Wednesday, December 07, 2022

Can we trust our elections?

 Well, it's either ballots or bullets. Here is an argument against excessive election skepticism. 

54 comments:

Kevin said...

I doubt an argument from a progressive Trump Bad organization would convince Trump supporters that they've got nothing to worry about.

Such is the result of excessive polarization.

Starhopper said...

"Can we trust our elections?"

Yes.

bmiller said...

71% say no.

Starhopper said...

Just shows, there's no accounting for crazy. Anyone who seriously thinks our elections are rigged probably also believes that Elvis is alive and working as a greeter for WalMart. The two are about equal in probability.

bmiller said...

Typical of conspiracy theorists to claim everyone is crazy except themselves.

Starhopper said...

It appears that you've been looking in the mirror again. The only conspiracy theorists here are the election deniers.

bmiller said...

Someone's crazy. That's for sure.

Starhopper said...

Now, see? It IS possible for us to agree on some things.

David Brightly said...

I do not understand the US (presidential) election system. It's different in each state I believe. In the UK each local government district is charged with maintaining a Register of Electors. Each year every household is invited by post to register any change to the set of eligible voters who live there. This used to be on paper, now can be done online. There is special provision for voting by mail and for mobile people like students. Before the election day each elector receives by post a card bearing his name and address announcing the election, the names and party affiliations of the candidates, and the location of the nearby polling station where he must vote, often a church hall. Ours is a ten minute walk away. You turn up on the day, announce who you are and where you live, and they tick you off against a copy of the Register organised by street. You don't have to take your notification card but I always do. You are given a numbered ballot paper slip and you write a cross against your chosen candidate with a soft black pencil (provided) in a little plywood booth. You fold your ballot in two and post it into a big black metal box which when the poll closes (usually 10pm) is taken to a local counting centre where the votes are counted manually. A Parliamentary constituency has about 80,000 electors on average. Constituencies vie with one another to get their result out first, often by 2am the next morning. Counts rarely go on beyond 6am, except maybe when recounts are requested in a close result. In a general election by 3pm the day after the vote the winning party leader has been invited by the monarch to form a government and has entered No10, after a brief speech on the doorstep. It's primitive technology and manpower intensive---it takes if I recall three people to hand you your ballot paper, for example---but as far as I can see it is trusted 100% by the UK voters.

Starhopper said...

The fact that there is no national election for the presidency in the US, but rather 50 separate and independent state run elections, all by itself shows how impossible any conspiracy to "steal" a presidential election is. To carry off such a thing successfully would require the coordination of literally hundreds of thousands of participants spread across the country, acting in complete secrecy with the precision of the finest made Swiss watch, and with not one single leak or whistleblower. The odds of me winning the lottery 10 times in succession are greater than that!

The mental gymnastics required to believe the "fraudulent election" story are equivalent to believing the Earth is flat. The election deniers may not be technically insane, but what they believe most certainly is.

bmiller said...

David,

Most states used to do it the way you say it is done in the UK. Voting done in a single day (except for absentee ballots that needed to be justified) on paper ballots and confirmed onsite that the voter was registered. Not registered, no ballot. All votes were tallied on election day and everyone knew the outcome within 24 hours. Arizona used to do it that way too.

Now, Arizona has early voting for a month and so the tabulation and early results were known before the actual election day. Instead of having pre-printed ballots at each location, ballots are printed as voters show up and in the case of this last election, printers malfunctioned at 30% of the locations in Republican districts on election day when most Republicans voted leading to long lines and voters leaving. I have a relative that sent a death certificate to the county in order to get her deceased husband off the roles but he is still sent a mail-in ballot each election.

Regarding the presidential election, each state gets a certain number of electoral votes according to population, so candidates focus on winning electoral votes rather than the popular vote. In the 2020 election, if ~20,000 votes in 2 states had gone the other way Biden would not have won. My deceased relative could have been one of those "voters".

David Brightly said...

Could you explain 'early voting'? We have 'postal voting'. You get a ballot paper early and post it in before election day. It gets counted on election day, I think, just as if it at been submitted at a polling station (which can be done). As far as I'm aware we don't allow ballot collecting. You vote in person or by post. Parties organise transport to polling stations for elderly voters, for example.

Would it be fair to say that concerns about the integrity of elections lie in the implementation of legally sanctioned electoral procedures rather than any deliberate hanky-panky? As far as I'm aware we don't have 'purges' of the Electoral Register. Nor on-the-day registration.

In Northern Ireland the election day motto was said to be 'Vote early, vote often'.

Starhopper said...

As to "purges" of electoral registers, this has never made sense to me. Far better that we just assume that EVERYONE is registered as the default position, and encourage 100% voting. Do everything possible to make voting easier, and as little as possible to make it harder.

