Democracy is in trouble....

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

We don’t even have a signature match in the UK. You get sent your ballot card to your address and on polling day turn up, hand over the card, they cross your name off a list and give you a voting slip (which is not tied to your identity in any way). No check that you are the person named on the card. No need to provide ID. You put a cross next to your candidate of choice and put it in a box.

Far less checks than you have in the US and no-one shouts about voter fraud here.

I’ve never voted by mail but again I think that just gets sent to your address and you tick (cross) the box and put it back in the post.

Not surprisingly "In the United Kingdom a 2016 government inquiry found that postal voting "was considered by some to be the UK’s main electoral vulnerability and to provide the 'best' opportunity for electoral fraud..." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absent...United_Kingdom)

[The Great Zaganza]

you do realize that offering mail-in voting doesn't mean you eliminate in-person voting.

right?

right?!???

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

you do realize that offering mail-in voting doesn't mean you eliminate in-person voting.

right?

right?!???

Right. In that case the risk is smaller. But you do realize that switching to mail voting alone increases the risk of cheating, right?
Such as Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington which hold elections almost entirely by mail, with Hawaii and Utah adopting full vote-by-mail elections in 2020. (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal...ates_elections)

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Abooga

Right. In that case the risk is smaller. But you do realize that switching to mail voting alone increases the risk of cheating, right?
Such as Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington which hold elections almost entirely by mail, with Hawaii and Utah adopting full vote-by-mail elections in 2020. (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal...ates_elections)

I don't think you have evidence of that.
What mail-in voting increases is the number of votes rejected, precisely because poll workers check more carefully than they do with walk-ins.

Unless, of course, you mean cheating by the partisan Election Commission finding reasons to disqualify votes from certain places ...

[Abooga]

Have a look at my previous posts, see how for example Avi Rubin (an expert in the field) decried the switch to mail only voting, because it is less secure. If you look anywhere and read about voting systems´ security you´ll see that there is nothing safer than presential paper voting and counting.

[The Great Zaganza]

No election system is going to be flawless.
Expediency must be a consideration, too, not just accuracy and legitimacy.


If mail-in voting makes it possible for an additional 10% of voters to cast their vote, but increases the risk of fraud by 0.1%, that should be a trade-off worth considering.

I'm all for making mail-in voting saver.
I'm all for making it automatic to have a second vote in cases where the election is tight and relevant levels of irregularities might have occurred: sometimes, it's too close to tell no matter how many recounts you do.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by Abooga

(...)

Let me see... ahhh, misrepresentation, misleading claims, lying with statistics, cherrypicked experts...

Standard stuff from usual suspects, really.

Originally Posted by Abooga

But all this does not negate that the system is crap. And noticing the reticence to address the problem, democracy is in peril indeed.

For certain folks solution is somehow always change voting in way that completely accidentally harms democrats. No one here will fall for your crap.

[JoeMorgue]

I miss the days when you could at least count on insane trolls to come up with their own nonsense.

This is like the prepackaged Hot Topic version of it.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

Let me see... ahhh, misrepresentation, misleading claims, lying with statistics, cherrypicked experts...

Standard stuff from usual suspects, really.


For certain folks solution is somehow always change voting in way that completely accidentally harms democrats. No one here will fall for your crap.

My solution would be to make a more tamper proof system Are you saying that it would hurt democrats? Are you claiming that democrats cheat?

I see you haven't bothered to read any of the sources I posted, so I won't bother any more with you.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Abooga

My solution would be to make a more tamper proof system Are you saying that it would hurt democrats? Are you claiming that democrats cheat?

I see you haven't bothered to read any of the sources I posted, so I won't bother any more with you.

Most "more tamperproof" systems proposed, such as increased use of voter ID or reduced polling locations or reduced polling hours or reduced ballot drop off locations, tend to disadvantage the poor and minorities. See: All the literature.

If one were to make a "more tamperproof" system that did not disadvantage the poor or minorities, that would likely be welcome by most people. That is just never what is actually proposed or implemented.

For example: When voter ID laws are passed they are never coupled with any effort to make it easier for voters who do not currently meet those requirements to meet them. They dismiss it as a "small number" even though it is many orders of magnitude larger than any recorded voter fraud.

So, those who worry about disenfranchising the poor or minorities get a bit tired of hearing about how the fact that there were ten fraudulent votes is an excuse to exclude thousands of poor and minority voters from the system.

