5 ms·

but why, voter fraud isn’t a problem in the US. trying to sate the lies of one political party won’t “prove them wrong” either, they’ll just fine new things to

by ausbah 3y ago

but why, voter fraud isn’t a problem in the US. trying to sate the lies of one political party won’t “prove them wrong” either, they’ll just fine new things to cry foul about somehow

thsksbd 3y ago
[flagged]
gustavus 3y ago
Yes but it might make their claims ring more hollow. The purpose isn't to convince the diehard zealots, it's to convince the people that might be on the fence and could see it go either way. Maybe Joe down the street isn't very much into politics, but he's been hearing all about these electronic voting machines being the source of fraud, and he know it sounds unreasonable, but it does introduce some doubt, especially when he finds out that no one knows what's in them and that people can access em "over the internets", it's enough out of his wheelhouse to get him wondering.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > Yes but it might make their claims ring more hollow. It might do the opposite; "see, they finally admitted it's a problem!"
  - splintercell 3y ago
    And this is how the Democrats have been painted in the corner. Presuming there was no problem: - Not doing any 'improvements' would result more of what is going on right now, an inability to prove the otherside wrong, and doubling down on the (near ridiculous) claim that it was the 'most secure election of all times'. Presuming there were issues: - Doing anything to improve them would mean that the one election they truly really wanted to win (i.e. defeating Trump), they will be accused of finally admitting that there were problems. - Which means from their perspective, keep doubling down on the claim that it was the most secure election of all times - OTOH if you didn't care that much about defeating Trump, and truly want there to be improvements if they are needed, then the Democrats claiming that these were the 'most secure elections of all times' just makes you start not believing it
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Democrats are exceedingly good at letting Republicans do the painting. In the real world, though, the good tools we already do have are being removed because of conspiracy theories. For example: https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-conspiracies-registration-trump-republicans-23f0a2f89b6c8b53c4c7b89e2bdc82af https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-conspiracies... > Earlier this month, Republican election officials from Florida, Missouri and West Virginia said they planned to withdraw from the group, joining Louisiana and Alabama. Former President Donald Trump, on social media, has called on every Republican-led state to leave, characterizing it as a “terrible Voter Registration System that ’pumps the rolls’ for Democrats and does nothing to clean them up.”
georgeplusplus 3y ago
>>>> "voter fraud isn’t a problem in the US" Playing devils advocate here, how do you know that? This whole argument dont look under the rug because if the rug isnt dirty then theyll shift their attention to under the couch seems afoul.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
  Well, looking at 2020, all the lawsuits that were filed went nowhere, generally for lack of evidence. Arrests and convictions for voter fraud do happen, but the scale tends to be very small and ineffectual at changing outcomes. It's not that we don't look under the rug. The rug has been looked under, many times, and we keep not finding the monsters claimed to be under the rug.
  - georgeplusplus 3y ago
    The lawsuits went nowhere because the courts determined there wasnt standing in many of the cases. A party cannot get subpoenas to investigate without a case. No case == No Investigation or presentation of evidence. So I would say its more along the lines that they tried to look under the rug many times but everytime they tried they got denied. How is standing assessed? That there has been damages to the party. The party is claiming that there was voter fraud however most of the evidence they need to prove their damages require a subpeona which they need a court case to start gathering proof. Do you see the catch 22 there? I am not a lawyer but presenting all your evidence before a trial seems poor form.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
      Some of them were dismissed for standing. Quite a few were dismissed because they lacked specific allegations and/or evidence. You don't have to present all your evidence before a trial, but your filings at the start of the process do need to create a picture of the standing you have, the harm you've suffered, and the evidence you intend to present. “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” [0] [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-lawsuit-pennsylvania-idUKKBN2872BA https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-lawsuit-penn...

by ausbah 3y ago

but why, voter fraud isn’t a problem in the US. trying to sate the lies of one political party won’t “prove them wrong” either, they’ll just fine new things to cry foul about somehow

thsksbd 3y ago

[flagged]

gustavus 3y ago

Yes but it might make their claims ring more hollow. The purpose isn't to convince the diehard zealots, it's to convince the people that might be on the fence and could see it go either way. Maybe Joe down the street isn't very much into politics, but he's been hearing all about these electronic voting machines being the source of fraud, and he know it sounds unreasonable, but it does introduce some doubt, especially when he finds out that no one knows what's in them and that people can access em "over the internets", it's enough out of his wheelhouse to get him wondering.

ceejayoz 3y ago
> Yes but it might make their claims ring more hollow. It might do the opposite; "see, they finally admitted it's a problem!"
- splintercell 3y ago
  And this is how the Democrats have been painted in the corner. Presuming there was no problem: - Not doing any 'improvements' would result more of what is going on right now, an inability to prove the otherside wrong, and doubling down on the (near ridiculous) claim that it was the 'most secure election of all times'. Presuming there were issues: - Doing anything to improve them would mean that the one election they truly really wanted to win (i.e. defeating Trump), they will be accused of finally admitting that there were problems. - Which means from their perspective, keep doubling down on the claim that it was the most secure election of all times - OTOH if you didn't care that much about defeating Trump, and truly want there to be improvements if they are needed, then the Democrats claiming that these were the 'most secure elections of all times' just makes you start not believing it
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Democrats are exceedingly good at letting Republicans do the painting. In the real world, though, the good tools we already do have are being removed because of conspiracy theories. For example: https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-conspiracies-registration-trump-republicans-23f0a2f89b6c8b53c4c7b89e2bdc82af https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-conspiracies... > Earlier this month, Republican election officials from Florida, Missouri and West Virginia said they planned to withdraw from the group, joining Louisiana and Alabama. Former President Donald Trump, on social media, has called on every Republican-led state to leave, characterizing it as a “terrible Voter Registration System that ’pumps the rolls’ for Democrats and does nothing to clean them up.”

georgeplusplus 3y ago

>>>> "voter fraud isn’t a problem in the US" Playing devils advocate here, how do you know that? This whole argument dont look under the rug because if the rug isnt dirty then theyll shift their attention to under the couch seems afoul.

sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
Well, looking at 2020, all the lawsuits that were filed went nowhere, generally for lack of evidence. Arrests and convictions for voter fraud do happen, but the scale tends to be very small and ineffectual at changing outcomes. It's not that we don't look under the rug. The rug has been looked under, many times, and we keep not finding the monsters claimed to be under the rug.
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  The lawsuits went nowhere because the courts determined there wasnt standing in many of the cases. A party cannot get subpoenas to investigate without a case. No case == No Investigation or presentation of evidence. So I would say its more along the lines that they tried to look under the rug many times but everytime they tried they got denied. How is standing assessed? That there has been damages to the party. The party is claiming that there was voter fraud however most of the evidence they need to prove their damages require a subpeona which they need a court case to start gathering proof. Do you see the catch 22 there? I am not a lawyer but presenting all your evidence before a trial seems poor form.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
    Some of them were dismissed for standing. Quite a few were dismissed because they lacked specific allegations and/or evidence. You don't have to present all your evidence before a trial, but your filings at the start of the process do need to create a picture of the standing you have, the harm you've suffered, and the evidence you intend to present. “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” [0] [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-lawsuit-pennsylvania-idUKKBN2872BA https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-lawsuit-penn...