CDZ RIGGED ELECTION: Let's see if we can imagine a new way to gather and count votes

[JoeB131]

We live in amazingly binary times. We just can't seem to see both lanes of the road.

We have the ability to both open up voting and keep things secure, but doing so would require us to do crazy things like "work together" and "innovate". Allowing a different idea to enter the conversation is confused with capitulation.

I'm guessing that, in the short term, we're going to see more of that sad situation. Maybe we'll innovate at some point, assuming we make it to that point.

MOD EDIT - NO PUT DOWNS, it's hard FLAMING to get someone OR INSULTS to cooperate IN CDZ! when they won't even go along with their own ideas.

Case in point. Obamacare. They had no problem with it when it was called Romneycare. Then the black guy suggested it.

All this talk about voter reforms is, "Oh my GOd, the darkies are voting". I'm not seeing why we have to or even should play along with their fantasies and go along with some voter suppression.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

We live in amazingly binary times. We just can't seem to see both lanes of the road.

We have the ability to both open up voting and keep things secure, but doing so would require us to do crazy things like "work together" and "innovate". Allowing a different idea to enter the conversation is confused with capitulation.

I'm guessing that, in the short term, we're going to see more of that sad situation. Maybe we'll innovate at some point, assuming we make it to that point.

Vichy Mac, it's hard to get someone to cooperate when they won't even go along with their own ideas.

Case in point. Obamacare. They had no problem with it when it was called Romneycare. Then the black guy suggested it.

All this talk about voter reforms is, "Oh my GOd, the darkies are voting". I'm not seeing why we have to or even should play along with their fantasies and go along with some voter suppression.

Nobody has complained that "the darkies are voting", nor are they advocating the suppression of eligible voters. Your characterization is dishonest. Also, Mac is not "vichy Mac" just because his rigid partisanship is ever so slightly less than your own.

People simply want those who vote to be actual citizens eligible to vote. THis is a very sensible and reasonable expectation, and only those who place party above country think otherwise.

 

[Mac1958]

We live in amazingly binary times. We just can't seem to see both lanes of the road.

We have the ability to both open up voting and keep things secure, but doing so would require us to do crazy things like "work together" and "innovate". Allowing a different idea to enter the conversation is confused with capitulation.

I'm guessing that, in the short term, we're going to see more of that sad situation. Maybe we'll innovate at some point, assuming we make it to that point.

Vichy Mac, it's hard to get someone to cooperate when they won't even go along with their own ideas.

Case in point. Obamacare. They had no problem with it when it was called Romneycare. Then the black guy suggested it.

All this talk about voter reforms is, "Oh my GOd, the darkies are voting". I'm not seeing why we have to or even should play along with their fantasies and go along with some voter suppression.

Nobody has complained that "the darkies are voting", nor are they advocating the suppression of eligible voters. Your characterization is dishonest. Also, Mac is not "vichy Mac" just because his rigid partisanship is ever so slightly less than your own.

People simply want those who vote to be actual citizens eligible to vote. THis is a very sensible and reasonable expectation, and only those who place party above country think otherwise.

So my stalker -- on ignore for years -- is calling me "Vichy Mac" now? I like it.

You guys have fun.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Nobody has complained that "the darkies are voting", nor are they advocating the suppression of eligible voters. Your characterization is dishonest. Also, Mac is not "vichy Mac" just because his rigid partisanship is ever so slightly less than your own.

People simply want those who vote to be actual citizens eligible to vote. THis is a very sensible and reasonable expectation, and only those who place party above country think otherwise.

My
Naw, what makes him Vichy Mac is his willingness to work with people who are out to screw him.

Kind of like Marshall Petain...

But to the point. Yes, every last one of these voter suppression measures is meant to keep poor people and people of color from voting, in the same places that used to have literacy tests and poll taxes. There's a reason for this.

Your side has presented exactly ZERO evidence that undocumented immigrants are voting in any significant numbers. This is about putting additional burdens on poor people who might not have fixed addresses or are able to maintain current identification documents.

My "side" is that I simply desire legitimate elections.

As to tour continued personal attacks against, Mac, I might point out that this is the clean debate forum.

 

[JoeB131]

My "side" is that I simply desire legitimate elections.

We had a legitimate election. Your side lost

As to tour continued personal attacks against, Mac, I might point out that this is the clean debate forum.

You asked why I call him that. I've called him that for years...