You are receiving the brunt of years of bad faith arguments from those who say they want more secure elections, but in fact just want to make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote. That you are using the same data and arguments makes it look even worse.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Abooga

My solution would be to make a more tamper proof system Are you saying that it would hurt democrats? Are you claiming that democrats cheat?

Yes. Because with the Right "Tamper Proof" always means "Keep black people from voting."

Quote:

I see you haven't bothered to read any of the sources I posted, so I won't bother any more with you.

Do whatever you want. It won't keep the sane people from pointing out every lie you make. You don't have to listen.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Abooga

My solution would be to make a more tamper proof system Are you saying that it would hurt democrats? Are you claiming that democrats cheat?

I see you haven't bothered to read any of the sources I posted, so I won't bother any more with you.

I, at least, have no issue with the idea that a more tamper-proof system would be a good idea. My issue is with the contention of some that the current system has led to some problem that justifies the wave of insurrectionist anger we now see, or that requires diversion of attention from the problems and expenses we now face.

Improvement is good, and many things could use improvement. There is, in this as in any issue, a question of cost versus benefit. We can go on and on forever discussing how disorganized and potentially flawed the current system is, but if it works well enough on the whole it's well down the list of things we need to do something about.

If the system is broken, it's been broken for a long time and it seems just a little suspicious that it becomes a front-burner issue only when the worst, stupidest, and most corrupt president in history has lost, and his followers, in response to his insane lies, have attempted to overthrow the government. There's a thin line here between addressing a problem and pandering.

We've managed, it seems, to survive a period in which important policy was based on slim presumptions and outright lies, and even if the potential flaws of the voting system are not actual lies, the presumption that it failed is, and (whether or not any posters here are in the group) it seems that the same people who fomented that lie and justified its disastrous results are trying to convince us that we need to give priority to assuaging the injured faith of the disappointed. If we want to deprive the enemies of democracy of their power, we might have to stop empowering them.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by bruto

I, at least, have no issue with the idea that a more tamper-proof system would be a good idea. My issue is with the contention of some that the current system has led to some problem that justifies the wave of insurrectionist anger we now see, or that requires diversion of attention from the problems and expenses we now face.

Improvement is good, and many things could use improvement. There is, in this as in any issue, a question of cost versus benefit. We can go on and on forever discussing how disorganized and potentially flawed the current system is, but if it works well enough on the whole it's well down the list of things we need to do something about.

If the system is broken, it's been broken for a long time and it seems just a little suspicious that it becomes a front-burner issue only when the worst, stupidest, and most corrupt president in history has lost, and his followers, in response to his insane lies, have attempted to overthrow the government. There's a thin line here between addressing a problem and pandering.

We've managed, it seems, to survive a period in which important policy was based on slim presumptions and outright lies, and even if the potential flaws of the voting system are not actual lies, the presumption that it failed is, and (whether or not any posters here are in the group) it seems that the same people who fomented that lie and justified its disastrous results are trying to convince us that we need to give priority to assuaging the injured faith of the disappointed. If we want to deprive the enemies of democracy of their power, we might have to stop empowering them.

I personally haven't taken Trump's claims seriously, he was obviously lying and obfuscating. I'm not trying to vindicate his claims, quite the opposite. My point is just that the imperfectly designed and insufficiently transparent voting system has helped boost the claims of fraud. And if it doesn't get corrected it could happen again. Do you want that in the next election? Wouldn't it be better to have a simpler, safer, transparent voting system that precluded any serious claims of fraud?

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Most "more tamperproof" systems proposed, such as increased use of voter ID or reduced polling locations or reduced polling hours or reduced ballot drop off locations, tend to disadvantage the poor and minorities. See: All the literature.

If one were to make a "more tamperproof" system that did not disadvantage the poor or minorities, that would likely be welcome by most people. That is just never what is actually proposed or implemented.

For example: When voter ID laws are passed they are never coupled with any effort to make it easier for voters who do not currently meet those requirements to meet them. They dismiss it as a "small number" even though it is many orders of magnitude larger than any recorded voter fraud.

So, those who worry about disenfranchising the poor or minorities get a bit tired of hearing about how the fact that there were ten fraudulent votes is an excuse to exclude thousands of poor and minority voters from the system.

You are receiving the brunt of years of bad faith arguments from those who say they want more secure elections, but in fact just want to make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote. That you are using the same data and arguments makes it look even worse.

