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

[JoeB131]

Folks - remember, we are in CDZ and I know this is a hot tempered topic...

Then maybe we should move it out of the CDZ?

 

[Coyote]

Folks - remember, we are in CDZ and I know this is a hot tempered topic...

Then maybe we should move it out of the CDZ?

No. It's an established thread. Let's respect it.

 

[Lastamender]

Our electoral system has endured for two plus centuries, because of a very powerful (and at the time unique) concept: the peaceful transfer of power.

That essentially means when a candidate exhausts all legal means of challenging an election, he acknowledges the loss and concedes.

When that doesn't happen, and the candidate instead continues to make baseless claims on the election's integrity, he is taking part in destroying the public's faith in our elections. All without evidence.

Should there be repurcussions on a candidate that does this? Because this too is part of the problem with the 2020 election.

The claims are not baseless. That is a lie and you know it.

Rather than argue this...suppose it was Clinton who was doing this (including instigating January 6th) over the 2016 election...would you still support those activities?

I would have no problem with anyone exercising any of their Constitutional rights. Challenging an election's integrity is one of those rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Ya...there is that. It is mind boggling that after more than two centuries - we are on the Eve of Destruction, of a system that has worked and been the aspiration of much of the world. All it takes is one, smooth talking, ego driven populist who has the ability to read an audience and speak to their anger, and feed it.

Again, works on the assumption that Trump was the disease rather than a symptom.

Imagine being a Roman in 41 AD. Why, the Imperial System has worked well for nearly 80 years. Until you got that one crazy Emperor and the only way to remove him was to assassinate him.

The problem is, Trump was a stress test. We've had stress tests on our democracy before, The Civil War, Watergate, and our system has managed to endure.

We have a cultural divide in our country between a mostly minority urban population and a mostly white rural population, and they might as well be two separate countries. Trump only wanted to be president of one of those countries.

All this talk about voter ID and "fixing" the system is just gaming it.

Yes, a lot of parts had to fail. The Republican Party failed, the Electoral College Failed, Congress failed to prevent or remove Mad Emperor Trumpius.

 

[Coyote]

Our electoral system has endured for two plus centuries, because of a very powerful (and at the time unique) concept: the peaceful transfer of power.

That essentially means when a candidate exhausts all legal means of challenging an election, he acknowledges the loss and concedes.

When that doesn't happen, and the candidate instead continues to make baseless claims on the election's integrity, he is taking part in destroying the public's faith in our elections. All without evidence.

Should there be repurcussions on a candidate that does this? Because this too is part of the problem with the 2020 election.

The claims are not baseless. That is a lie and you know it.

Rather than argue this...suppose it was Clinton who was doing this (including instigating January 6th) over the 2016 election...would you still support those activities?

I would have no problem with anyone exercising any of their Constitutional rights. Challenging an election's integrity is one of those rights.

I agree, it is. But by long standing uncodified agreement - candidates have always understood that there is a legitimate path to challenge it, and when that path is exhausted, it is time to concede.

Now we have a candidate who refuses that even refusing to acknowledge he will promote a peaceful transition.

At that point, isn't he going beyond his Constitutional rights?

 

[Lastamender]

Our electoral system has endured for two plus centuries, because of a very powerful (and at the time unique) concept: the peaceful transfer of power.

That essentially means when a candidate exhausts all legal means of challenging an election, he acknowledges the loss and concedes.

When that doesn't happen, and the candidate instead continues to make baseless claims on the election's integrity, he is taking part in destroying the public's faith in our elections. All without evidence.

Should there be repurcussions on a candidate that does this? Because this too is part of the problem with the 2020 election.

The claims are not baseless. That is a lie and you know it.

Rather than argue this...suppose it was Clinton who was doing this (including instigating January 6th) over the 2016 election...would you still support those activities?

I would have no problem with anyone exercising any of their Constitutional rights. Challenging an election's integrity is one of those rights.

I agree, it is. But by long standing uncodified agreement - candidates have always understood that there is a legitimate path to challenge it, and when that path is exhausted, it is time to concede.

Now we have a candidate who refuses that even refusing to acknowledge he will promote a peaceful transition.

At that point, isn't he going beyond his Constitutional rights?

The path is not exhausted. The audits are a Constitutional right.

 

[JoeB131]

One more point. The voters got it right in 2016. Trump was unfit to be president and they voted against him.
They got it right in 2020. Trump had FAILED as president and he was voted out. Frankly, we've voted better men for failing less badly (Carter and Bush-41 come to mind.)

but the premise of this thread is 'Let's mollify the side that lost because they didn't like losing by making it harder for people to vote who are entitled to." It's one of the biggest problem I have with Democrats in general, their willingness to surrender even when they have the advantage, on some deluded notion that the other side's sense of fair play will win out.