 

[Coyote]

No flaming, insults or put downs in CDZ. Period. It's not rocket science.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I'm not expecting a terribly vibrant thread, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. So here goes:

I wonder if we could toss out a few ideas on how we can count votes in the future. Leaving (or at least trying to leave) your political affiliation out of this, let's see your ideas on how the states might best do the following:

• Make voting as easy as possible, particular in rural, less dense areas
• Minimize the need for recounts
• Create voting systems (voting & counting) that maximize security

I'll start: Let's begin by dragging ourselves away from this need to know who won a state by the end of Election Day. Let's have an automatic audit confirmation process that counts the vote multiple (two or three different) ways on Election Night and the next day. That way we can minimize the need for recounts after the fact.

Also, while each state will certainly have its own rules, maybe we can find SOME common methods so that we can standardize them for better efficiency and accountability.

Okay, go. Let's try "imagining" instead of just repeating.

Nationwide voter I.D.

Mail in ballots can only be requested with a voter I.D.

No drop boxes or other unsecured vote collection.

All mail in or absentee ballots counted upon receipt.

All voting machines subject to full forensic audit upon request by either political party after the election at their expense.

Allow felons to vote but only after completion of sentence, probation, and full payment of fines, community service, or restitution.

Make any ballot harvesting activity a felony.

 

[JoeB131]

Nationwide voter I.D.

Mail in ballots can only be requested with a voter I.D.

It seems like you just want to make voting more difficult.

The problem here is, no one has proven that any signifigant number of ballots were wrongly cast.

But most of these "solutions" would make it harder for people who have a legitimate right to vote to do so... which again, I kind of suspect is the point.

No drop boxes or other unsecured vote collection.

Why not? They don't just stick a ballot in the mail without a legitimate name. No one is voting under the name of Jim Shoe.

All mail in or absentee ballots counted upon receipt.

All voting machines subject to full forensic audit upon request by either political party after the election at their expense.

Except no one has proven the voting machines didn't work or function the way they were supposed to.

Allow felons to vote but only after completion of sentence, probation, and full payment of fines, community service, or restitution.

One more time, why? Oh, that's right. Because poor and minorities are more likely to have criminal records for minor offenses.

Make any ballot harvesting activity a felony.

Why not bring back literacy tests and poll taxes while you are at it?

 

[Coyote]

"Make any ballot harvesting activity a felony."

That actually creates a problem of suppressing voters. For example in communities, such as the Navajo tribal nation, is over 24,000 square miles. People are spread out far and thin, and poverty is huge. Many don't have a car or transport to a polling place - they depend on someone to collect their ballots and deliver them. Assisted living facilities are another example.

If we can create a system where we have trusted poll workers handle ballots....or notaries can be trusted to notorize legal documents - why on earth can't we have a system for people to collect ballots?

 

[Coyote]

Instead of creating a whole lot of new rules for mail in voting - why not look at the states that have successfully been doing it for years and follow their example?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Nationwide voter I.D.

Mail in ballots can only be requested with a voter I.D.

It seems like you just want to make voting more difficult.

The problem here is, no one has proven that any signifigant number of ballots were wrongly cast.

But most of these "solutions" would make it harder for people who have a legitimate right to vote to do so... which again, I kind of suspect is the point.

No drop boxes or other unsecured vote collection.

Why not? They don't just stick a ballot in the mail without a legitimate name. No one is voting under the name of Jim Shoe.

All mail in or absentee ballots counted upon receipt.

All voting machines subject to full forensic audit upon request by either political party after the election at their expense.

Except no one has proven the voting machines didn't work or function the way they were supposed to.

Allow felons to vote but only after completion of sentence, probation, and full payment of fines, community service, or restitution.

One more time, why? Oh, that's right. Because poor and minorities are more likely to have criminal records for minor offenses.

Make any ballot harvesting activity a felony.

Why not bring back literacy tests and poll taxes while you are at it?

You continually indulge in innuendo about racism when absolutely none has been expressed or even hinted.

Why?

 

[JoeB131]

You continually indulge in innuendo about racism when absolutely none has been expressed or even hinted.

Why?

Seriously?

SO we have an openly racist president who got voted out because people of color were motivated to show up in record numbers to vote him out, and the GOP go to is "Let's make it harder for poor people of color to vote".

If anything we should make it EASIER to vote.

Even though 2020 had the highest voter turnout rate in over a century, only 66% of eligible voters voted.

Which mean that 34% of Americans didn't consider it worth their time to vote, even though the stakes really have never been higher and even with all the efforts made to help people vote.

