10 ms·

You have been duped by hysterics. The US certainly has problems. Election integrity isn't one of them. Read here about the Australian election. The official r

You have been duped by hysterics. The US certainly has problems. Election integrity isn't one of them. Read here about the Australian election. The official result can take up to ten days. https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/how-are-the-votes-counted https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/how-are-the-votes-count... That doesn't mean it will always take long before a winner is clear. But it's certainly not a one day process! Have you seen the distribution of seats in the Japanese parlament? No wonder the counting process is not exactly nail bitingly exciting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Japanese_general_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Japanese_general_electi... Brazil have an electronic ballot counting system. That comes with its own set of tradeoffs. > One id, one vote If a significant portion of the electorate do not have an id this is a non-starter.

systemvoltage 4y ago
I am just giving you the typical tagline toed by the party in question, I literally just made up the list of countries as I was writing it. It does not matter what names I list there. That's not the point in the slightest, see quotation marks. The point would still stand if no other nation out there were better than US election system. The idea is that election counting process should be quick and the results should be evident on the same day. If no one else is doing it, we should be the first ones to build a system that can count votes in the same day.
- geysersam 4y ago
  That would be great. I certainly hope you'll achieve it. But it seems unlikely to succeed given that parts of the Republican party actively undermines the process and the faith in the system, with the intent of limiting access to voting for poor people and minorities. Cure the cause and not the symptom! How transparent, accurate and fast do a ballot counting system have to be for Trump and his gang not to question it?
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    They had 2 years to make sure tabulators work, this is happening right now in Maricopa County: https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1589987833846333440 https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1589987833846333440 This is why people lose faith in the election system. Katie Hobbs being the Secretary of State.
WalterBright 4y ago
> If a significant portion of the electorate do not have an id this is a non-starter Having a government program to get these people id seems like a no-brainer.
- ydlr 4y ago
  Except the party that would support such a program doesn't like voter id requirements and the party that wants voter id is hostile to putting government resources into making id easier to get.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    You don't actually need the government here. The party that protests that people don't have ID can, themselves, do outreach to get them ID.
  - skissane 4y ago
    Here’s what I don’t get about this topic: Democratic voters skew urban, Republican voters skew rural: isn’t government ID easier to acquire in urban areas than rural ones? If you need to go to some government office to do so, odds are in a rural area you’ll be travelling a greater distance to get to it, taking up more time and money, requiring more time off work, etc. Wouldn’t it thereby follow that voter ID laws actually hurt Republicans more than Democrats? Why then do the former support them and the later oppose them?
    - geysersam 4y ago
      Voter id laws hurt minorities and economically marginalized groups significantly more. These groups tend to vote democrat. There are many more factors involved than the physical distance to an office distributing IDs.
      - skissane 4y ago
        Is it still true that "economically marginalized groups... tend to vote democrat"? In 2020, Trump won "high school or less" by 15 points, while Biden won postgraduates by 35 points [0] – surely the former group are much more "economically marginalized" than the later? Likewise, I would be surprised if there is anyone with a postgraduate degree who lacks government-issued ID, while I would expect that the vast majority of those who do lack it would belong to the "high school or less" educational category. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/pp_2021-06-30_validated-voters_00-03/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-biden...
cudgy 4y ago
> You have been duped by hysterics. > If a significant portion of the electorate do not have an id this is a non-starter. Duped by hysterics? Are you arguing that a significant number of eligible voters in the United States have no id? That position seems hysterical.
