3 ms·

Most people, me included, would require further evidence of fraud than ballot counters counting ballots. That article has a lot of deep-level evidence of verify

Most people, me included, would require further evidence of fraud than ballot counters counting ballots. That article has a lot of deep-level evidence of verifying the ballot counters are, in fact ballot counters, but mere allegations that they were doing anything unusual.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Most people, me included, would require further evidence of fraud than ballot counters counting ballots. Perhaps you're right and this is a sign that democracy is fundamentally broken. If people aren't able to understand that many forms of election compromise (e.g. ballot stuffing) are indistinguishable from a normal election without properly respected controls and audits. > but mere allegations that they were doing anything unusual. There are allegations coupled with evidence to support them, which is what is necessary to make an accusation that can be investigated.
- 8note 6y ago
  As with 2016, the time to investigate them is after the election under the next legislature. Thus why trump got to keep his presidency in 2016
- freeone3000 6y ago
  >Perhaps you're right and this is a sign that democracy is fundamentally broken. If people aren't able to understand that many forms of election compromise (e.g. ballot stuffing) are indistinguishable from a normal election without properly respected controls and audits. Maybe faith in the process should be shaken, but a volatile transition period isn't the time. I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome. Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism. If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed: because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy), an investigation would be in order. But it appears that fifty-seven cases have been filed, finding 108 votes whose signatures were improperly validated. So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Maybe faith in the process should be shaken, but a volatile transition period isn't the time. I doubt that its correct to allow someone to take office under the cloud of illegitimacy because of our fears of "volatility." The best thing for stability is clearly to what is necessary to ensure that the elections are both secure and known to be secure. > I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome. The problem is that people with an interest in subverting the process see your faith as an asset. You have faith in elections, good. We need to demonstrate election security to people who do not share your faith. > Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism. I think that making sure anyone in power is actually legitimate is probably more important than that. > If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed Many were dismissed for procedural grounds or lack of standing; additionally proving fraud requires proving intent, which is not easy. > because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy Thats another problem, one shouldn't need to prove the state of mind of a hostile party in order to demonstrate that an election was corrupted. > an investigation would be in order. There are open investigations. Despite this, some people insist that we coronate their preferred candidate without seeing what law enforcement is able to discover. > So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless. I'm not sure what you're asking. There's a video of poll workers counting ballots that had been hidden under a table until all the R observers had left. No one has presented a chain of custody for those ballots. The people who may have stuffed the ballot box with questionable ballots say they didn't. There's an open investigation, so they won't release any evidence that would show that these ballots are legitimate (assuming they would even be able to prove that); but that doesn't stop the investigator from making a sworn statement that nothing happened; naturally there was no supporting evidence. > without any actual weight behind them that they did happen I'm saying it happened and its on video. I don't think the excuse "ballot stuffing is how we normally win elections" is going to de-escalate the situation.
    - freeone3000 6y ago

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Most people, me included, would require further evidence of fraud than ballot counters counting ballots. Perhaps you're right and this is a sign that democracy is fundamentally broken. If people aren't able to understand that many forms of election compromise (e.g. ballot stuffing) are indistinguishable from a normal election without properly respected controls and audits. > but mere allegations that they were doing anything unusual. There are allegations coupled with evidence to support them, which is what is necessary to make an accusation that can be investigated.

8note 6y ago
As with 2016, the time to investigate them is after the election under the next legislature. Thus why trump got to keep his presidency in 2016
freeone3000 6y ago
>Perhaps you're right and this is a sign that democracy is fundamentally broken. If people aren't able to understand that many forms of election compromise (e.g. ballot stuffing) are indistinguishable from a normal election without properly respected controls and audits. Maybe faith in the process should be shaken, but a volatile transition period isn't the time. I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome. Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism. If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed: because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy), an investigation would be in order. But it appears that fifty-seven cases have been filed, finding 108 votes whose signatures were improperly validated. So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Maybe faith in the process should be shaken, but a volatile transition period isn't the time. I doubt that its correct to allow someone to take office under the cloud of illegitimacy because of our fears of "volatility." The best thing for stability is clearly to what is necessary to ensure that the elections are both secure and known to be secure. > I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome. The problem is that people with an interest in subverting the process see your faith as an asset. You have faith in elections, good. We need to demonstrate election security to people who do not share your faith. > Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism. I think that making sure anyone in power is actually legitimate is probably more important than that. > If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed Many were dismissed for procedural grounds or lack of standing; additionally proving fraud requires proving intent, which is not easy. > because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy Thats another problem, one shouldn't need to prove the state of mind of a hostile party in order to demonstrate that an election was corrupted. > an investigation would be in order. There are open investigations. Despite this, some people insist that we coronate their preferred candidate without seeing what law enforcement is able to discover. > So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless. I'm not sure what you're asking. There's a video of poll workers counting ballots that had been hidden under a table until all the R observers had left. No one has presented a chain of custody for those ballots. The people who may have stuffed the ballot box with questionable ballots say they didn't. There's an open investigation, so they won't release any evidence that would show that these ballots are legitimate (assuming they would even be able to prove that); but that doesn't stop the investigator from making a sworn statement that nothing happened; naturally there was no supporting evidence. > without any actual weight behind them that they did happen I'm saying it happened and its on video. I don't think the excuse "ballot stuffing is how we normally win elections" is going to de-escalate the situation.
  - freeone3000 6y ago