here is that of the "undocumented" immigrants that became "documented" I've talked to they are almost all conservative. The famous ones of course include Arnold Schwartzenegger. But before DJT, even the other, not famous, ones painting houses and mowing lawns are. When they say why, it becomes understandable. "I came here with $7.23 in my pocket and didn't even speak the language. I'm making a living. Get off welfare and get a job." The Dems are painted as the party of handouts and the handouts torque the immigrants off. The immigrants are working extremely hard,sending money home to their families and so on.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    And that's why California is the most conservative state in the nation! Oh, wait…
    - pc86 6y ago
      Why are you being so needlessly hostile? A lot of hispanics voted for Trump in this election.
      - _prototype_ 6y ago
        People like erichocean is the reason why Trump was elected. People like him are insane
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
        Sure. They were also victims of highly targeted propaganda. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/florida-latinos-disinformation-413923 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/florida-latinos-dis...
        alessivs 6y ago
        It would be ludicrous to think that, all other things being equal, they, or any other group of people, would switch their pick due to being victims of hyperbolic propaganda such as the one described. Pretty sure Hispanics can think for themselves, with factual references at hand. I believe the linked article paints them in an unfairly gullible light, while it does nothing to discredit what it claims as being conspiracy theories. They point to current developments happening in their home countries, only becoming discreditable 'theories' because of the absurdity in which they are framed (in the article). To name an example, The Open Foundation (associated with philanthropist Soros) has been funding parties and congresspeople all over S.A. who are looking to advance certain social causes. This is part of funding declarations by the recipients, and since it's not unlawful, and not a secret, it's not a conspiracy; and since it's not fiction, it's not a theory (in the sense of supposition). One of such causes is the decriminalization of abortion, an issue that's been traditionally (fiercely) opposed. Considering Trump's aim to defund Planned Parenthood, and the appointment of a fitting (Catholic) judge to the Supreme Court, couldn't they not lean towards him in this aspect on the grounds of a proven track record, rather than just propaganda?
- 2020election 6y ago
  There was an unprecedented shift in Latino vote towards Trump this election. Those workers that risk their lives to enter the US illegally have more in common with the working-class majority that voted Trump then the costal elites working to usher in socialism. Identify politics (Latinx) were a massive failing in the Latino demographic.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Lol, as if the parties don’t adapt to pull in more electorate.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    I live in California. The state Republican Party has not "moderated" at all, despite being a permanent minority with no power at all. It ain't happening.
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      I think that says everything about whose fault the insignificance of california R's is!
      - erichocean 6y ago
        All voting in multi-cultural states is ultimately demographic. Republicans represent "Whites" (e.g. 92% of Trump voters in the 2016 election were White). As long as there are conservative Whites living in California in sufficient numbers, there will be a Republican Party to represent their interests—that's how a "representative democracy" is supposed to work. Republicans lose when there aren't enough Whites with conservative beliefs to elect them, and win when there are enough. Republicans today remind me of the Confederacy in a lot of ways, and I expect them to fade away over time in a similar manner. The US can no longer support an effectively White-only national party.
        macintux 6y ago
        The strong Latino vote for Trump in Florida may change the demographics story we’ve believed in the past.
        alkonaut 6y ago
        > All voting in multi-cultural states is ultimately demographic I think this is a gross oversimplification (and demonstrably false if you look at some other countries), but OK, for the sake of argument let's say that one party represents one core demographic. Then one of these is true: 1) their core demographic is a majority or 2) they can attract enough share from other demographics without alienating their core demographic. or 3) they are, and should be a minority party. I think a big part of the problem is that the US is a big and diverse place politically, so having parties with a huge national identity like the donkey and elephant is always problematic at the edges. R's simply have to attract more minority voters, more women voters, more young voters etc. > I expect them to fade away over time in a similar manner. The US can no longer support an effectively White-only national party. Well they will adapt or fade away. That of course goes for any political party, anywhere. A party can't please everyone. But it also can't perfectly please only a tiny core base. They need to broaden their support. But are they capable of that? It's like they think that "Attract voters from demographic X" means "Tell people in demographic X how good Republican policy is". What it should mean is actually change policy to attract that demographic. Now: this state discussion misses a big point with the US political climate and it's that the divide isn't really between states, nor mostly between demographics like age or ethnicity, but between city and rural. I honestly don't quite understand why that divide is so pronounced.
jstarfish 6y ago
> I wonder if he really believes what he says or if he knowingly and willfully lies. He will literally say anything it takes, truthful or not, to win the current argument. Anybody familiar with the church has encountered this sort of "playing both sides of the fence" before. In both cases, the Holy Man has all the answers, and it sounds like they know what they are talking about-- even if their answers are contradictory. Questioning that leads to circular logic you can't unravel, and in the end you give up and accept that they know better than you. Institutionalized gaslighting, in both cases.

alkonaut 6y ago

> There is fraud every election Of course. Which is why it's really only worth mentioning in the context of fraud actually changing anything significant. Not sure why either side has anything to do with fraud in this election (I got that undertone from the post). As always extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

throwaway201103 6y ago

Maybe they should. Something needs to restore faith in the process. If we lose that, we lose everything. And a not-small minority believe that the election was fradulent. There's always a fringe that feels that way, but it seems to be growing.

erichocean 6y ago
> Something needs to restore faith in the process. If we lose that, we lose everything. If the process results in electing white supremacist like Trump, shouldn't that cause people to "lose faith in the process?" Biden's historic turnout and election is proof the US doesn't want fascism. If that doesn't restore faith in the process, I don't know what would...
- nostromo 6y ago
  This election is about as far from a clear mandate as you can get, with Democrats (barely) winning a presidency but not the senate and losing ground in the house.
dhimes 6y ago
They're just believing what their information-circle is saying. They're not looking at things themselves. For instance, in the discussions I've seen of the Right talking about fraud, they've not mentioned the shenanigans of the USPS not delivering mail that arrived on time (WaPo yesterday had a story IIRC). They need to believe. So they follow those that help them do so.
- spinningD20 6y ago
  The reverse of that is likely just as true; people that are happy Biden won, have no concern if there was fraud, just like those that wanted Trump to win would not question him winning.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    This is probably the new normal. Republicans have learned a thing or two of after four years of claims about Russia stealing the election. Both sides will work overtime now to delegitimize winners whenever possible.

pc86 6y ago

It shouldn't be ignored, it should be prosecuted when found. We just shouldn't waste tens of thousands of dollars searching for the handful of people in the country who are going to bother doing it. But if we find it, they should go to prison.

erichocean 6y ago
Contrarian take: Republicans should be allowed to waste as much of their own money as possible searching for irrelevant "fraud." Might be a useful lesson.
- pc86 6y ago
  How is "people can spend money on whatever they want" a contrarian take?