- geysersam 4y ago
  It's a problem! https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/oppose-voter-id-legislation-... There are questions like what kind of IDs should be valid at the ballots etc.
  - SargeDebian 4y ago
    From your link the problem seems to be that some people want voter ID legislation, not the lack of IDs.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      1. Voter ID Laws Deprive Many Americans of the Right to Vote Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification. 2. Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID. Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2 The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office. 3. Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points, which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.
      - oefrha 4y ago
skissane 4y ago
> You have been duped by hysterics. > The US certainly has problems. Election integrity isn't one of them. The US has a real problem with perceptions of election integrity. You may argue that’s all because one side is duping people-but even if that’s right, the real flaws in US election administration make it easier for people to believe those claims, and addressing those flaws - for example, elections being run by elected officials rather than independent electoral commissions as in most other English-speaking countries-will make them less believable, and hence help prevent people being duped. > Read here about the Australian election. The official result can take up to ten days. A large part of why it takes so long here, is because Australia has a significantly more complex voting system than the US - a combination of ranked choice (or “preferential voting” as we call it) and single transferable vote, instead of first-past-the-post - so how long it takes here isn’t really relevant to how long it takes in the US. Furthermore, a big reason why claims of election fraud are far less believable in Australia, is because we have an impartial/independent/apolitical and highly respected government agency, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), which fully runs all national elections, and also controls redistricting - and each state has its own state-based equivalent which does the same for state and local elections. Australia’s system is miles more trustworthy than the US system of leaving the management of the process to elected state and local politicians.
caf 4y ago
That link is about Queensland state and council elections, Federal elections are run by the AEC: https://aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/ https://aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/ (although the process is similar). When looking at this information you need to keep in mind that virtually all ballots in Australian elections are paper ballots that must be manually counted. Postal votes can still be received for a week after the election, but a result can be declared anyway if the margin is greater than the number of outstanding votes. Counting is initially focussed on the House of Representatives, which uses single-member electorates, is where control of government is decided and has terms that start at the first sitting after the election. The Senate count is left later - it uses multiple-member electorates where the count can't be declared until literally every ballot is data-entered, but it is also of less public interest as it doesn't decide control of government and there is a delay before the Senators take their seats.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Hey I didn't mean to bash the Australian system. It seems great! My point was just to illustrate that the idea of elections with "immidiate result" "total transparency" "exactly accurate" is neither realistic or necessary in a well functioning democracy. Democracy is not in the decimal place of the accuracy of the election result. It's a combination of factors about of how political disagreement is handled. Separation of powers. Anti corruption work. Etc.
  - caf 4y ago
    Oh yeah, just wanted to provide some necessary context for those reading our links. I'm not sure I'd put the case that Australian elections are overall counted particularly fast, they do seem to be well resourced though.
belorn 4y ago
Election integrity is not the reason why nations elect to not use voting machines, do not use mail in voting, or also require ID. The purpose of all those choices is to encourage voter confidence and trust, which has shown to increase voter turnouts and trust in the democratic process.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
People think the US has an election integrity problem. Therefore the US has an election integrity problem. The system must be broadly trusted. And by "broadly" I mean "overwhelmingly within any given subset of the population", not just a particular filter bubble.