And understandably so.

If you didn't live in one of the 5-10 Swing States, your vote for President was kind of meaningless.
If you didn't live in one of the 6 or so states with contested senate races, then your vote for Senator was kind of meaningless.
If you didn't live in one of the 40 or so contested House Districts, your vote for Congress was meaningless.

Now consider that. Our system is already so degraded that many of our elections are meaningless, and so many of us have tuned out of the process.

I know! Let's make it harder for people who actually want to vote!!!!

Because at the end of the day, the end result of these new rules will be making it harder for people who are eligible to vote for do so, without eliminating all that many people who are trying to vote illegally, if there are any.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not expecting a terribly vibrant thread, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. So here goes:

I wonder if we could toss out a few ideas on how we can count votes in the future. Leaving (or at least trying to leave) your political affiliation out of this, let's see your ideas on how the states might best do the following:

• Make voting as easy as possible, particular in rural, less dense areas
• Minimize the need for recounts
• Create voting systems (voting & counting) that maximize security

I'll start: Let's begin by dragging ourselves away from this need to know who won a state by the end of Election Day. Let's have an automatic audit confirmation process that counts the vote multiple (two or three different) ways on Election Night and the next day. That way we can minimize the need for recounts after the fact.

Also, while each state will certainly have its own rules, maybe we can find SOME common methods so that we can standardize them for better efficiency and accountability.

Okay, go. Let's try "imagining" instead of just repeating.

If we start from the premise that we want as many legitimate voters to be able to vote as possible without unnecessary obstacles (unfortunately not a widely shared view)...I see a lot of potential ideas.

The first is recognizing there are two aspects to a problematic election - actual criminal fraud is one, and the other is people's PERCEPTIONS. This election was all about perceptions driven by deliberate misinformation/deceit by one of the candidates, no instances of significant fraud were found despite examination on multiple levels. Fixing people's perceptions, which is what drives the public's trust in the system, is a lot harder than fixing potential fraud.

You have one group of people, who's candidate lost, believing the candidate's claims about fraud and a rigged election and feel angry and disenfranchised as a result.

You have another group of people (many representing historically oppressed voting groups) who came out enmass and voted - and now, in the face of states' attempting to change their election laws in ways that it's impossible to not see as directed against their voting habits - they are seeing legislative disenfranchisement.

So how do "fix" a problem that doesn't exist (large scale fraud) and a problem that does exist (perceptions)?

Mail in voting is not going to go away. A lot of people like it. It's also not new. Why not look at the states that have been doing it for some time and use that as an example instead of creating increased legislative obstacles for voting that end up discrimminating?

Perception is much harder. One of the counties (in Michigan I think?). Came into controversy because of a deliberate disinformation campaign, that showed only a select cut from a much longer video of them counting ballots, and claiming there were boxes of fake ballots hidden under the table. If the entire recording had been viewed, you would see that wasn't the case. But recording the process of counting, along with having the observers might be a good way of restoring some public trust. I don't think all counties/states do that do they? It's up to individual locations?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You continually indulge in innuendo about racism when absolutely none has been expressed or even hinted.

Why?

Seriously?

SO we have an openly racist president who got voted out because people of color were motivated to show up in record numbers to vote him out, and the GOP go to is "Let's make it harder for poor people of color to vote".

If anything we should make it EASIER to vote.

Even though 2020 had the highest voter turnout rate in over a century, only 66% of eligible voters voted.

Which mean that 34% of Americans didn't consider it worth their time to vote, even though the stakes really have never been higher and even with all the efforts made to help people vote.

And understandably so.

If you didn't live in one of the 5-10 Swing States, your vote for President was kind of meaningless.
If you didn't live in one of the 6 or so states with contested senate races, then your vote for Senator was kind of meaningless.
If you didn't live in one of the 40 or so contested House Districts, your vote for Congress was meaningless.

Now consider that. Our system is already so degraded that many of our elections are meaningless, and so many of us have tuned out of the process.

I know! Let's make it harder for people who actually want to vote!!!!

Because at the end of the day, the end result of these new rules will be making it harder for people who are eligible to vote for do so, without eliminating all that many people who are trying to vote illegally, if there are any.

The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that black people are either too lazy or too stupid to procur an i.d. just like anybody else.