Sure, such a system could result in a miniscule degree of illegitimate voting, but hardly enough to alter the outcome of any race and nothing to be concerned about. Irregularities would be a rounding error at worst, a few hundred votes out of every million cast.

bmiller said...

Some states send out ballots to every citizen on their registration roll a month or so before the election whether a ballot was requested or not. This led to some voters showing up at the poll and being told they already voted and so couldn't vote again. Early voters can mail in their ballots or drop them off at an polling place. Chain of custody ensures that 1 rep from each party transports the early ballots from the polling place to the tabulation center. Not so for the mailed ballots.

Would it be fair to say that concerns about the integrity of elections lie in the implementation of legally sanctioned electoral procedures rather than any deliberate hanky-panky?

The concern is that some of the legally sanctioned procedures make it easer for hanky-panky to happen. For instance if you know who voted early and you know the results of those votes you also know whose votes have not been cast and who they are likely to vote for on election day. So one could calculate roughly how many votes one needs to find or suppress on election day. Then inaccurate voter registration rolls and the ability to print ballots on demand are an enticement for cheating.

Most people in the US already know that places like Chicago an Philadelphia have cheated for decades. Now the cheating seems to have spread and/or the cheaters just don't care of being noticed because there is no penalty, only gain.

One Brow said...

David Brightly said...
Could you explain 'early voting'?

Before election day, many states allow you to vote in a government office for elections. You go in, they verify your registration, and you vote. It's more popular in locations that tend to have long lines on election day due to insufficient funding and support.

We don't have ballot collecting, either. Some allow a person to mail a vote for an infirm person, with varying levels of paperwork required if a person does that.

Would it be fair to say that concerns about the integrity of elections lie in the implementation of legally sanctioned electoral procedures rather than any deliberate hanky-panky? As far as I'm aware we don't have 'purges' of the Electoral Register. Nor on-the-day registration.

That depends upon whether you talking about the concerns of election officials, or the concerns of various groups in the US saying the elections are unfair. For the latter, claims of deliberate voter fraud are widespread since the 2016 election, despite the absence of reliable evidence.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
The concern is that some of the legally sanctioned procedures make it easer for hanky-panky to happen. For instance if you know who voted early and you know the results of those votes you also know whose votes have not been cast and who they are likely to vote for on election day. So one could calculate roughly how many votes one needs to find or suppress on election day. Then inaccurate voter registration rolls and the ability to print ballots on demand are an enticement for cheating.

Most people in the US already know that places like Chicago an Philadelphia have cheated for decades.


There are only 10 states that allow counting before the election, and none of them are Pennsylvania or Illinois. In fact, Illinois doesn't allow counting until after the polls are closed.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx

Now the cheating seems to have spread and/or the cheaters just don't care of being noticed because there is no penalty, only gain.

I can pull up a list of recent prosecutions for cheating, if you like. It's been ongoing for decades. There haven't been prosecutions of voting officials because the accusations against voting officials haven't had good evidence of cheating.

David Brightly said...

Thanks for the replies. I have some further questions which will have to wait as it's late here. One quick one: I've heard people say they are a 'registered democrat/republican/independent'. What does this mean? Is it like being a paid-up member of the Labour/Conservative Party? What about Independent?

Starhopper said...

For a politician, party affiliation is all important. It determines what committees you can sit on, what legislation you can propose, and what funds you have access to. For the voter, party affiliation is far less important. The biggest thing is that in most states, it determines what primaries you can vote in. In a minority of states, it doesn't even do that. So it's mainly a personal matter.

bmiller said...

Starhopper is right, but I'd like to add one extra bit of information.

The party that has the majority of members in either the House of Representatives or the Senate determines the agenda of the branch of government that they hold the majority in. So for instance, there was a House committee on what happened on January 6th and since the Democrats were in charge they could determine the rules without agreement from the minority party. The same will hold true when the House majority party changes in January.

Is it like being a paid-up member of the Labour/Conservative Party?

No one has to pay to register as a member of a politcal party.

Starhopper said...

Two of my friends here in blue, blue Maryland are die-hard old school Conservatives, yet both are registered Democrats. Why? Because they know that in Maryland, whoever wins the Democratic primary is the overwhelming favorite to also win the general election. And only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary. So if you want to have any meaningful say in Maryland as to who is going to be the next officeholder, you need to register as a Democrat. The is doubly and triply so in the city of Baltimore, where perhaps 80% of the electorate are Democrats.

Governor Hogan, a Republican, is a notable exception to this rule. He managed to win 2 statewide elections in a row by comfortable margins, perhaps due to his open and consistent rejection of Trumpism.

David Duffy said...