systemvoltage 4y ago

I am just giving you the typical tagline toed by the party in question, I literally just made up the list of countries as I was writing it. It does not matter what names I list there. That's not the point in the slightest, see quotation marks. The point would still stand if no other nation out there were better than US election system. The idea is that election counting process should be quick and the results should be evident on the same day. If no one else is doing it, we should be the first ones to build a system that can count votes in the same day.

geysersam 4y ago
That would be great. I certainly hope you'll achieve it. But it seems unlikely to succeed given that parts of the Republican party actively undermines the process and the faith in the system, with the intent of limiting access to voting for poor people and minorities. Cure the cause and not the symptom! How transparent, accurate and fast do a ballot counting system have to be for Trump and his gang not to question it?
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  They had 2 years to make sure tabulators work, this is happening right now in Maricopa County: https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1589987833846333440 https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1589987833846333440 This is why people lose faith in the election system. Katie Hobbs being the Secretary of State.

WalterBright 4y ago

> If a significant portion of the electorate do not have an id this is a non-starter Having a government program to get these people id seems like a no-brainer.

ydlr 4y ago
Except the party that would support such a program doesn't like voter id requirements and the party that wants voter id is hostile to putting government resources into making id easier to get.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  You don't actually need the government here. The party that protests that people don't have ID can, themselves, do outreach to get them ID.
- skissane 4y ago
  Here’s what I don’t get about this topic: Democratic voters skew urban, Republican voters skew rural: isn’t government ID easier to acquire in urban areas than rural ones? If you need to go to some government office to do so, odds are in a rural area you’ll be travelling a greater distance to get to it, taking up more time and money, requiring more time off work, etc. Wouldn’t it thereby follow that voter ID laws actually hurt Republicans more than Democrats? Why then do the former support them and the later oppose them?
  - geysersam 4y ago
    Voter id laws hurt minorities and economically marginalized groups significantly more. These groups tend to vote democrat. There are many more factors involved than the physical distance to an office distributing IDs.
    - skissane 4y ago
      Is it still true that "economically marginalized groups... tend to vote democrat"? In 2020, Trump won "high school or less" by 15 points, while Biden won postgraduates by 35 points [0] – surely the former group are much more "economically marginalized" than the later? Likewise, I would be surprised if there is anyone with a postgraduate degree who lacks government-issued ID, while I would expect that the vast majority of those who do lack it would belong to the "high school or less" educational category. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/pp_2021-06-30_validated-voters_00-03/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-biden...

cudgy 4y ago

> You have been duped by hysterics. > If a significant portion of the electorate do not have an id this is a non-starter. Duped by hysterics? Are you arguing that a significant number of eligible voters in the United States have no id? That position seems hysterical.

geysersam 4y ago
It's a problem! https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/oppose-voter-id-legislation-... There are questions like what kind of IDs should be valid at the ballots etc.
- SargeDebian 4y ago
  From your link the problem seems to be that some people want voter ID legislation, not the lack of IDs.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    1. Voter ID Laws Deprive Many Americans of the Right to Vote Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification. 2. Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID. Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2 The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office. 3. Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points, which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.
    - oefrha 4y ago

skissane 4y ago

> You have been duped by hysterics. > The US certainly has problems. Election integrity isn't one of them. The US has a real problem with perceptions of election integrity. You may argue that’s all because one side is duping people-but even if that’s right, the real flaws in US election administration make it easier for people to believe those claims, and addressing those flaws - for example, elections being run by elected officials rather than independent electoral commissions as in most other English-speaking countries-will make them less believable, and hence help prevent people being duped. > Read here about the Australian election. The official result can take up to ten days. A large part of why it takes so long here, is because Australia has a significantly more complex voting system than the US - a combination of ranked choice (or “preferential voting” as we call it) and single transferable vote, instead of first-past-the-post - so how long it takes here isn’t really relevant to how long it takes in the US. Furthermore, a big reason why claims of election fraud are far less believable in Australia, is because we have an impartial/independent/apolitical and highly respected government agency, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), which fully runs all national elections, and also controls redistricting - and each state has its own state-based equivalent which does the same for state and local elections. Australia’s system is miles more trustworthy than the US system of leaving the management of the process to elected state and local politicians.

caf 4y ago

That link is about Queensland state and council elections, Federal elections are run by the AEC: https://aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/ https://aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/ (although the process is similar). When looking at this information you need to keep in mind that virtually all ballots in Australian elections are paper ballots that must be manually counted. Postal votes can still be received for a week after the election, but a result can be declared anyway if the margin is greater than the number of outstanding votes. Counting is initially focussed on the House of Representatives, which uses single-member electorates, is where control of government is decided and has terms that start at the first sitting after the election. The Senate count is left later - it uses multiple-member electorates where the count can't be declared until literally every ballot is data-entered, but it is also of less public interest as it doesn't decide control of government and there is a delay before the Senators take their seats.

geysersam 4y ago
Hey I didn't mean to bash the Australian system. It seems great! My point was just to illustrate that the idea of elections with "immidiate result" "total transparency" "exactly accurate" is neither realistic or necessary in a well functioning democracy. Democracy is not in the decimal place of the accuracy of the election result. It's a combination of factors about of how political disagreement is handled. Separation of powers. Anti corruption work. Etc.
- caf 4y ago
  Oh yeah, just wanted to provide some necessary context for those reading our links. I'm not sure I'd put the case that Australian elections are overall counted particularly fast, they do seem to be well resourced though.

belorn 4y ago

Election integrity is not the reason why nations elect to not use voting machines, do not use mail in voting, or also require ID. The purpose of all those choices is to encourage voter confidence and trust, which has shown to increase voter turnouts and trust in the democratic process.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

People think the US has an election integrity problem. Therefore the US has an election integrity problem. The system must be broadly trusted. And by "broadly" I mean "overwhelmingly within any given subset of the population", not just a particular filter bubble.