I’m sorry that you are unwilling to consider my views (or to evaluate your own) because I only have read posts here. There’s nothing I can do to change that, but I am not here to troll.
US Elections (& Politics) :)
- Thread starter sdkid
- Start date
I’m sorry that you are unwilling to consider my views (or to evaluate your own) because I only have read posts here. There’s nothing I can do to change that, but I am not here to troll.
OK, let's "pretend" there was no fraud......can anyone answer this simple question? : Just why IS the new, automated voting systems that take days to finalize better than the old, slow way that took several hours?
I'm waiting.....
<sound of crickets chirping>
OK, let's "pretend" there was no fraud......can anyone answer this simple question? : Just why IS the new, automated voting systems that take days to finalize better than the old, slow way that took several hours?
I'm waiting.....
<sound of crickets chirping>
Was the population unchanged? Were the number of people working to count unchanged? Since you are not being specific about time or place, I think there’s many reasonable explanations, putting aside that most of the localities have only done more to make elections secure over time.
sebastiantombs
Known around here
France and England, while not as large,, immediately come to mind. Making excuses for ineptitude and deception by election officials, from the top down does not cure anything. How can they run out of ink or paper ballots as one simple example? Why do lopsided vote counts always occur in the middle of the night, when no counting is going on, in the same places and in more than one election? Why is voter ID such a tall mountain to climb when you need ID to buy a cold medicine or get on an airplane? Is it really that difficult to find time on one day a year to exercise one of the most valuable rights, or arguably the most valuable right, in a democratic republic? It is the very least a citizen can do.
There is no defense for the utter failure of the election system in more than one State. Not getting a result in over a week is simply not acceptable at all.
I know lets start voting and counting votes on January 1 every year, even before the candidates are known. Anyone can vote, man, woman, child, citizen, "undocumented citizen" or anybody that happens to be here. That's where we're headed.
There is no defense for the utter failure of the election system in more than one State. Not getting a result in over a week is simply not acceptable at all.
I know lets start voting and counting votes on January 1 every year, even before the candidates are known. Anyone can vote, man, woman, child, citizen, "undocumented citizen" or anybody that happens to be here. That's where we're headed.
Hmmm. From Thursday 11/10, 2 days after Election "Day" ==>> Key races in Arizona, Nevada and Georgia – which could decide the makeup of Congress – are still undecided.
I didn't think he said that. I take it as saying more time allows more opportunity for fraud.
Oceanslider
Known around here
Sybertiger
Known around here
Honestly, I'm shocked....guess the democraps couldn't stuff enough fake ballots in time.
I'm sure that everyone knows that principal responsibility for Federal elections in the US are constitutionally delegated to the States in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. Nearly all State constitutions assign the administrative responsibility for executing elections to the individual State's "Secretary of State" and the State legislatures (house/senate/assembly) are responsible for funding the elections and oversight. Federally, Congress has a role for Elections, but this could be best thought of as a strategic role and not a tactical (procedural execution) role.
I think there is a reasonable argument for more standardization at the Federal level for how states conduct elections for Federal office elections. The various arguments for things like Voter ID (much as I am required to have a REAL ID compliant identification to get on a plane in 2023) could be addressed uniformly. I have no idea if this is practical or if it would withstand the inevitable challenges at the Supreme Court against constitutionality.
The point made for specific places (Arizona, Nevada, Georgia) doesn't seem totally convincing. For this election, the relevant parties in control of those important election execution/oversight roles:
Arizona
Secretary of State: Democratic
State House Leadership: Republican
State Senate Leadership: Republican
Nevada
Secretary of State: Republican
State Senate Leadership: Democratic
State Assembly Leadership: Democratic
Georgia
Secretary of State: Republican
State Senate Leadership: Republican
State House Leadership: Republican
I find it hard to believe that somehow this varying mix of leadership across parties responsible for funding and executing secure, transparent, fair elections is somehow failing to live up to those expectations that every American should have of their electoral system.
Instead, I think it's more likely and realistic that:
1. Many places that take time to report have diverse electorates where there is no clear majority winner in certain races on the evening of an election. Why not allow them to count all votes?
2. Without the public wanting to understand the details of counting procedures, things like "lots of votes showed up overnight" become presumed to be fraud instead of explained by well defined processes.
3. Inadequate funding to execute elections fairly and properly (which leads to failures to execute, in the example of Printer ink problems in Maricopa County, AZ).
4. Intentional voter policies lead to difficulties like long lines, limited voting locations, etc. This borders on voter disenfranchisement, but I presume it starts with basic incompetence of those charged with execution.
My conclusion through all of this is that we're still better off with the decentralized system we have. If you're willing to consider a libertarian perspective (which I would argue is often in agreement with conservative values), the Cato Institute has an argument for why the election system being decentralized is a benefit.