The only way to resolve the doubts about election integrity is for a three-judge panel selected from the Courts of Appeals to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate voter fraud. The Special Counsel, similar to the Mueller investigation, should be given broad power to look into all Democratic Party official's (the accused) personal, financial, travel, divorce, and other records. They should be charged with any infraction of the law, including violation of Section 1001 of Title 18. I'm certain many officials can be charged with some contravention of the law. I doubt any will be charged with election fraud, but for the public to connect the investigation into voter fraud and officials being found guilty of some, any, crime is all the investigation needs to accomplish.

bmiller said...

Section 1001 of Title 18

Want to have an innocent discussion with the FBI? Good luck.

David Duffy said...

Yep, they have the power to look through your records and ask about the details. If you get anything incorrect about your finances, travels, or contacts you are in violation of Title 18.

It's a voter fraud investigation, people will get the connection.

Starhopper said...

"should be given broad power to look into all Democratic Party official's (the accused) personal, financial, travel, divorce, and other records"

Why focus on Democrats when nearly all actual, documented voter fraud has been committed by Republicans?

David Duffy said...

Star,

Since you don't understand the sarcasm, the purpose of a Special Council is the persecution of your political opponents.

Kevin said...

the purpose of a Special Council is the persecution of your political opponents.

Only if it is done by Republicans. If it's done by Democrats, honorable one and all, then it's very much deserved.

One Brow said...

Kevin,

If I recall correctly, the last couple of Special Counsels appointed by Republicans were to investigate other Republicans.

Martin said...

...and were lifelong Republicans themselves. (e.g. Mueller, Wray, etc).

David Duffy said...

"..and were lifelong Republicans themselves."

Exactly! Wish the Dem's would have the wherewithal to think for themselves. It's marching orders all the way down.

I understand, you need to avoid being called a homophone, xenophobe, a sexist, racist, bigoted Hitler. Follow the party line and they won't call you names.

Or you could realize no one is really your enemy. There are fellow Americans who disagree with you on policy and social issues. There are no Hitlers who disagree with you in the Republican Party. But what would the Democrats do with no Hitlers?

Starhopper said...

"But what would the Democrats do with no Hitlers?"

Or the Republican Party with no Stalins?

bmiller said...

Good point. Why wasn't Trump called "The Orange Stalin"?

Starhopper said...

Why compare Trump to Stalin when he's vile enough all on his own?

I predict that the day will come when mentioning Trump in an internet discussion will be the equivalent of mentioning Hitler today, i.e., a no-no.

David Duffy said...

Of all the commenters here I see the Star having the most similar personality to Trump: the exaggerations against people he disagrees with, the aggrandizement of his virtues, the false analogies. Star has the potential to be Francis of Assisi or Trump.

Starhopper said...

Perhaps that is because I care the most about our country and its democracy. With all our undeniable flaws, we are still the greatest purely human thing that has ever arisen on this planet. The USA has survived (so far) three mortal threats to its very existence - Robert E. Lee, Admiral Yamamoto, and Donald J. Trump.

How interesting that two of those deadly three came from within. I believe the Evangelist had something to say along those lines. "A man's foes will be those of his own household." (Matthew 10:36)

Martin said...

>Or you could realize no one is really your enemy. There are fellow Americans who disagree with you on policy and social issues.

I think the disagreements are even lower than this. Large majorities of Americans want common sense gun laws (e.g. no 18 year old gun buyers), large majorities of Americans want reasonable access to abortion services, large majorities of Americans want universal health care, and on and on.

But the media makes money by selling hate, so the infinite wisdom of capitalism sees to it that pitchforks and torches are available for purchase because "that's what the mob demands."

bmiller said...

The 3 biggest threats to democracy have been Big Foot, Pee Wee Herman and the Sham Wow guy. 2 were native to America, but the 3rd is a foreigner*.



*Not the band.

Starhopper said...

For the record, I was being totally serious. Robert E. Lee had the ability to remove the "United" from the United States. Admiral Yamamoto was the only foreign military leader who ever came perilously close to defeating the US in battle. Trump would have cheerfully shredded our Constitution if it would benefit him personally, and on January 6th 2021 he very nearly did.

General MacArthur was offered the chance to destroy American democracy and install himself as a dictator, but being a man of honor, he chose instead to "just fade away" like the Old Soldier that he was. Had MacArthur been like Trump, the American Experiment would have ended then and there.

David Duffy said...

At best, general MacArthur could have run for president, like good old Republican Ike. We don't know if MacArthur would have been elected or not. No one in the United States, except for maybe some lunatic Democrats, would have wanted a dictator, or military junta, especially after World War II. I am always amused by your Trump-like exaggerations Starhopper.

Unless you're referring to that conflated confrontation with Truman. MacArthur never had a chance.

Starhopper said...

I find it revealing that bmiller regards mortal threats to our democracy as grounds for amusement.

