Well, I have, and it's not nonsense IME. Our state currently has a candidate under felony investigation for election fraud. We have multiple counties whose decisions are made by razor-thin margins. I mean, to repeat someone else (I don't even remember who) politics is one of the few truly zero-sum games out there, with much to lose. To think that humans (particularly politicians) are above pushing the envelope to the point of breakage in such circumstances strains credibility. Your easy dismissal may strike some as being a bit naïve. If you're assuming all the bad ones get caught, I have a drug war to sell you.
It's important that claims are investigated, but claims have been investigated, courts have made rulings, all the way to the Supreme Court.
The system will never be perfect but nobody is. Holding it to a 100% standard and saying it isn't a good system if it fails in a few points is not acting in good faith.
I have yet to see any real evidence of election fraud. The Trump lawyers have been shutdown by bipartisan courts across the country. Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, lifelong republicans, agreed.
I agree that the process has been engaged and the verdict delivered. However the concerns about election integrity greatly predate this election, and in my lifetime the controls have been getting weaker not stronger. I don’t think the broader issue is going away anytime soon.
About the controls getting weaker? Review the evolution of controls over time. This year alone my own state eliminated the requirement for absentee ballot witnesses, extended the dates after Election Day for which ballots may be received, loosened the postmark requirements for such ballots. Is this a case where you have evaluated the suitability and effectiveness of the control structure for election integrity and believe that the tendency of loosening preventative and detective controls is immaterial or are you not familiar with the changes? For these are two different conversations: a) I believe the lack of controls to ensure integrity of the process is immaterial to the outcome; b) I believe controls are necessary but don’t see them loosening.
For conversation a, we would disagree in principle - regardless of whether we’re talking about the integrity of the corporate books, the management of systems access, or the integrity of the voting process, to the degree the control structure weakens it is introducing increasing amounts of risk not only in the reliability of the reporting but into the faith held by the stakeholders.
Now you ask, how much risk is appropriate and sustainable, to which I (quick on the repartee) would say storming the federal capital is a benchmark of failure, a growing (not ebbing) concern over election integrity over decades is a bad trend getting worse not better.
Even via the most cynical outlook about one side imagining problems that aren’t there, what happens in sports when one team believes fouls against them aren’t being called? Or in a company when rumors are commonplace that the books are being cooked? It doesn’t make things better, is my point - things get worse. And that’s where turning a blind eye to the very real concerns of others only continues the destabilization.
Absentee ballot witnesses? Really? That's your argument?
> extended the dates after Election Day for which ballots may be received,
Yea maybe it was because there was a global pandemic and the president deliberately weakened the postal service to help himself. I don't see how legal ballots sent in being counted is a weakening of integrity.
None of this is evidence. These are things that happened - but you have not provided any evidence that this weakened the integrity of the election.
Addressing the trust problem is what needs attention now, and in that conversation your litigation of the “fraud” evidence question becomes less useful.
Imagine it like a problem in GAAP or in NIST 800. It’s not about whether _you_ can or cannot see fraud, it’s about whether the community at large (let’s just use Pareto’s 80%) has faith that there are sufficient controls to make fraud unlikely.
Here’s an easy example: your company doesn’t require dual signatures on wire transfers over $250k. One person can make a decision on moving material amounts of cash out the door. You say, we’ve not seen any evidence of large scale wire fraud so we don’t need stronger controls to prevent it. To your auditors and investment community this is a ticking time bomb for several reasons, the least of which may be questionable confidence in your specific ability to detect instances of fraud thus far.
This type of problem is encountered frequently in the regulatory world and I’m not sure why the voting process is so special that we can’t apply similar solution sets. That is, look to sensible, auditable control structures that can be demonstrated to be effective.
The control structure around voting is getting looser, not tighter, and this has been a trend predating the prior four presidential election cycles at least. Looking at the anecdata, many operations are a clown show where if not being abused are clearly ripe for abuse.