I happen to reject that notion, myself.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not expecting a terribly vibrant thread, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. So here goes:

I wonder if we could toss out a few ideas on how we can count votes in the future. Leaving (or at least trying to leave) your political affiliation out of this, let's see your ideas on how the states might best do the following:

• Make voting as easy as possible, particular in rural, less dense areas
• Minimize the need for recounts
• Create voting systems (voting & counting) that maximize security

I'll start: Let's begin by dragging ourselves away from this need to know who won a state by the end of Election Day. Let's have an automatic audit confirmation process that counts the vote multiple (two or three different) ways on Election Night and the next day. That way we can minimize the need for recounts after the fact.

Also, while each state will certainly have its own rules, maybe we can find SOME common methods so that we can standardize them for better efficiency and accountability.

Okay, go. Let's try "imagining" instead of just repeating.

If we start from the premise that we want as many legitimate voters to be able to vote as possible without unnecessary obstacles (unfortunately not a widely shared view)...I see a lot of potential ideas.

The first is recognizing there are two aspects to a problematic election - actual criminal fraud is one, and the other is people's PERCEPTIONS. This election was all about perceptions driven by deliberate misinformation/deceit by one of the candidates, no instances of significant fraud were found despite examination on multiple levels. Fixing people's perceptions, which is what drives the public's trust in the system, is a lot harder than fixing potential fraud.

You have one group of people, who's candidate lost, believing the candidate's claims about fraud and a rigged election and feel angry and disenfranchised as a result.

You have another group of people (many representing historically oppressed voting groups) who came out enmass and voted - and now, in the face of states' attempting to change their election laws in ways that it's impossible to not see as directed against their voting habits - they are seeing legislative disenfranchisement.

So how do "fix" a problem that doesn't exist (large scale fraud) and a problem that does exist (perceptions)?

Mail in voting is not going to go away. A lot of people like it. It's also not new. Why not look at the states that have been doing it for some time and use that as an example instead of creating increased legislative obstacles for voting that end up discrimminating?

Perception is much harder. One of the counties (in Michigan I think?). Came into controversy because of a deliberate disinformation campaign, that showed only a select cut from a much longer video of them counting ballots, and claiming there were boxes of fake ballots hidden under the table. If the entire recording had been viewed, you would see that wasn't the case. But recording the process of counting, along with having the observers might be a good way of restoring some public trust. I don't think all counties/states do that do they? It's up to individual locations?

Can't argue, and I may be chasing my tail on this. I think one frustration of mine is that states can go rogue and use this 2020 fantasy as an excuse, as we're seeing.

I've never understood why national elections can't be standardized. I respect federalism, and I'm all for states running their own state-level elections. But giving a state the ability to play this game sure seems to go against the spirit of free and fair elections.

I may just be trying to take excuses away from those who are currently threatening the legitimacy of our electoral process. More unchartered waters to deal with. I've had enough of that over the last five years.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not expecting a terribly vibrant thread, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. So here goes:

I wonder if we could toss out a few ideas on how we can count votes in the future. Leaving (or at least trying to leave) your political affiliation out of this, let's see your ideas on how the states might best do the following:

• Make voting as easy as possible, particular in rural, less dense areas
• Minimize the need for recounts
• Create voting systems (voting & counting) that maximize security

I'll start: Let's begin by dragging ourselves away from this need to know who won a state by the end of Election Day. Let's have an automatic audit confirmation process that counts the vote multiple (two or three different) ways on Election Night and the next day. That way we can minimize the need for recounts after the fact.

Also, while each state will certainly have its own rules, maybe we can find SOME common methods so that we can standardize them for better efficiency and accountability.

Okay, go. Let's try "imagining" instead of just repeating.

If we start from the premise that we want as many legitimate voters to be able to vote as possible without unnecessary obstacles (unfortunately not a widely shared view)...I see a lot of potential ideas.

The first is recognizing there are two aspects to a problematic election - actual criminal fraud is one, and the other is people's PERCEPTIONS. This election was all about perceptions driven by deliberate misinformation/deceit by one of the candidates, no instances of significant fraud were found despite examination on multiple levels. Fixing people's perceptions, which is what drives the public's trust in the system, is a lot harder than fixing potential fraud.

You have one group of people, who's candidate lost, believing the candidate's claims about fraud and a rigged election and feel angry and disenfranchised as a result.

You have another group of people (many representing historically oppressed voting groups) who came out enmass and voted - and now, in the face of states' attempting to change their election laws in ways that it's impossible to not see as directed against their voting habits - they are seeing legislative disenfranchisement.

So how do "fix" a problem that doesn't exist (large scale fraud) and a problem that does exist (perceptions)?

