7 ms·

I do not believe the election was stolen. But I also don't believe we had perfect election integrity either. In my mind any system involving hundreds of million

by umvi 6y ago

I do not believe the election was stolen. But I also don't believe we had perfect election integrity either. In my mind any system involving hundreds of millions of people is bound to have some bad actors, mistakes, fraud, etc. It's important to acknowledge when and where it happens, and how to improve. But claiming any given election had near perfect integrity raises some alarm bells with me at least.

pgrote 6y ago
Thank you. I feel the same way. I vote in every election. There are problems with many elections, especially ones for US President. Those problems are baked into the system we've established as a nation. States run their own elections. States elect US Presidents and not citizens. I don't think states could coordinate a conspiracy to change citizen votes to steer elections one way or another. Too many moving parts, too many people. It is fair one state has one set of rules that differ from another? Yes. It is the way the USA is built. It frustrates me to no end that a group of people say, "The election had no issues" just as it frustrates me when someone says, "The election was stolen." Those thoughts are always perpetuated by those who lead political parties.
- bas 6y ago
  Every election has had issues. Voter fraud, however, is rare. Voter suppression is common and tactical.
  - Diederich 6y ago
    > tactical tactical AND strategic.
- tylerhou 6y ago
  > It frustrates me to no end that a group of people say, "The election had no issues" just as it frustrates me when someone says, "The election was stolen." I think this is a strawman. Can you find me a source of a prominent* Democrat that said that this election had no issues? Most of the time, people who support the election's outcome mean that there was no fraud significant enough to change the outcome, or that this election had less fraud/was more secure than a previous election. On the other hand, when Trump says the election was stolen [1] (along with some Congressional Republicans), he means that the outcome should have been him winning. *Prominent being: US Senator, US Representative, Secretary of State, state election official, state governor, DNC leadership. [1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469288825958850...
- fl0wenol 6y ago
  I voted you up but I must disagree. I don't think the election had no issues, and few would claim so. Let's start with: Where the hell is my federal election holiday? And it just goes downhill from there.
dghlsakjg 6y ago
If you look for it, just about every state has had some anomalies that were noted by the officials. It's all boring. All of it has been on a scale that wouldn't affect the outcome of elections. For example in Georgia 2 ballots were submitted in the names of dead people. In Colorado they are investigating non-matching signatures on a few hundred ballots. This kind of stuff is routine, and happens in every election. Of course it isn't perfect, but its a decent enough system that has worked well in 100s of countries across centuries
- ehsankia 6y ago
  It's all just like numerology or p-hacking. When you look super close and try hundreds of different tricks, some of them eventually show signs of working, but that doesn't mean you found something relevant. I've seen countless videos of people taking the analysis done by some charlatan on Youtube, then applying the exact same calculation to a bunch of other Republican counties and getting the exact same anomalies.
jmull 6y ago
Are there a lot of people claiming the election was near perfect? I see people saying there isn’t evidence of wide-spread fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the election. There do seem to be a lot of people making the mistake of trying to cast this as black and white, totally fraudulent or totally perfect. But that never made sense. (Edit: typo)
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  Coming out and saying that you think the election stolen gets you labeled a conservative nutter. So wise commenters won't say that, instead they will do what you've noted. Imply that folks are saying the election was perfect, and then say that they think there might have been some "imperfections" going on. That way the listener doesn't automatically correctly categorized their point of view as nuttery, but is drawn into listening longer out of decorum. And the speaker doesn't suffer a loss of reasonableness for "wanting the truth".
  - xpe 6y ago
    Yes, this is part of a known playbook for people who want to seem credible while stoking fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
    - tstrimple 6y ago
      Many people say so.
      - xpe 6y ago
        Your comment is very brief and ambiguous to me. Can you elaborate please? Are you saying you agree or disagree with my statement?
        tstrimple 6y ago
        Sorry, I could have been more clear. It's another Trumpism. He's not saying these crazy things, but he's heard it from many other people. It's another way to promote conspiracy theories with plausible deniability. For example: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/762781826549030912 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/76278182654903091...
throwaway5752 6y ago
This is just your cognitive bias away from an extreme position. Actually election integrity in the US is pretty close to perfect. 10s of cases out of 100s of millions/low billions of votes cast. This has be exhaustively studied, MIT has produced papers. The closest thing to a widespread problem is voter suppression, where states administer elections in regionally uneven ways to suppress one party's turnout. This is predominately against black citizens in the south after Shelby v Holder.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  We don't identify voters and we removed chain of custody on ballots. Instead we put unsecured boxes on street corners to collect ballots and put them in the mail. We eliminated signature validation. The list goes on. I have no idea who got the most legitimate votes, but neither does anyone else. >The closest thing to a widespread problem is voter suppression, where states administer elections in regionally uneven ways to suppress one party's turnout. This is predominately against black citizens in the south after Shelby v Holder. I agree with you 100% but that just means every election is illegitimate.
  - tylerhou 6y ago
    Your post shows how much disinformation has propagated. > We don't identify voters and we removed chain of custody on ballots. Source? Voters are identified by signature (and in some places voter ID). Re: chain of custody, as far as I'm aware, states generally require representatives from both major parties (plus independents) to be present when ballots are moved or opened. Since states generally have the power to conduct their elections as they deem appropriate, finding a national source is impossible, but I invite you to find me an example where such a chain of custody was violated. Mail-in-ballots do not subvert this chain of custody [1]. > Instead we put unsecured boxes on street corners to collect ballots and put them in the mail. Drop boxes are locked with keys and are monitored with video surveillance. Sometimes, people set fire to ballot boxes, but when this happens security is tightened [2] [3]. In any case, the small number of ballots damaged by arson would not change the outcome of an election. > We eliminated signature validation. This is not true. Give us a source. The closest thing to "eliminating signature validation" is giving voters the chance to fix signatures [4]. "Eliminating signature validation" is a false claim that Trump has spread [5]. > I have no idea who got the most legitimate votes, but neither does anyone else. The fact is Biden got the most legitimate votes. End of story. Any other claim is refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence that there was no significant fraud. That's not to say that the vote count is accurate, but all evidence shows that any inaccuracies would not have changed the outcome of the election. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/article/fact-checking-mail-in-voting.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/fact-checking-mail-in-voting... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/elections/in-boston-someone-set-fire-to-a-ballot-drop-box-officials-called-it-a-disgrace-to-democracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/elections/in-boston-so... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/20/us/trump-biden-election#ballot-box-fire-california https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/20/us/trump-biden-elect... [4] https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-2020-pittsburgh-elections-presidential-elections-fc464c287c18823ff57fedc13facf7e5 https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-2020-pittsb... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/trumps-latest-falsehood-democrats-are-trying-end-signature-verification-ballots/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/trumps-la...
trhway 6y ago
> In my mind any system involving hundreds of millions of people in a popular vote elections even a hundred thousand votes would be just a rounding error. In US electoral system just a few counties going wrong way could turn the elections, ie. theoretically "some bad actors, mistakes, fraud, etc." would be enough to do it. Add to that the facts like Dominion Voting Systems (whose machines were used in some of those key states and counties if i remember correctly) being a client of SolarWinds ... and one can have more than enough for a good conspiracy theory. At least i have :)