I don't know what the design of safer e-voting machines or mail voting systems have to do with disadvantaging minorities... You are seeing ghosts.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I personally haven't taken Trump's claims seriously, he was obviously lying and obfuscating. I'm not trying to vindicate his claims, quite the opposite. My point is just that the imperfectly designed and insufficiently transparent voting system has helped boost the claims of fraud. And if it doesn't get corrected it could happen again. Do you want that in the next election? Wouldn't it be better to have a simpler, safer, transparent voting system that precluded any serious claims of fraud?

*Very slowly*

What... problems... do... we... need... to... fix?

"Well I've imagined a way someone might cheat the system" isn't a problem that needs to be fixed.

I get it. You want to make claims but have zero evidence so you're dancing on the "Oh I'm just asking questions" like all Conspiracy Theorists/Woo Slingers.

The way the Right is cheating the system, which are happening in the real world, needs to be fixed. Insane fever dreams about hypothetical things the Left could be doing do not.

[The Great Zaganza]

The claims of voter fraud came from people being highly motivated to find voter fraud who were at the same time incredibly ignorant about how voting works in their State.

Before we change a system that seemed to have worked as intended, why don't we spend some time making sure Voters know how it works before they vote?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Abooga

My point is just that the imperfectly designed and insufficiently transparent voting system has helped boost the claims of fraud.

I would take issue with the "insufficiently transparent" aspect of that claim. I don't live in the US and have never voted in a US election, yet I've found it quite simple to find out as much detail as I wanted about the system and how it operates. The people swallowing the claim of fraud do so, not because the system is "insufficiently transparent," but because they lack either the motivation or the critical thinking skills to find out for themselves how the system works and assess the fraud claims against reality. That isn't a fault with the voting system. It's a fault with the mentality of a large part of the population.

As for "imperfectly designed," please submit a list of known voting systems that are perfectly designed. In fact, a list of anything that's perfectly designed would be nice.

Originally Posted by Abooga

And if it doesn't get corrected it could happen again. Do you want that in the next election? Wouldn't it be better to have a simpler, safer, transparent voting system that precluded any serious claims of fraud?

There is no possible system that would preclude claims of fraud by people sufficiently dishonest to fabricate them, nor that would preclude the acceptance of those claims by people with sufficiently poor critical thinking abilities who cannot accept that democracy requires that some people will not have their preferred candidate elected. And, as Dr. Keith points out above, there are costs as well as benefits to a more tamper-proof system; if one of those costs is voter suppression, then overall democracy is impaired rather than assisted by the change.

And, yes, such a change would hurt Democrats, even if - in fact, especially if - Democrats do not cheat.

Dave

[No Other]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yes. Because with the Right "Tamper Proof" always means "Keep black people from voting."

I live in the South as I see you live in Florida. My hometown is 50% Black and 50% White, I have not heard one Black say there was any difficulty in either registering or voting.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by bruto

I, at least, have no issue with the idea that a more tamper-proof system would be a good idea. My issue is with the contention of some that the current system has led to some problem that justifies the wave of insurrectionist anger we now see, or that requires diversion of attention from the problems and expenses we now face.

Improvement is good, and many things could use improvement. There is, in this as in any issue, a question of cost versus benefit. We can go on and on forever discussing how disorganized and potentially flawed the current system is, but if it works well enough on the whole it's well down the list of things we need to do something about.

If the system is broken, it's been broken for a long time and it seems just a little suspicious that it becomes a front-burner issue only when the worst, stupidest, and most corrupt president in history has lost, and his followers, in response to his insane lies, have attempted to overthrow the government. There's a thin line here between addressing a problem and pandering.

We've managed, it seems, to survive a period in which important policy was based on slim presumptions and outright lies, and even if the potential flaws of the voting system are not actual lies, the presumption that it failed is, and (whether or not any posters here are in the group) it seems that the same people who fomented that lie and justified its disastrous results are trying to convince us that we need to give priority to assuaging the injured faith of the disappointed. If we want to deprive the enemies of democracy of their power, we might have to stop empowering them.

This is not the first time flaws in the voting process has been a topic of discussion amongst those who might care about such things.

Dead voters, hanging chads, Diebold machines, Russian interference, and most recently Mail in voting, have been topics throughout many elections- and have called into question the legitimacy of the wins of candidates on both sides of the aisle- over a span of decades.

The biggest impediment to setting up something fair and secure has been the short attention span of the populace- we only think about these things right after the election, and right after an election the newly elected react the most defensively regarding the election process-for fear their wins will seem illegitimate. So they stick their fingers in their ears and scream "la la la I can't hear you" when the topic is being discussed, long enough for the next event that captures the publics' attention to occur.

