4 ms·

> 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

> 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
Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process; areas that performed a recount this election fell within the normal margins for a recount. You have a video of ballot counters counting ballots. That's not incriminating in any way. Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election should logically be dissatisfied with every election, so should pick their battles wisely and attempt to fix the system such that their concerns are possible to alleviate. Raising concerns with this election in particular makes it seem as if this election was in any way exceptional, which except for the candidates, it was not. It's equally concerning whether the 2016 election was legitimate. Or 2012. Or 2008. Or... There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. There is no way to prove who voted for whom, due to abuses of this knowledge in the past. There is no proof that can be provided at this point that the election was "legitimate", whatever standard of proof that requires. To provide such proof would require a change to the entire electoral system, and absolutely cannot be done retroactively.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process; The accusation of election fraud requires intent because fraud requires intent. The successful performance of election fraud usually involves not conveying your intent to defraud because then people wouldn't trust your role in the election. > There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. Yes, this is why its suspicious that people staged ballots by removing their envelopes, then hid them under a table and waited until the (R) observers had left. So if its known and understood that no one is able to prove that those ballots had a legitimate chain of custody then how are they debunking the allegation that fraud occurred? It sounds like you're saying that the way the system is set up, its not possible to prove that the election was legitimate. > Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election would be impossible to satisfy. Right after you point out that it was designed in a way that would be impossible to verify, you say this.
MauranKilom 6y ago
I've followed most of these sub-threads here and would like to thank you for all the civil discussion. I found it very informative, and I commend your patience. While I remain convinced that election fraud has not been a meaningful influence on the outcome of this election, I fundamentally agree with you that perception of this issue is just as important, and that the applebaum link is reasonably interpreted as fraud occurring. To that extent, I think that your comments are downvoted unfairly. Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC. You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect? Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to? Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory. It has absolutely no basis in fact. Yet this is exactly what Trump is preaching to whomever is willing to listen. The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.

freeone3000 6y ago

Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process; areas that performed a recount this election fell within the normal margins for a recount. You have a video of ballot counters counting ballots. That's not incriminating in any way. Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election should logically be dissatisfied with every election, so should pick their battles wisely and attempt to fix the system such that their concerns are possible to alleviate. Raising concerns with this election in particular makes it seem as if this election was in any way exceptional, which except for the candidates, it was not. It's equally concerning whether the 2016 election was legitimate. Or 2012. Or 2008. Or... There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. There is no way to prove who voted for whom, due to abuses of this knowledge in the past. There is no proof that can be provided at this point that the election was "legitimate", whatever standard of proof that requires. To provide such proof would require a change to the entire electoral system, and absolutely cannot be done retroactively.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process; The accusation of election fraud requires intent because fraud requires intent. The successful performance of election fraud usually involves not conveying your intent to defraud because then people wouldn't trust your role in the election. > There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. Yes, this is why its suspicious that people staged ballots by removing their envelopes, then hid them under a table and waited until the (R) observers had left. So if its known and understood that no one is able to prove that those ballots had a legitimate chain of custody then how are they debunking the allegation that fraud occurred? It sounds like you're saying that the way the system is set up, its not possible to prove that the election was legitimate. > Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election would be impossible to satisfy. Right after you point out that it was designed in a way that would be impossible to verify, you say this.

MauranKilom 6y ago

I've followed most of these sub-threads here and would like to thank you for all the civil discussion. I found it very informative, and I commend your patience. While I remain convinced that election fraud has not been a meaningful influence on the outcome of this election, I fundamentally agree with you that perception of this issue is just as important, and that the applebaum link is reasonably interpreted as fraud occurring. To that extent, I think that your comments are downvoted unfairly. Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC. You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect? Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to? Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory. It has absolutely no basis in fact. Yet this is exactly what Trump is preaching to whomever is willing to listen. The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.