Like everything, there's always tradeoffs. None of these tradeoffs lead to widespread fraud, it's just totally implausible that there's some cabal of election fraudsters able to navigate the nuances of a decentralized system so adeptly that audits find no trace. Other posts in this thread seem shocked when a Republican wins in a place they presume a Democratic candidate should have won, and then blame the Democratic voters for not cheating properly. I can't really understand this logic, and I never see this coming from the Democratic side when a Republican wins.
The election system is not perfect but there's also no massive vote cheating occurring, and if folks bothered to understand what was happening and how the election system actually works (vs listening to the media/political talking heads telling you to believe the worst), they would see that the system we have works and is something to have confidence in. That said, there is always opportunities for improvement.
What is the correct amount of time to ensure zero fraud and count all eligible votes accurately and securely?
I appreciate the engagement on other countries reporting votes faster.
My opinion is that the structures of government (while all democracies) vary so much that it's really impossible to draw meaningful conclusions on time to tally votes.
I didn't try to determine how quickly each country could tally votes after an election, because: (1) the scale of time zone/land mass/population is so different; (2) the UK and France have election holidays, so everyone could reasonably go vote in person without work consequences.
My understanding is that neither country has a distributed (federalist) style election system like we have in the US. I think we would be better served comparing what states do, how their processes deal with security and accuracy, and how they fund elections compared to other states of similar populations.
End my opinion, here's the facts to contrast between countries:
United States
50 States. Population ~331 million.
48 States within the "contiguous United States" with land area of 3.1 million square miles within 4 time zones.
2 States (Alaska/Hawaii) outside the contiguous US. Other territories not eligible to vote in Federal elections
The US holds elections on a Tuesday. It is not a work holiday. Many states extend voting beyond the election day (or offer absentee/mail in voting) given that people work and may not be able to stand in line for hours in lieu of their job duties in order to cast their ballot.
Some states have decided ballots legally cast before Election day cannot be counted until Election day.
United Kingdom
UK is a single land mass of 94,000 square miles and within a single time zone. Population ~67 million.
The UK holds elections on a Thursday. Election Day in the UK is a work holiday.
France
Single land area with 210,000 square miles within a single time zone. Population ~67 million.
France votes on Sundays. Culturally, few work on Sunday, except in critical roles. Effectively, they have a voting holiday.
Last edited:
This is the response to me pointing out that you twisted someone's words into something he didn't say? Why are you trying to corner me into answering something specifically that can't be answered specifically? I'm not part of this debate. I'm pointing out your twisting of somebody's words, and I see you're also using the "Argument by demanding impossible evidence" technique.
You took the statement "The appearance of opportunity to manipulate counts caused by excessive, and yes more than a day is excessive time, is enough to introduce doubt and mistrust in the entire process. " and twisted it into "arbitrary assertion about longer durations leading to fraud ".
I appreciate your response, even if I don't really understand why my quoting your comment and asking a question is somehow perceived as an attack on you. It was not. If I failed to accurately quote and characterize someone's statement, I apologize. There's no way to thread this conversation meaningfully without quotes, and yours was what I felt best captured the essence of the conversation and provided an opportunity for a response.
My general supposition based on people suggesting "if something takes time, fraud could occur", but there's no evidence of that, and logically to me, I would expect fraud to occur if something happens quickly and without a process. If others feel differently, they should at least be able to plausibly articulate some reasoning, and that's why I asked what minimal amount of time will effectively lead to no fraud and the desired outcome for democracy.
I say in person voting only. If voting isn’t important enough to you to make it on Election Day, then you don’t get to vote.
Plus, at the voting booth there needs to be jars of ink. Just like the Iraqis did, when you vote you dip your thumb in ink.
Plus, at the voting booth there needs to be jars of ink. Just like the Iraqis did, when you vote you dip your thumb in ink.
They do this all over Asia. There's a movie in which India holds its general election and their board of elections journies to a remote village (indigenous people) just to get a small handful of votes that potentially determines the outcome of the election.
Clearly only 50% percent of the US population votes during presidential elections and way less during the midterm and any other election during the interim - its appalling
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
Sybertiger
Known around here
A significant problem with the GOP is the war within. The swamp establishment RINOs doing everything in their power to maintain their control. You generally don't see the libtards infighting like the GOP. The swamp refuses to die. We really need term limits and get rid of lobbyist and corporate donations.
GOP candidate who reportedly misrepresented military service says House Republicans ‘left the campaign to die’
J.R. Majewski, the Republican nominee for Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, said on Friday that Republican establishment leaders are to blame for the GOP’s performance in the midterm electio…
thehill.com
I remember a similar statement from Texas Governor during the 2020 Elections. There is NO good reason for the counting Delays...Period!!!