The other side hasn't presented ANY credible evidence that the five swing states were flipped due to voter fraud or error. Yet here we are, honestly discussing how to deprive people of their right to vote.

 

[Coyote]

Our electoral system has endured for two plus centuries, because of a very powerful (and at the time unique) concept: the peaceful transfer of power.

That essentially means when a candidate exhausts all legal means of challenging an election, he acknowledges the loss and concedes.

When that doesn't happen, and the candidate instead continues to make baseless claims on the election's integrity, he is taking part in destroying the public's faith in our elections. All without evidence.

Should there be repurcussions on a candidate that does this? Because this too is part of the problem with the 2020 election.

The claims are not baseless. That is a lie and you know it.

Rather than argue this...suppose it was Clinton who was doing this (including instigating January 6th) over the 2016 election...would you still support those activities?

I would have no problem with anyone exercising any of their Constitutional rights. Challenging an election's integrity is one of those rights.

I agree, it is. But by long standing uncodified agreement - candidates have always understood that there is a legitimate path to challenge it, and when that path is exhausted, it is time to concede.

Now we have a candidate who refuses that even refusing to acknowledge he will promote a peaceful transition.

At that point, isn't he going beyond his Constitutional rights?

The path is not exhausted. The audits are a Constitutional right.

How?

 

[Coyote]

One more point. The voters got it right in 2016. Trump was unfit to be president and they voted against him.
They got it right in 2020. Trump had FAILED as president and he was voted out. Frankly, we've voted better men for failing less badly (Carter and Bush-41 come to mind.)

but the premise of this thread is 'Let's mollify the side that lost because they didn't like losing by making it harder for people to vote who are entitled to." It's one of the biggest problem I have with Democrats in general, their willingness to surrender even when they have the advantage, on some deluded notion that the other side's sense of fair play will win out.

The other side hasn't presented ANY credible evidence that the five swing states were flipped due to voter fraud or error. Yet here we are, honestly discussing how to deprive people of their right to vote.

"Yet here we are, honestly discussing how to deprive people of their right to vote."

Or how not to.

 

[Lastamender]

Our electoral system has endured for two plus centuries, because of a very powerful (and at the time unique) concept: the peaceful transfer of power.

That essentially means when a candidate exhausts all legal means of challenging an election, he acknowledges the loss and concedes.

When that doesn't happen, and the candidate instead continues to make baseless claims on the election's integrity, he is taking part in destroying the public's faith in our elections. All without evidence.

Should there be repurcussions on a candidate that does this? Because this too is part of the problem with the 2020 election.

The claims are not baseless. That is a lie and you know it.

Rather than argue this...suppose it was Clinton who was doing this (including instigating January 6th) over the 2016 election...would you still support those activities?

I would have no problem with anyone exercising any of their Constitutional rights. Challenging an election's integrity is one of those rights.

I agree, it is. But by long standing uncodified agreement - candidates have always understood that there is a legitimate path to challenge it, and when that path is exhausted, it is time to concede.

Now we have a candidate who refuses that even refusing to acknowledge he will promote a peaceful transition.

At that point, isn't he going beyond his Constitutional rights?

The path is not exhausted. The audits are a Constitutional right.

How?

The people demanded them their representatives are doing them. That is the way the country is supposed to work. The people have no obligation to believe anything the government and the media say.

 

[TeeDub]

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.

1) get rid of the Electoral College
2) Move election day to a Saturday or make it a holiday.
3) Allow early voting and have those votes pre-counted before election day.

If you get rid of the Electoral College it would transform us from a Republic to a true Democracy. Something that has NEVER worked.

 

[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.

1) get rid of the Electoral College
2) Move election day to a Saturday or make it a holiday.
3) Allow early voting and have those votes pre-counted before election day.

If you get rid of the Electoral College it would transform us from a Republic to a true Democracy. Something that has NEVER worked.

True Democracy is no more than mob rule. That is what they are doing in the Democratic cities right now.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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...

An election where trump got more popular votes than the beloved Obama?

I call a fraud

 

[JoeMoma]

"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?

Billions are spent on elections. People murder for much less. Trust no one without some sort of verification built into the system.

Suppose I'm a volunteer helping the elderly at a nursing home by collecting ballets to either take to an approved drop off site or to put in the mail. Talking to the residents, I get a pretty good handle who each are voting for. Hell, some of the residents even allow me to complete their ballets for them. Somehow, ballets for candidate A get delivered to the official drop off point and ballets for candidate B find the flames of my fireplace. Is there something built into the system to catch this. If not, then the system isn't acceptable.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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...

An election where trump got more popular votes than the beloved Obama?

I call a fraud

Come on, man! Biden was immensely popular.