I’m not sure how to put it more simply: the debate about the degree and type of fraud that _you_ are aware of is immaterial. The question before the country is how to react when some 40% of the country is losing confidence in the system. Not just in a joking way but shifting to where the fringes are just done with it and parts of the non-fringe are increasingly finding sympathy for them.
My OP was about how the US needs to be prioritizing a fix for the confidence problem. Solutions such as more censorship are a poison pill.
Your comment reflects your self interest in the outcome of the last election, rather than the national interest for the next election. You can tell people to go pound sand, but I don’t think that solution has longevity. This is the first time in my lifetime I can remember the Capitol being stormed, and I’m aware that the confidence issue has been percolating for many years. Ballot harvesting, loose validation checks, willfully bad voter roles, etc., have been making the problem worse not better, again from a confidence level. This year in California the Republicans got in on the ballot harvesting.
Again, what happens in sports when one team thinks the fouls aren’t being called? Does it matter whether you, on the other team, hold a different opinion about the state of refereeing? The whole thing turns into a clown show.
I don’t think an endorsement of continuing down this same path is a good prescription for this country. In terms of the Four Boxes of Liberty, I worry that two of them are increasingly perceived as being locked out for one of our large political factions. Not good.
The confidence problem is unfixable with these people. They will never have confidence in the system unless their side wins - as such they are a threat to it and society should do everything it can to peacefully ostracize this.
If the goal was to truly add trust they would not have stormed the capitol at the behest of Trump and his allies. This immediately proves the goal is not trust - it is power.
Now you must prove to me why I should trust these challenges - as they are filled with lies and conspiracy theories. The trust problem is with the insurrectionists. You have not dealt with this or have proven the system has no integrity. You are using ambiguity, like a flat-earther. It won't work here, sorry.
You're not being honest about the situation. None of the official cases were given the chance to be aired, all were dismissed on procedural grounds. The Supreme Court did not "make rulings", they refused to hear the case.
Sadly, that decision may have led to this state of affairs. When people think they have no voice, violence comes soon after.
The Supreme Court rightly ruled that the traitor's case from Texas did not have legal standing.
I'm a Pennsylvanian. Texas should have no right to tell our legislature and government how to run its elections. The Supreme Court rightfully agreed:
> "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote in an unsigned ruling Friday evening.
But again, you aren't arguing in good faith. I can't wait til Jan 20.
Context is important - I was responding to someone asking for local experience(“go work at a polling place”). But examples seem all too easy to find. A better response is to consider what concessions in the control structure can be made to restore confidence.
You may have faith that everything is okay, but that does little to satisfy those with experience of fraud or hearing stories of fraud. One can see a local example and easily (and not irrationally) imagine that the systems work similarly in the neighboring city, county, or state.
Whether your intention or not, it’s easy for your attitude to come across as accepting of deficiency - and an endorsement that may run out when the tables turn (and in American politics, they always do). The unending cycle of dismissal by each side to the other’s sincerely held concerns is getting us nowhere but a bad place.
I think you are not seeing the problem set for what it is. Your attitude seems to be: “there is no issue with the integrity of the number summmary.” Let’s say the problem at this point has nothing to do with who won - the problem at this point is that a great many of your countrymen are convinced they cannot trust the system. Your hope is they get over it. I can only tell you that from observing politics for a long time that the concerns over election integrity are getting worse in this country with each iteration, not better. In the face of this we are relaxing the control structure, not strengthening it. The result of continuing down this path should be easy to perceive.
What you describe is indeed the problem, but SHOULD it rightfully be the problem? Or should we really be concerned about the truth of who won, and leave it at that? The mistrust was fueled entirely by Trump. Prior to Nov 3, more Republicans than Democrats expressed confidence in the integrity of the system. So if you dont dispute the election result, then the problem would seem to lie entirely with Trump lies, and all who choose to believe them over evidence. You know Mccarthyism was a thing? Was it because there were systematic issues at the time making our Congress susceptible to a Communist majority, or was it because of a demogogue, lies lies lies, and willfully ignorant believers?
