7 ms·

I hate the narratives around voting security in the US. One side says that it is totally secure, basically 0 fraud, most secure election in history, etc etc. Th

• Spivak 2y ago
  This is a wild amount of both-sidesing in a case where one side has evidence and the other is literally an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory at a scale where you could not keep the secret. Most secure in history is (in my state) is correct. There are more pointless safeguards than have ever existed. If you were willing to go with the results of any election pre 2020 then you should be overjoyed at how much more "secure" the process is. That's the point that's being made, the amount of provable voter fraud that bypasses the checks and is only discovered after the fact is nil The article you cited is literally the system working. There's 11 million people in Ohio, the number of illegal registrations is several orders of magnitude less than the lizardman constant and they were nonetheless caught.
  • anon291 2y ago
    Including the safeguards where observers are safely kept away from the counting! There were a lot of irregularities in 2020. The supreme Court recently said Pennsylvania should not have counted some of the ballots it did in 2020 (policy change by secretary of state vs legislature).
    • gruez 2y ago
      >There were a lot of irregularities in 2020. Source? I thought all the election fraud lawsuits/investigations for the 2020 election basically went nowhere?
      • anon291 2y ago
        For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various ballot drops etc. Opinions aren't formed on court cases. That's why in 2020, more than half of Democrats thought the election was irregular. It's remarkable to me because this is one of those issues where polling says voters of both parties agree, but the media insists that there's nothing there. That's crazy
        • gruez 2y ago
          >For lack of standing or lack of ability to relieve yes. Courts aren't going to question a presidential election. ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore >That doesn't mean we can't look at the videos of observers being banned, the facts of now-declared-illegal extra-legislative policy changes, the timings of various ballot drops etc. My impression is that there were a bunch of "this seems sus" allegations, but all the popular ones have been discredited. What are the most credible examples (ie. of actual malfeasance going on, rather than merely "this seems sus") that you can provide?
          • mikeyouse 2y ago
            Yeah it’s just a polite retelling of the crazy Trump nonsense that was laughed out of court by every judge who looked at it and the rest is just misunderstandings from casual election observers who refuse to do one iota of research about how things work. The accusations are always vague as well since each time you zoom in on one it’s completely anodyne but you need the distance to keep up the specter of something nefarious.
  • mythrwy 2y ago
    Yes drop boxes and mail in ballots with no signature verification and the counting done largely by one side of the partisan divide (county/state employees) is totally 100% secure what could go wrong? Those conspiracy nuts just don't get it.
    • anigbrowl 2y ago
      They had a very long hand-counted ballot audit of the 2020 election in Arizona in 2021, and after (iirc) a few months of double and triple checking they were unable to find any irregularities.
    • ytpete 2y ago
      Every polling place and every vote-counting center is open to observers from both parties, by law. Your idea that one party is shut out of this system has no basis in reality.
      • mythrwy 2y ago
        Nope. There is a lawsuit right now in Georgia over the decision by some locations to accept ballots over the weekend without GOP observers present. Counting without bipartisan observers happened frequently in 2020. Also "observers" weren't mentioned in my original post. Just because someone watches a count is irrelevant to my original points.
        • Spivak 2y ago
          You mean the one that was rejected? The lawsuit was wrong legally and morally— these are people who are eligible to vote casting their vote in a more secure manner than mailing it in, and doing so prior to election day. There's just no moral defense of rule-lawyering to throw out valid ballots or turn away voters, and judges in red and blue states alike aren't having it.
  • chrisco255 2y ago
    Junk mail democracy is the most insecure model for an election I could possibly conceive. Other than entrusting closed source software companies with tabulating votes.
    • Spivak 2y ago
      So why do red states who have every incentive to remove vote-by-mail entirely not do so? You can vote by mail in every state, lots of red states are no-excuse.
    • ytpete 2y ago
      Almost every state lets you vote in person instead if you prefer. And if you do, any mail-in ballots that were sent out under your name are null and void. So if you don't trust it, just vote in person and problem solved.
• brandonmenc 2y ago
  > One side says that it is totally secure, basically 0 fraud, most secure election in history Additionally, the sides have completely flipped. Utterly bizarre.
  • AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Not bizarre at all. It's BS, but it's not bizarre. Politics has become trench warfare. Everything is a battle to the death to keep the other side from gaining an inch anywhere. And, as is often the case in warfare, truth is a casualty. Both sides will say absolutely anything to keep anyone from thinking that the other side has a valid point. It's advertising, but without any truth-in-advertising laws. Or, if you prefer, it's propaganda. Any relationship to the truth is purely accidental.
    • MichaelZuo 2y ago
      The true casualty is America’s credibility abroad. In pretty much every capital, embassy, boardroom, etc… it noticeably declines year on year. Even the Brits don’t take anything at face value anymore.
      • anon291 2y ago
        Our credibility has been suddenly made synonymous with how willing we are to go to war on behalf of other countries . We are not But I think any attack on an American force will get you a quick lesson on our credibility, which, as an American, is all I really care about. Similarly economically, good luck not participating in the American markets.
        • MichaelZuo 2y ago
          I really don’t want to burst your bubble… but do you not realize this is seen as a joke abroad? e.g. In Hanoi, American officials, diplomats, and executives are rushing to wine and dine people who literally celebrate the defeat of ‘American force’ in public, on the record, every year. They treat even a random third secretary for some party committee 100km from Hanoi much much better than the 90th percentile upper middle class American household in the Bay Area… Edit: And I’m not even going to talk about Eastern Europe or the Middle East, it’s really too harsh to put into writing.
• Molitor5901 2y ago
  Each side uses the argument most expedient to them at the time. For the 2020 election I recall it was concern over mail in ballots.
• EasyMark 2y ago
  The side that says there's virtually 0 fraud is correct, and the other side is living in a fantasy land because they feel their party is becoming less and less relevant. That side has never produced an iota of proof that there is widespread fraud of that it has affected elections in major races, especially the presidential one. Sometimes "both sides" works in an argument, but when one side has all the proof and the other side has only accusations, I comfortably give my allegiance to the one that has the proof.
  • rightbyte 2y ago
    US election process is a joke. Pretending otherwise is some sort of gaslighting that could backfire. If 'one side' break the silent understanding of 'do not criticize our complex, convoluted and arcane election process', well, bad luck if 'the other side' defends it instead of agreeing there is a need to do something about it. I don't like how about every question becomes some sort of thrench warfare around strawman extremes.
  • wtcactus 2y ago
    I can not bypass the fact that basically no other developed country allows citizens to vote without proper official photo identification, neither that the sates that allow people to vote without any identification, are the ones where the Democratic Party always wins elections. I know correlation doesn't mean causation, but I also know that where's there smoke, there's usually a fire.