Mail in voting is not going to go away. A lot of people like it. It's also not new. Why not look at the states that have been doing it for some time and use that as an example instead of creating increased legislative obstacles for voting that end up discrimminating?

Perception is much harder. One of the counties (in Michigan I think?). Came into controversy because of a deliberate disinformation campaign, that showed only a select cut from a much longer video of them counting ballots, and claiming there were boxes of fake ballots hidden under the table. If the entire recording had been viewed, you would see that wasn't the case. But recording the process of counting, along with having the observers might be a good way of restoring some public trust. I don't think all counties/states do that do they? It's up to individual locations?

Can't argue, and I may be chasing my tail on this. I think one frustration of mine is that states can go rogue and use this 2020 fantasy as an excuse, as we're seeing.

I've never understood why national elections can't be standardized. I respect federalism, and I'm all for states running their own state-level elections. But giving a state the ability to play this game sure seems to go against the spirit of free and fair elections.

I may just be trying to take excuses away from those who are currently threatening the legitimacy of our electoral process. More unchartered waters to deal with. I've had enough of that over the last five years.

Is there an actual legal/Constitutional reason that national elections can't be stadardized?

 

[Lastamender]

I'm not expecting a terribly vibrant thread, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. So here goes:

I wonder if we could toss out a few ideas on how we can count votes in the future. Leaving (or at least trying to leave) your political affiliation out of this, let's see your ideas on how the states might best do the following:

• Make voting as easy as possible, particular in rural, less dense areas
• Minimize the need for recounts
• Create voting systems (voting & counting) that maximize security

I'll start: Let's begin by dragging ourselves away from this need to know who won a state by the end of Election Day. Let's have an automatic audit confirmation process that counts the vote multiple (two or three different) ways on Election Night and the next day. That way we can minimize the need for recounts after the fact.

Also, while each state will certainly have its own rules, maybe we can find SOME common methods so that we can standardize them for better efficiency and accountability.

Okay, go. Let's try "imagining" instead of just repeating.

Why don't we correct the last election first. The audits will tell us who actually won the election.

 

[Mac1958]

Is there an actual legal/Constitutional reason that national elections can't be stadardized?

Hmmm.

The government should standardize voting practices – The Loyalist

theloyalist.org

Opinion | America Votes by 50 Sets of Rules. We Need a Federal Elections Agency. (Published 2020)

It could make sure laws are fair and consistent everywhere.

www.nytimes.com

Neither article seems to think this would be a problem.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not expecting a terribly vibrant thread, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. So here goes:

I wonder if we could toss out a few ideas on how we can count votes in the future. Leaving (or at least trying to leave) your political affiliation out of this, let's see your ideas on how the states might best do the following:

• Make voting as easy as possible, particular in rural, less dense areas
• Minimize the need for recounts
• Create voting systems (voting & counting) that maximize security

I'll start: Let's begin by dragging ourselves away from this need to know who won a state by the end of Election Day. Let's have an automatic audit confirmation process that counts the vote multiple (two or three different) ways on Election Night and the next day. That way we can minimize the need for recounts after the fact.

Also, while each state will certainly have its own rules, maybe we can find SOME common methods so that we can standardize them for better efficiency and accountability.

Okay, go. Let's try "imagining" instead of just repeating.

Why don't we correct the last election first. The audits will tell us who actually won the election.

Whose audits? Run by whom?

 

[Lastamender]

I'm not expecting a terribly vibrant thread, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. So here goes:

I wonder if we could toss out a few ideas on how we can count votes in the future. Leaving (or at least trying to leave) your political affiliation out of this, let's see your ideas on how the states might best do the following:

• Make voting as easy as possible, particular in rural, less dense areas
• Minimize the need for recounts
• Create voting systems (voting & counting) that maximize security

I'll start: Let's begin by dragging ourselves away from this need to know who won a state by the end of Election Day. Let's have an automatic audit confirmation process that counts the vote multiple (two or three different) ways on Election Night and the next day. That way we can minimize the need for recounts after the fact.

Also, while each state will certainly have its own rules, maybe we can find SOME common methods so that we can standardize them for better efficiency and accountability.

Okay, go. Let's try "imagining" instead of just repeating.

Why don't we correct the last election first. The audits will tell us who actually won the election.

Whose audits? Run by whom?

It does not matter. The illegal ballots will prove the fraud. The ballots will be the proof.

And Dominion worked on the first AZ audits with the auditors. No one should trust those audits. The same thing happened in GA.