by umvi 6y ago

pgrote 6y ago

Thank you. I feel the same way. I vote in every election. There are problems with many elections, especially ones for US President. Those problems are baked into the system we've established as a nation. States run their own elections. States elect US Presidents and not citizens. I don't think states could coordinate a conspiracy to change citizen votes to steer elections one way or another. Too many moving parts, too many people. It is fair one state has one set of rules that differ from another? Yes. It is the way the USA is built. It frustrates me to no end that a group of people say, "The election had no issues" just as it frustrates me when someone says, "The election was stolen." Those thoughts are always perpetuated by those who lead political parties.

bas 6y ago
Every election has had issues. Voter fraud, however, is rare. Voter suppression is common and tactical.
- Diederich 6y ago
  > tactical tactical AND strategic.
tylerhou 6y ago
> It frustrates me to no end that a group of people say, "The election had no issues" just as it frustrates me when someone says, "The election was stolen." I think this is a strawman. Can you find me a source of a prominent* Democrat that said that this election had no issues? Most of the time, people who support the election's outcome mean that there was no fraud significant enough to change the outcome, or that this election had less fraud/was more secure than a previous election. On the other hand, when Trump says the election was stolen [1] (along with some Congressional Republicans), he means that the outcome should have been him winning. *Prominent being: US Senator, US Representative, Secretary of State, state election official, state governor, DNC leadership. [1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469288825958850...
fl0wenol 6y ago
I voted you up but I must disagree. I don't think the election had no issues, and few would claim so. Let's start with: Where the hell is my federal election holiday? And it just goes downhill from there.

dghlsakjg 6y ago

If you look for it, just about every state has had some anomalies that were noted by the officials. It's all boring. All of it has been on a scale that wouldn't affect the outcome of elections. For example in Georgia 2 ballots were submitted in the names of dead people. In Colorado they are investigating non-matching signatures on a few hundred ballots. This kind of stuff is routine, and happens in every election. Of course it isn't perfect, but its a decent enough system that has worked well in 100s of countries across centuries

ehsankia 6y ago
It's all just like numerology or p-hacking. When you look super close and try hundreds of different tricks, some of them eventually show signs of working, but that doesn't mean you found something relevant. I've seen countless videos of people taking the analysis done by some charlatan on Youtube, then applying the exact same calculation to a bunch of other Republican counties and getting the exact same anomalies.

