5 ms·

>>>> "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 ru

>>>> "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...
    - georgeplusplus 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... United States Supreme Court Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. - Dismissed on standing. Arizona Aguilera v. Fontes - Voluntarily Dismissed Aguilera v. Fontes - Dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Hobbs - Voluntarily Dismissed Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - Dismissed Ward v. Jackson - Dismissed Bowyer v. Ducey - Dismissed on standing Stevenson v. Ducey - Dismissed The case was dropped because by the plaintiff because even if the plaintiff won, they would still be short a few hundred votes. Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial. Georgia In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00pm on November 3, 2020 - Dismissed Brooks v. Mahoney - Voluntarily Dropped Wood v. Raffensperger - Dismissed on Standing Pearson v. Kemp - Dismissed on standing Boland v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Trump v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Favorito et al. v. Fulton County et al. - Dismissed Trump v. Kemp et al. - Dismissed Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial. Im not going to list every single state but its very similar elsewhere. Dismissed for standing, jurisdiction, or trumps team dropped the suit voluntarily. The statue of limitations is VERY short for elections. Going back to the Catch 22, many of the personal testimonies the trump legal trump had saying they witnessed fraud were thrown out or could not be used until a trial. So, he cannot use a subpoena , and his witnesses were not allowed to testify. What would you recommend he do? So now you get crazy schemes like Mr Pillow to collect data during the election so they have something to bring to court. At least that sounds like their plan no matter how wacky it is. Now, I dont believe that Trump won. But I do believe they should've gave the guy his day in court. To deny someone that on the basis that they will just keep coming back looking elsewhere is not right. By denying his day in court you have emboldened their supporters and disenfranchised independent voters who want secure elections, like myself.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
        You might want to ask yourself why Bill Barr, with the powers and visibility he had as AG/head of DOJ, looked at the pile of fraud allegations and told his boss it was a big box of nothing. I'm sure he's just part of the conspiracy, or something...
- lockhouse 3y ago
  Playing devils advocate, lack of evidence is not the same as lack of guilt. It is entirely possible that voter fraud occurred AND there is no evidence that it occurred. Again, I’m not saying that happened, but I think there are some common sense improvements that could be made to the voting process that remove any doubts.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    remove any doubts There isn't much doubt from people that care about evidence.
    - lockhouse 3y ago
      Voter fraud can be difficult to prove. Voting in most parts of the country is optimized for anonymity and voter convenience at the expense of security. I care about evidence, I believe it is absolutely possible to commit voter fraud and not leave any evidence of it, and I also do not believe that Trump lost due to voter fraud. All of these things can simultaneously be true. I fail to see the harm in making our elections more secure, so long as we do not disenfranchise any legal voters.
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        I care about evidence Then why don't you have any? I fail to see the harm in making our elections more secure, so long as we do not disenfranchise any legal voters. It isn't necessary and it does statistically disenfranchise legal voters. If there is virtually no voter fraud why are you so set on 'making our elections more secure'? These pushes are always started by people who know the truth - they aren't solving an election security problem, they are solving the problem of making people who vote against them have statistically more difficulty to vote.
        lockhouse 3y ago
        If the photo IDs are made available free of charge in convenient locations such as post offices, how would they be disenfranchised?
ausbah 3y ago
because it is known. voter fraud rates are know and they are supremely small, way less than .001% of all ballots submitted. a cursory basic search will reveal articles like below, but there’re also academic papers investigating the phenomena https://www.businessinsider.com/voter-election-fraud-statistics-rare-president-biden-trump-2020-2020-11?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/voter-election-fraud-statist...

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...
  - georgeplusplus 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... United States Supreme Court Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. - Dismissed on standing. Arizona Aguilera v. Fontes - Voluntarily Dismissed Aguilera v. Fontes - Dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Hobbs - Voluntarily Dismissed Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - Dismissed Ward v. Jackson - Dismissed Bowyer v. Ducey - Dismissed on standing Stevenson v. Ducey - Dismissed The case was dropped because by the plaintiff because even if the plaintiff won, they would still be short a few hundred votes. Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial. Georgia In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00pm on November 3, 2020 - Dismissed Brooks v. Mahoney - Voluntarily Dropped Wood v. Raffensperger - Dismissed on Standing Pearson v. Kemp - Dismissed on standing Boland v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Trump v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Favorito et al. v. Fulton County et al. - Dismissed Trump v. Kemp et al. - Dismissed Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial. Im not going to list every single state but its very similar elsewhere. Dismissed for standing, jurisdiction, or trumps team dropped the suit voluntarily. The statue of limitations is VERY short for elections. Going back to the Catch 22, many of the personal testimonies the trump legal trump had saying they witnessed fraud were thrown out or could not be used until a trial. So, he cannot use a subpoena , and his witnesses were not allowed to testify. What would you recommend he do? So now you get crazy schemes like Mr Pillow to collect data during the election so they have something to bring to court. At least that sounds like their plan no matter how wacky it is. Now, I dont believe that Trump won. But I do believe they should've gave the guy his day in court. To deny someone that on the basis that they will just keep coming back looking elsewhere is not right. By denying his day in court you have emboldened their supporters and disenfranchised independent voters who want secure elections, like myself.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
      You might want to ask yourself why Bill Barr, with the powers and visibility he had as AG/head of DOJ, looked at the pile of fraud allegations and told his boss it was a big box of nothing. I'm sure he's just part of the conspiracy, or something...
lockhouse 3y ago
Playing devils advocate, lack of evidence is not the same as lack of guilt. It is entirely possible that voter fraud occurred AND there is no evidence that it occurred. Again, I’m not saying that happened, but I think there are some common sense improvements that could be made to the voting process that remove any doubts.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  remove any doubts There isn't much doubt from people that care about evidence.
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    Voter fraud can be difficult to prove. Voting in most parts of the country is optimized for anonymity and voter convenience at the expense of security. I care about evidence, I believe it is absolutely possible to commit voter fraud and not leave any evidence of it, and I also do not believe that Trump lost due to voter fraud. All of these things can simultaneously be true. I fail to see the harm in making our elections more secure, so long as we do not disenfranchise any legal voters.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      I care about evidence Then why don't you have any? I fail to see the harm in making our elections more secure, so long as we do not disenfranchise any legal voters. It isn't necessary and it does statistically disenfranchise legal voters. If there is virtually no voter fraud why are you so set on 'making our elections more secure'? These pushes are always started by people who know the truth - they aren't solving an election security problem, they are solving the problem of making people who vote against them have statistically more difficulty to vote.
      - lockhouse 3y ago
        If the photo IDs are made available free of charge in convenient locations such as post offices, how would they be disenfranchised?

ausbah 3y ago

because it is known. voter fraud rates are know and they are supremely small, way less than .001% of all ballots submitted. a cursory basic search will reveal articles like below, but there’re also academic papers investigating the phenomena https://www.businessinsider.com/voter-election-fraud-statistics-rare-president-biden-trump-2020-2020-11?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/voter-election-fraud-statist...