At one of his rallies, he drew what looked to be 55, maybe as many as 60 people!!



....and it couldn't have been any more than 30 who were conversing to each other in Ukranian, either.

 

[Mac1958]

Our electoral system has endured for two plus centuries, because of a very powerful (and at the time unique) concept: the peaceful transfer of power.

That essentially means when a candidate exhausts all legal means of challenging an election, he acknowledges the loss and concedes.

When that doesn't happen, and the candidate instead continues to make baseless claims on the election's integrity, he is taking part in destroying the public's faith in our elections. All without evidence.

Should there be repurcussions on a candidate that does this? Because this too is part of the problem with the 2020 election.

I think our founders made certain assumptions when they brilliantly laid things out, and I don't think we've lived up to those assumptions. They couldn't have anticipated that we'd divide into competing realities like this. How could they?

Ya...there is that. It is mind boggling that after more than two centuries - we are on the Eve of Destruction, of a system that has worked and been the aspiration of much of the world. All it takes is one, smooth talking, ego driven populist who has the ability to read an audience and speak to their anger, and feed it.

The step before that was the setup - the three decades of non-stop, binary, pugilistic propaganda provided by talk radio and then the internet. To steal a line from another poster, "Trump took one look at the talk radio base and said, 'this is gonna be easy'".

We're not going to know for another election cycle or two, at least, if our system has been permanently crippled or worse. Never in a thousand years did I expect to see something like this here. And worse, this was all growing, all this time, right under our noses.

 

[Lastamender]

Our electoral system has endured for two plus centuries, because of a very powerful (and at the time unique) concept: the peaceful transfer of power.

That essentially means when a candidate exhausts all legal means of challenging an election, he acknowledges the loss and concedes.

When that doesn't happen, and the candidate instead continues to make baseless claims on the election's integrity, he is taking part in destroying the public's faith in our elections. All without evidence.

Should there be repurcussions on a candidate that does this? Because this too is part of the problem with the 2020 election.

I think our founders made certain assumptions when they brilliantly laid things out, and I don't think we've lived up to those assumptions. They couldn't have anticipated that we'd divide into competing realities like this. How could they?

Ya...there is that. It is mind boggling that after more than two centuries - we are on the Eve of Destruction, of a system that has worked and been the aspiration of much of the world. All it takes is one, smooth talking, ego driven populist who has the ability to read an audience and speak to their anger, and feed it.

The step before that was the setup - the three decades of non-stop, binary, pugilistic propaganda provided by talk radio and then the internet. To steal a line from another poster, "Trump took one look at the talk radio base and said, 'this is gonna be easy'".

We're not going to know for another election cycle or two, at least, if our system has been permanently crippled or worse. Never in a thousand years did I expect to see something like this here. And worse, this was all growing, all this time, right under our noses.

Exactly what virtues are you signaling today? And the system has little to do with the Constitution.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Our electoral system has endured for two plus centuries, because of a very powerful (and at the time unique) concept: the peaceful transfer of power.

That essentially means when a candidate exhausts all legal means of challenging an election, he acknowledges the loss and concedes.

When that doesn't happen, and the candidate instead continues to make baseless claims on the election's integrity, he is taking part in destroying the public's faith in our elections. All without evidence.

Should there be repurcussions on a candidate that does this? Because this too is part of the problem with the 2020 election.

I think our founders made certain assumptions when they brilliantly laid things out, and I don't think we've lived up to those assumptions. They couldn't have anticipated that we'd divide into competing realities like this. How could they?

Ya...there is that. It is mind boggling that after more than two centuries - we are on the Eve of Destruction, of a system that has worked and been the aspiration of much of the world. All it takes is one, smooth talking, ego driven populist who has the ability to read an audience and speak to their anger, and feed it.

The step before that was the setup - the three decades of non-stop, binary, pugilistic propaganda provided by talk radio and then the internet. To steal a line from another poster, "Trump took one look at the talk radio base and said, 'this is gonna be easy'".

We're not going to know for another election cycle or two, at least, if our system has been permanently crippled or worse. Never in a thousand years did I expect to see something like this here. And worse, this was all growing, all this time, right under our noses.

I thought you were old then me (56) I seen it coming in the 1990s

 

[Rambunctious]

Voter ID....a must in any free society....no ballot harvesting...one man one vote one ballot....no 24 hour voting and no drive through voting nonsense...covid is over....

 

[JoeB131]

If you get rid of the Electoral College it would transform us from a Republic to a true Democracy. Something that has NEVER worked.

Except there's no evidence for that. You would still have representation in Congress, you would still have state governments. The only thing that would change is we would directly elect the president.

that's it.

Or to put it another way, if you elected by popular vote, of the 59 presidential elections we have had, you would have gotten the exact same results in 54 of them.

Just not seeing a problem.