4 ms·

Nonsense. Go work a polling place or for the Secretary of State for any State and come back here if you still believe that.

by sjg007 6y ago

aksss 6y ago
Well, I have, and it's not nonsense IME. Our state currently has a candidate under felony investigation for election fraud. We have multiple counties whose decisions are made by razor-thin margins. I mean, to repeat someone else (I don't even remember who) politics is one of the few truly zero-sum games out there, with much to lose. To think that humans (particularly politicians) are above pushing the envelope to the point of breakage in such circumstances strains credibility. Your easy dismissal may strike some as being a bit naïve. If you're assuming all the bad ones get caught, I have a drug war to sell you.
- kmbfjr 6y ago
  You are using one local example to bolster claims of fraud across at least four states, if not the entire nation. Trump lost by what, 8 million votes? Does dirty shit happen? Absolutely. Was it in this election? Yep. Was it enough to sway the outcome? No freaking way.
  - throwaway33292 6y ago
    I posted in a sibling thread but there is evidence that it was enough to sway the election. Check out the Navarro Report, for instance, which provides several dimensions of evidence for this claim. The cheating only really needs to occur in a handful of key urban counties to sway a national election, so it doesn’t actually need to be wide spread.
  - aksss 6y ago
    Context is important - I was responding to someone asking for local experience(“go work at a polling place”). But examples seem all too easy to find. A better response is to consider what concessions in the control structure can be made to restore confidence. You may have faith that everything is okay, but that does little to satisfy those with experience of fraud or hearing stories of fraud. One can see a local example and easily (and not irrationally) imagine that the systems work similarly in the neighboring city, county, or state. Whether your intention or not, it’s easy for your attitude to come across as accepting of deficiency - and an endorsement that may run out when the tables turn (and in American politics, they always do). The unending cycle of dismissal by each side to the other’s sincerely held concerns is getting us nowhere but a bad place.
    - sjg007 6y ago
      Maybe take a course in statistical analysis then.
      - aksss 6y ago
        I think you are not seeing the problem set for what it is. Your attitude seems to be: “there is no issue with the integrity of the number summmary.” Let’s say the problem at this point has nothing to do with who won - the problem at this point is that a great many of your countrymen are convinced they cannot trust the system. Your hope is they get over it. I can only tell you that from observing politics for a long time that the concerns over election integrity are getting worse in this country with each iteration, not better. In the face of this we are relaxing the control structure, not strengthening it. The result of continuing down this path should be easy to perceive.
        dogwhistle111 6y ago
        What you describe is indeed the problem, but SHOULD it rightfully be the problem? Or should we really be concerned about the truth of who won, and leave it at that? The mistrust was fueled entirely by Trump. Prior to Nov 3, more Republicans than Democrats expressed confidence in the integrity of the system. So if you dont dispute the election result, then the problem would seem to lie entirely with Trump lies, and all who choose to believe them over evidence. You know Mccarthyism was a thing? Was it because there were systematic issues at the time making our Congress susceptible to a Communist majority, or was it because of a demogogue, lies lies lies, and willfully ignorant believers?
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  It's important that claims are investigated, but claims have been investigated, courts have made rulings, all the way to the Supreme Court. The system will never be perfect but nobody is. Holding it to a 100% standard and saying it isn't a good system if it fails in a few points is not acting in good faith. I have yet to see any real evidence of election fraud. The Trump lawyers have been shutdown by bipartisan courts across the country. Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, lifelong republicans, agreed. It's time to move on.
  - aksss 6y ago
    I agree that the process has been engaged and the verdict delivered. However the concerns about election integrity greatly predate this election, and in my lifetime the controls have been getting weaker not stronger. I don’t think the broader issue is going away anytime soon.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Where is the evidence behind your concerns?
      - aksss 6y ago
        About the controls getting weaker? Review the evolution of controls over time. This year alone my own state eliminated the requirement for absentee ballot witnesses, extended the dates after Election Day for which ballots may be received, loosened the postmark requirements for such ballots. Is this a case where you have evaluated the suitability and effectiveness of the control structure for election integrity and believe that the tendency of loosening preventative and detective controls is immaterial or are you not familiar with the changes? For these are two different conversations: a) I believe the lack of controls to ensure integrity of the process is immaterial to the outcome; b) I believe controls are necessary but don’t see them loosening. For conversation a, we would disagree in principle - regardless of whether we’re talking about the integrity of the corporate books, the management of systems access, or the integrity of the voting process, to the degree the control structure weakens it is introducing increasing amounts of risk not only in the reliability of the reporting but into the faith held by the stakeholders. Now you ask, how much risk is appropriate and sustainable, to which I (quick on the repartee) would say storming the federal capital is a benchmark of failure, a growing (not ebbing) concern over election integrity over decades is a bad trend getting worse not better. Even via the most cynical outlook about one side imagining problems that aren’t there, what happens in sports when one team believes fouls against them aren’t being called? Or in a company when rumors are commonplace that the books are being cooked? It doesn’t make things better, is my point - things get worse. And that’s where turning a blind eye to the very real concerns of others only continues the destabilization.