jmull 6y ago

Are there a lot of people claiming the election was near perfect? I see people saying there isn’t evidence of wide-spread fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the election. There do seem to be a lot of people making the mistake of trying to cast this as black and white, totally fraudulent or totally perfect. But that never made sense. (Edit: typo)

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
Coming out and saying that you think the election stolen gets you labeled a conservative nutter. So wise commenters won't say that, instead they will do what you've noted. Imply that folks are saying the election was perfect, and then say that they think there might have been some "imperfections" going on. That way the listener doesn't automatically correctly categorized their point of view as nuttery, but is drawn into listening longer out of decorum. And the speaker doesn't suffer a loss of reasonableness for "wanting the truth".
- xpe 6y ago
  Yes, this is part of a known playbook for people who want to seem credible while stoking fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
  - tstrimple 6y ago
    Many people say so.
    - xpe 6y ago
      Your comment is very brief and ambiguous to me. Can you elaborate please? Are you saying you agree or disagree with my statement?
      - tstrimple 6y ago
        Sorry, I could have been more clear. It's another Trumpism. He's not saying these crazy things, but he's heard it from many other people. It's another way to promote conspiracy theories with plausible deniability. For example: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/762781826549030912 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/76278182654903091...

throwaway5752 6y ago

This is just your cognitive bias away from an extreme position. Actually election integrity in the US is pretty close to perfect. 10s of cases out of 100s of millions/low billions of votes cast. This has be exhaustively studied, MIT has produced papers. The closest thing to a widespread problem is voter suppression, where states administer elections in regionally uneven ways to suppress one party's turnout. This is predominately against black citizens in the south after Shelby v Holder.

Consultant32452 6y ago
We don't identify voters and we removed chain of custody on ballots. Instead we put unsecured boxes on street corners to collect ballots and put them in the mail. We eliminated signature validation. The list goes on. I have no idea who got the most legitimate votes, but neither does anyone else. >The closest thing to a widespread problem is voter suppression, where states administer elections in regionally uneven ways to suppress one party's turnout. This is predominately against black citizens in the south after Shelby v Holder. I agree with you 100% but that just means every election is illegitimate.
- tylerhou 6y ago
  Your post shows how much disinformation has propagated. > We don't identify voters and we removed chain of custody on ballots. Source? Voters are identified by signature (and in some places voter ID). Re: chain of custody, as far as I'm aware, states generally require representatives from both major parties (plus independents) to be present when ballots are moved or opened. Since states generally have the power to conduct their elections as they deem appropriate, finding a national source is impossible, but I invite you to find me an example where such a chain of custody was violated. Mail-in-ballots do not subvert this chain of custody [1]. > Instead we put unsecured boxes on street corners to collect ballots and put them in the mail. Drop boxes are locked with keys and are monitored with video surveillance. Sometimes, people set fire to ballot boxes, but when this happens security is tightened [2] [3]. In any case, the small number of ballots damaged by arson would not change the outcome of an election. > We eliminated signature validation. This is not true. Give us a source. The closest thing to "eliminating signature validation" is giving voters the chance to fix signatures [4]. "Eliminating signature validation" is a false claim that Trump has spread [5]. > I have no idea who got the most legitimate votes, but neither does anyone else. The fact is Biden got the most legitimate votes. End of story. Any other claim is refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence that there was no significant fraud. That's not to say that the vote count is accurate, but all evidence shows that any inaccuracies would not have changed the outcome of the election. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/article/fact-checking-mail-in-voting.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/fact-checking-mail-in-voting... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/elections/in-boston-someone-set-fire-to-a-ballot-drop-box-officials-called-it-a-disgrace-to-democracy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/elections/in-boston-so... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/20/us/trump-biden-election#ballot-box-fire-california https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/20/us/trump-biden-elect... [4] https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-2020-pittsburgh-elections-presidential-elections-fc464c287c18823ff57fedc13facf7e5 https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-2020-pittsb... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/trumps-latest-falsehood-democrats-are-trying-end-signature-verification-ballots/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/trumps-la...

trhway 6y ago

> In my mind any system involving hundreds of millions of people in a popular vote elections even a hundred thousand votes would be just a rounding error. In US electoral system just a few counties going wrong way could turn the elections, ie. theoretically "some bad actors, mistakes, fraud, etc." would be enough to do it. Add to that the facts like Dominion Voting Systems (whose machines were used in some of those key states and counties if i remember correctly) being a client of SolarWinds ... and one can have more than enough for a good conspiracy theory. At least i have :)