Now would be an ideal time for the Democrats to take the initiative on establishing some safe, fair, secure, accessible, and uniform voting process for the Nation. Instead, it seems, they must insist the system is perfect, and that any calls to address the obvious problems with it is just an attempt to discredit their win.

A month ago I would have been shocked had someone said that getting into the Capitol while congress was in session required little more than breaking a window and walking down a hallway, now I know that the building was not quite as secure as I had assumed it was. Do we wish to wait until a foreign power actually changes the results of our election to make the election process more secure?

Biden could address a real problem, whilst simultaneously demonstrating confidence in the legitimacy of his own win, and a willingness to reach out to the loonies who need to be brought back to a level of reasonableness, by making "election reform" a centerpiece of his admin.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Abooga

And you still wonder why Trump´s claims of election fraud seemed believable for many? IMO he lacked credibility because he had four years as president to tackle this problem and did nothing, then spread baseless claims right before the election, and also, when he started claiming that he won "by a landslide" and that he got "75% of the votes", anyone with a sane mind should have noticed that he was blatantly lying.

But all this does not negate that the system is crap. And noticing the reticence to address the problem, democracy is in peril indeed.

The claims of election fraud are believable to so many because they’ve been fed a steady diet of lies, propaganda, and conspiracy theories by Trump and the Republican Party. Full stop.

Regarding all the information you’ve posted, I regret to inform you that pointing out potential risks isn’t particularly compelling. Every time I drive my car, there’s a potential risk that I could be rocketed through the windshield at 60 miles per hour. But in actuality, I drove to the store yesterday and then safely returned home.

Do you have any evidence of actual problems that actually impacted the results in a significant way? Any evidence of verified security issues that actually impacted the election?

The 2020 election was probably the most scrutinized election in U.S. history.

It shouldn’t be difficult to come up with examples, if any exist.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I don't know what the design of safer e-voting machines or mail voting systems have to do with disadvantaging minorities... You are seeing ghosts.

Personally I'm seeing a very sudden change of direction. You were strongly implying that in-person voting was the only safe system, that voting by mail was less preferable and that e-voting in particular was fundamentally insecure; now suddenly you're saying you just wanted to improve them all along?

Dave

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by No Other

I live in the South as I see you live in Florida. My hometown is 50% Black and 50% White, I have not heard one Black say there was any difficulty in either registering or voting.

Okay. Facts care not for your anecdotes.

I'm not going to waste my time showing facts and figures as to Republican voter suppression efforts as if I actually thought for a second you'd either listen or believe them. The Republican party has openly admitted it can't win fair elections, which is why it is trying to rewrite the narrative as "Fairness is just the Democrats not wanting to lose."

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"Well I've imagined a way someone might cheat the system" isn't a problem that needs to be fixed.

If only it were that concrete. "Well a bunch of credulous, partisan and uninformed people think the liars who told them the system might have been cheated in ways it can't possibly have been cheated might have a point" is about the level of justification we're actually seeing.

Dave

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

If only it were that concrete. "Well a bunch of credulous, partisan and uninformed people think the liars who told them the system might have been cheated in ways it can't possibly have been cheated might have a point" is about the level of justification we're actually seeing.

Like I said the Republicans have openly admitted they can't win in fair elections, which makes it hilarious that we're even discussing it.

Their attempts now are to sell some narrative that if you're for fairness you only care about the Democrats winning.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I don't know what the design of safer e-voting machines or mail voting systems have to do with disadvantaging minorities... You are seeing ghosts.

I am acknowledging history.

If your proposed changes have no impact on voter turnout among disadvantaged voters, I would expect them to find little support among the GOP in states where they could be implemented. But feel free to quote this back at me if I am wrong.

[JoeMorgue]

Again we're having this discussion as if members of the GOP haven't come out and directly said things to the various effects of "We can't win if black people can vote" multiple times.

Again that's why the apologists here are desperately doing everything they can to find some way of going "The Right can't win unless the game is rigged, ergo if you are against rigging the game you are just biased against us and only care about the Democrats winning."

[No Other]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay. Facts care not for your anecdotes.

I can live with your approach.

Quote:

I'm not going to waste my time showing facts and figures as to Republican voter suppression efforts as if I actually thought for a second you'd either listen or believe them.