David, where am I exaggerating? Did not Trump instigate a violent attack on Congress with the aim of illegally maintaining his office despite losing the election? Did he not just recently call for the "termination" of the Constitution? Are not his acolytes (word chosen with precision here) across the nation denying the legitimacy of our elections? Are not loyal, hard working election officials receiving death threats just for doing their jobs?

Exaggeration? If anything, I am underplaying the threat.

David Duffy said...

Miller, that ShamWow guy really turned America upside down. That was far-far worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11. And almost as bad as January 6th.

David Duffy said...

Sorry Starhopper, Miller and I find amusement at your analogies and threats to Democracy. I understand the news you read or listen to likes to whip up your emotions. My condolences.

Starhopper said...

So what news do you think I read and/or listen to?

bmiller said...

Reruns of Looney Tunes?

David Duffy said...

Don't know Starhopper. I can't imagine what leads a normally sane person, a brother in the faith, to compare Trump to Hitler. Whatever it is must be toxic.

Starhopper said...

I don't really regard Trump as an analog of Hitler (that prize goes to Putin), but I do think he's a wannabe Mussolini.

In fact, that's a really useful comparison. Just as Mussolini was the junior partner in the Axis, Trump today plays second violin in the MAGA/Russian fascism constellation.

One Brow said...

David Duffy,
Exactly! Wish the Dem's would have the wherewithal to think for themselves. It's marching orders all the way down.

Condescension, mischaracterization, and ignorance. That's quite the triple-play you typed out.

I understand, you need to avoid being called a homophone, xenophobe, a sexist, racist, bigoted Hitler. Follow the party line and they won't call you names.

I appreciate your willingness to be a word that sounds just like another word. (I make typos all the time, so no judgment implied).

I don't need to avoid being called anything. Instead, when someone calls me/something I said 'homophobe/homophobic', etc., I have enough humility to wonder why that particular inference was made, and self-examine.

I understand the news you read or listen to likes to whip up your emotions.

Projection.

One Brow said...

David Duffy,
I can't imagine what leads a normally sane person, a brother in the faith, to compare Trump to Hitler.

No doubt your equally dismayed when your brothers in the faith compare Obama or Biden to Hitler.

David Duffy said...

"That's quite the triple-play you typed out."

This sparked an old memory. My first year in Little League I was playing first base. The batter hit a line drive and I caught it. I stepped on the base to get the runner out at first. I threw to second and made a wild throw. It was my one chance at a triple play. For years as a kid I told the story and said the second baseman dropped the ball. I had the need to brag. The years afterward playing baseball (and much later, church league softball) I never had another chance for a triple play. Now that I'm getting older I feel ashamed for blaming the second baseman.

Thanks for giving me the credit for a rhetorical triple play. I appreciate it!

Starhopper said...

Some years ago, I witnessed an unassisted triple play at Camden Yards. The Orioles were in the field. I can't remember who they were playing against that day. The batter hit a line drive straight at the 2nd baseman. He caught the ball (1st out), and stepped on the bag before the runner could return to it (2nd out). He then pivoted to tag the runner from 1st, who apparently was unaware the ball had been caught (3rd out). The stands went nuts!

Kevin said...

No doubt your equally dismayed when your brothers in the faith compare Obama or Biden to Hitler.

Now let's not exaggerate. The right only accused Obama of being the Antichrist, not Hitler.

David Duffy said...

That's a great baseball story Starhopper. Thanks. I can imagine being there for the triple play.

Soon after Mrs. Duffy became my wife I liked taking her to Dodger Stadium. She still doesn't have any taste for sports, but she loves being in the stadium, munching on an over priced Dodger Dog. She loves the enthusiasm of Dodgers fans. Thankfully, she adopted my taste for the greatest baseball team in America. Go Dodgers!

bmiller said...

Don't forget that Obama wasn't an American citizen so couldn't be president.

I didn't see the "Obama as Antichrist" (maybe an Evangelical thing?) but the birther thing was widely reported on.

The thing is, that I don't recall the people commenting on this blog that Obama was the Antichrist or that he wasn't a US citizen. I'm pretty sure that was a tiny fringe of the Right. Orange Hitler seems to be favorite Kool-aide of the Left and they can't stop drinking.
If no one on this blog was drinking that Kool-aide, there would be no reason to comment on it.

David Duffy said...

Obama wasn't the Antichrist? Who knew? Barack Hussein Obama II. The letters of his name are 6-7-6 and a gratuitous two, almost the number of the beast. Ronald Wilson Reagan, there's a genuine 6-6-6 letters of his name.

bmiller said...

What price does an average Canadian have to pay for a house?

Sounds like a simple question. Right? Not so fast.

This should make Americans proud of living in America...in a similar way that the fastest horse in the glue factory might feel.