4 ms·

There are reasonable questions about the rules, process and procedures used in the last election. There was a lot that was done over the last year that eroded

by zaroth 6y ago

There are reasonable questions about the rules, process and procedures used in the last election. There was a lot that was done over the last year that eroded trust in this election, the objections on the day of the electoral count being the final perfunctory domino. Trust in a system has to be earned, and the way that we go about setting the rules for voting, counting valid votes, and reporting the count has been frankly a very chaotic process. It’s no doubt millions of people doubt the outcome. But this isn’t really anything new. In 2016 50% of Democrats believed that it was somewhat or highly likely that Russians directly altered vote totals to elect Trump. Harry Reid said there’s “no question” in his mind that Russian hackers covertly altered the 2016 vote count. “I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes. It’s that simple.”

standardUser 6y ago
I hope you are being willfully disingenuous with those arguments. Parsing words in just the right way to make a partial point does not count as compelling evidence for your alternate reality.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Not at all. Here’s a good example, from AG of PA Josh Shapiro; > @RepFredKeller LIE: PA officials violated the law in regards to signature verification on mail-in ballots. FACT: Our Election Code-which a Republican-controlled state legislature revised in 2019-does not provide for rejecting mail-in ballots based on signature verification. https://twitter.com/joshshapiropa/status/1347063329404178432?s=21 https://twitter.com/joshshapiropa/status/1347063329404178432... I don’t see how this is supposed to build trust that the election was run fairly and securely, in fact quite the opposite. My point is not to debate specific failures. My point is it’s the responsibility of the systems and processes in place in the electoral system to instill trust in the populace that there is no fraud in the voting or the counting. Instead, people were lied to about how votes would be cast, lied to about how votes would be counted, and the rules were changed arbitrarily in many places up to the final days and even hours of actual voting. Again, my point is not how much fraud was actually present. But you can have a system people mostly trust even if they don’t like the outcome, or you can do things like not even checking the signature on millions of mail-in ballots.
  - alphabettsy 6y ago
    Signature checking is stupid and pointless. Disenfranchising someone because their signature doesn’t match some record on file is ridiculous. The signature verification itself has many many issues on its own. The problem is stating without evidence that the signatures are absolutely fraudulent. The claims made by Trump and the GOP over the last decade about voter fraud are to blame.

by zaroth 6y ago

standardUser 6y ago

I hope you are being willfully disingenuous with those arguments. Parsing words in just the right way to make a partial point does not count as compelling evidence for your alternate reality.

zaroth 6y ago
Not at all. Here’s a good example, from AG of PA Josh Shapiro; > @RepFredKeller LIE: PA officials violated the law in regards to signature verification on mail-in ballots. FACT: Our Election Code-which a Republican-controlled state legislature revised in 2019-does not provide for rejecting mail-in ballots based on signature verification. https://twitter.com/joshshapiropa/status/1347063329404178432?s=21 https://twitter.com/joshshapiropa/status/1347063329404178432... I don’t see how this is supposed to build trust that the election was run fairly and securely, in fact quite the opposite. My point is not to debate specific failures. My point is it’s the responsibility of the systems and processes in place in the electoral system to instill trust in the populace that there is no fraud in the voting or the counting. Instead, people were lied to about how votes would be cast, lied to about how votes would be counted, and the rules were changed arbitrarily in many places up to the final days and even hours of actual voting. Again, my point is not how much fraud was actually present. But you can have a system people mostly trust even if they don’t like the outcome, or you can do things like not even checking the signature on millions of mail-in ballots.
- alphabettsy 6y ago
  Signature checking is stupid and pointless. Disenfranchising someone because their signature doesn’t match some record on file is ridiculous. The signature verification itself has many many issues on its own. The problem is stating without evidence that the signatures are absolutely fraudulent. The claims made by Trump and the GOP over the last decade about voter fraud are to blame.