This is a great way to dismiss my comment but allow you not to show facts. If you don't show facts, then by your own words... "Facts care not for your anecdotes"

Quote:

The Republican party has openly admitted it can't win fair elections

"Facts care not for your anecdotes" Frankly, I don't care for the Republican Party

Quote:

which is why it is trying to rewrite the narrative as "Fairness is just the Democrats not wanting to lose."

"Facts care not for your anecdotes"

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by No Other

I can live with your approach.

This is a great way to dismiss my comment but allow you not to show facts. If you don't show facts, then by your own words... "Facts care not for your anecdotes" "Facts care not for your anecdotes" Frankly, I don't care for the Republican Party "Facts care not for your anecdotes"

Oh let me be very clear. I'm under no obligations to show facts to you.

I'll write out Encyclopedia level posts to anyone arguing in good faith. I will not do so to people who I already know are going to go "Durrrr... nope... don't believe you."

[turingtest]

There comes a point where "the perfect is the enemy of the good" crosses a line over into "seeking perfection at the cost of the possible." And when your only standard for evaluating whether a voting system is sufficiently proof against fraud is worrying that some people might believe, not only without evidence, but against the evidence, that there was or might be fraud, then you've crossed the line- you've demanded rigor for a system without a rigorous metric by which to measure its performance, and made the system unworkable for the purpose it was designed to accomplish.

The best voting system is the one that lets the most people vote without unwarranted interference. Knowing what the largest number of people want is the purpose of the system- it's just ridiculous to gum up the machine with the ghosts you can imagine for it.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Personally I'm seeing a very sudden change of direction. You were strongly implying that in-person voting was the only safe system, that voting by mail was less preferable and that e-voting in particular was fundamentally insecure; now suddenly you're saying you just wanted to improve them all along?

Dave

I've maintained, for a long time, that presential, traditional paper voting is the most secure, and I'd be surprised if many of you would have disagree with that... any other year. After reading Avi Rubin's declarations:

. "The only system that I know of that achieves software independence as defined by NIST, is economically viable and readily available is paper ballots with ballot marking machines for accessibility and precinct optical scanners for counting - coupled with random audits. That is how we should be conducting elections in the US, in my opinion."

... I now think that there might be a system that is close to paper voting in security, with the advantages of rapid counting of e-voting.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Abooga

Yes indeed. I find gerrymanderintg particularly obscene, how can that be a thing? Such a blatant cheat... as for voter suppresion, I don´t know much about the issue. Of course voting should be facilitated, but I find it hard to wrap my mind around how requiring ID for voting can be an issue when here in Europe it´s just a given.

They pick ID forms such as drivers licence that not everyone has, which allows them to target specific groups of people who are less likely to have that specific type of ID. They also create other rules like the one in North Dakota a few years ago that required ID to have a street address, which doesn't seem that bad until you add in the fact that more over 20% of the States population lives on Indian Reservations which don't have street addresses.

It's not just ID that is used to suppress voting though. They put up more polling stations and open them for longer hours is places that are more likely to vote Republican. You can have people in predominantly black neighborhoods waiting all day in line to vote while in predominantly white neighborhood a dozen miles away people can breeze though is a couple min.

They also put polling stations in places that make it difficult for targeted groups to get to. Eg in the 2018 midterm election Dodge City in Kansas, a city of over 27000 people with a high percentage of democrat voting Hispanic population there was a single polling station set up miles out of town where there was no bus service.

Another technique used extensively by Republicans is for the party (not the government) to send out confirmation of voter status forms disguised as junk mail to areas that are predominantly black or heavily Democratic. If/when these people fail to respond to the mailing they use it as "evidence" that person doesn't exist or doesn't live there and is therefor ineligible to vote. Their names are purged from the voter rolls and come election day they find themselves either prohibited from voting or have their votes discarded.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I personally haven't taken Trump's claims seriously, he was obviously lying and obfuscating. I'm not trying to vindicate his claims, quite the opposite. My point is just that the imperfectly designed and insufficiently transparent voting system has helped boost the claims of fraud. And if it doesn't get corrected it could happen again. Do you want that in the next election? Wouldn't it be better to have a simpler, safer, transparent voting system that precluded any serious claims of fraud?

I am willing to presume you're not trumping yourself, but if so I think you've inadvertently signed on to the problem on their terms: first that the traitorous liars, rather than being squashed, must be appeased by resolving the doubts they claim motivated them, or else they'll do it all again; second that any actual improvement in the system would ever be enough to satisfy a cult whose distinguishing feature is to deny the most obvious facts; and third, that any solution they would consider acceptable would be fair to the minorities and opponents they've consistently, dishonestly and shamefully vilified.