Nonsense. Go work a polling place or for the Secretary of State for any State and come back here if you still believe that.

by sjg007 6y ago

Nonsense. Go work a polling place or for the Secretary of State for any State and come back here if you still believe that.

aksss 6y ago

Well, I have, and it's not nonsense IME. Our state currently has a candidate under felony investigation for election fraud. We have multiple counties whose decisions are made by razor-thin margins. I mean, to repeat someone else (I don't even remember who) politics is one of the few truly zero-sum games out there, with much to lose. To think that humans (particularly politicians) are above pushing the envelope to the point of breakage in such circumstances strains credibility. Your easy dismissal may strike some as being a bit naïve. If you're assuming all the bad ones get caught, I have a drug war to sell you.

kmbfjr 6y ago
You are using one local example to bolster claims of fraud across at least four states, if not the entire nation. Trump lost by what, 8 million votes? Does dirty shit happen? Absolutely. Was it in this election? Yep. Was it enough to sway the outcome? No freaking way.
- throwaway33292 6y ago
  I posted in a sibling thread but there is evidence that it was enough to sway the election. Check out the Navarro Report, for instance, which provides several dimensions of evidence for this claim. The cheating only really needs to occur in a handful of key urban counties to sway a national election, so it doesn’t actually need to be wide spread.
- aksss 6y ago
  Context is important - I was responding to someone asking for local experience(“go work at a polling place”). But examples seem all too easy to find. A better response is to consider what concessions in the control structure can be made to restore confidence. You may have faith that everything is okay, but that does little to satisfy those with experience of fraud or hearing stories of fraud. One can see a local example and easily (and not irrationally) imagine that the systems work similarly in the neighboring city, county, or state. Whether your intention or not, it’s easy for your attitude to come across as accepting of deficiency - and an endorsement that may run out when the tables turn (and in American politics, they always do). The unending cycle of dismissal by each side to the other’s sincerely held concerns is getting us nowhere but a bad place.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Maybe take a course in statistical analysis then.
    - aksss 6y ago
      I think you are not seeing the problem set for what it is. Your attitude seems to be: “there is no issue with the integrity of the number summmary.” Let’s say the problem at this point has nothing to do with who won - the problem at this point is that a great many of your countrymen are convinced they cannot trust the system. Your hope is they get over it. I can only tell you that from observing politics for a long time that the concerns over election integrity are getting worse in this country with each iteration, not better. In the face of this we are relaxing the control structure, not strengthening it. The result of continuing down this path should be easy to perceive.
      - dogwhistle111 6y ago
        What you describe is indeed the problem, but SHOULD it rightfully be the problem? Or should we really be concerned about the truth of who won, and leave it at that? The mistrust was fueled entirely by Trump. Prior to Nov 3, more Republicans than Democrats expressed confidence in the integrity of the system. So if you dont dispute the election result, then the problem would seem to lie entirely with Trump lies, and all who choose to believe them over evidence. You know Mccarthyism was a thing? Was it because there were systematic issues at the time making our Congress susceptible to a Communist majority, or was it because of a demogogue, lies lies lies, and willfully ignorant believers?
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
It's important that claims are investigated, but claims have been investigated, courts have made rulings, all the way to the Supreme Court. The system will never be perfect but nobody is. Holding it to a 100% standard and saying it isn't a good system if it fails in a few points is not acting in good faith. I have yet to see any real evidence of election fraud. The Trump lawyers have been shutdown by bipartisan courts across the country. Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, lifelong republicans, agreed. It's time to move on.
- aksss 6y ago
  I agree that the process has been engaged and the verdict delivered. However the concerns about election integrity greatly predate this election, and in my lifetime the controls have been getting weaker not stronger. I don’t think the broader issue is going away anytime soon.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Where is the evidence behind your concerns?
    - aksss 6y ago
      About the controls getting weaker? Review the evolution of controls over time. This year alone my own state eliminated the requirement for absentee ballot witnesses, extended the dates after Election Day for which ballots may be received, loosened the postmark requirements for such ballots. Is this a case where you have evaluated the suitability and effectiveness of the control structure for election integrity and believe that the tendency of loosening preventative and detective controls is immaterial or are you not familiar with the changes? For these are two different conversations: a) I believe the lack of controls to ensure integrity of the process is immaterial to the outcome; b) I believe controls are necessary but don’t see them loosening. For conversation a, we would disagree in principle - regardless of whether we’re talking about the integrity of the corporate books, the management of systems access, or the integrity of the voting process, to the degree the control structure weakens it is introducing increasing amounts of risk not only in the reliability of the reporting but into the faith held by the stakeholders. Now you ask, how much risk is appropriate and sustainable, to which I (quick on the repartee) would say storming the federal capital is a benchmark of failure, a growing (not ebbing) concern over election integrity over decades is a bad trend getting worse not better. Even via the most cynical outlook about one side imagining problems that aren’t there, what happens in sports when one team believes fouls against them aren’t being called? Or in a company when rumors are commonplace that the books are being cooked? It doesn’t make things better, is my point - things get worse. And that’s where turning a blind eye to the very real concerns of others only continues the destabilization.