The people responsible for the revolt made it clear that they will never accept an election in which they lose, and further a significant portion of those who support them have made it clear that anything that passes for a solution to the imagined problem of fraud would, if they have a voice in it, be characterized by voter suppression.

Other posters have noted that in their own districts they saw no voter suppression, but one reason for that in some cases at least is that the attempts to short circuit democracy have been overruled by the courts. If the advocates of voter suppression have failed, it's not for lack of trying.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by turingtest

There comes a point where "the perfect is the enemy of the good" crosses a line over into "seeking perfection at the cost of the possible."

That's a very nice turn of phrase.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Oh let me be very clear. I'm under no obligations to show facts to you.

If I provide an anecdotal observation, it is dismissed because it is not supported by fact. If you don't show facts, it is because you have no obligation to show facts to me. I actually took you for a smarter person until you posted that contradictory denunciation.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by No Other

I live in the South as I see you live in Florida. My hometown is 50% Black and 50% White, I have not heard one Black say there was any difficulty in either registering or voting.

Exactly. I have a black friend and he told me racism isn’t a thing anymore and then we high-fived and went back to solving mysteries with the help of a talking dog from the future.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by No Other

If I provide an anecdotal observation, it is dismissed because it is not supported by fact. If you don't show facts, it is because you have no obligation to show facts to me. I actually took you for a smarter person until you posted that contradictory denunciation.

Yes. Because I am an honest agent in this discussion, you are not. This is not complicated.

I'm not talking to you for your benefit.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

This is not the first time flaws in the voting process has been a topic of discussion amongst those who might care about such things.

Dead voters, hanging chads, Diebold machines, Russian interference, and most recently Mail in voting, have been topics throughout many elections- and have called into question the legitimacy of the wins of candidates on both sides of the aisle- over a span of decades.

The biggest impediment to setting up something fair and secure has been the short attention span of the populace- we only think about these things right after the election, and right after an election the newly elected react the most defensively regarding the election process-for fear their wins will seem illegitimate. So they stick their fingers in their ears and scream "la la la I can't hear you" when the topic is being discussed, long enough for the next event that captures the publics' attention to occur.

Now would be an ideal time for the Democrats to take the initiative on establishing some safe, fair, secure, accessible, and uniform voting process for the Nation. Instead, it seems, they must insist the system is perfect, and that any calls to address the obvious problems with it is just an attempt to discredit their win.

A month ago I would have been shocked had someone said that getting into the Capitol while congress was in session required little more than breaking a window and walking down a hallway, now I know that the building was not quite as secure as I had assumed it was. Do we wish to wait until a foreign power actually changes the results of our election to make the election process more secure?

Biden could address a real problem, whilst simultaneously demonstrating confidence in the legitimacy of his own win, and a willingness to reach out to the loonies who need to be brought back to a level of reasonableness, by making "election reform" a centerpiece of his admin.

Here’s the thing about your terrible analogy: We know the security of the Capitol was breached. We have concrete evidence and we’re currently rounding up the perpetrators. It didn’t happen in secret.

What the election security concern trolls are alleging is two-fold: Both that elections are not secure and that if the security is breached, it happens in total secrecy and is somehow untraceable.

The 2020 election was probably the most scrutinized election in U.S. history.

Do you have any evidence that there were actual security issues that actually impacted the results in a significant way?

[No Other]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yes. Because I am an honest agent in this discussion, you are not. This is not complicated.

I'm not talking to you for your benefit.

ha ha what a presumptuous and inaccurate comment. But it is good to know that you are an "honest agent" that doesn't need to provide facts, your good word is enough.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I've maintained, for a long time, that presential, traditional paper voting is the most secure, and I'd be surprised if many of you would have disagree with that... any other year. After reading Avi Rubin's declarations:

. "The only system that I know of that achieves software independence as defined by NIST, is economically viable and readily available is paper ballots with ballot marking machines for accessibility and precinct optical scanners for counting - coupled with random audits. That is how we should be conducting elections in the US, in my opinion."

... I now think that there might be a system that is close to paper voting in security, with the advantages of rapid counting of e-voting.

Interestingly, that quote says nothing about mail or in-person voting (i.e. how the paper votes get to the counting station); it simply addresses the question of how votes should be counted. So you're fine with voting by mail now, are you?

Dave

[jnelso99]

Geez - just throw in a blockchain or two if you want your secure voting...