Racism & election interference

[The Seer]

Prior to the China virus elections were primarily done via paper ballot, same day voting.

False. Try again. Or maybe just STFU on things that you’re clueless about.

We’ve been voting mail-in or early drop off for 20 years.

Reading comprehension much?

"primarily done via paper ballot, same day voting"

Obviously absentee ballots and special accommodations were made for a minimal % of population...but if you're claiming voting procedures weren't dramatically altered due to Covid, maybe clueless and STFU hits you in the asss.

[Diego in Seattle]

Prior to the China virus elections were primarily done via paper ballot, same day voting.

False. Try again. Or maybe just STFU on things that you’re clueless about.

We’ve been voting mail-in or early drop off for 20 years.

WA has been voting by mail for 22 years.

[Mikey]

Prior to the China virus elections were primarily done via paper ballot, same day voting.

False. Try again. Or maybe just STFU on things that you’re clueless about.

We’ve been voting mail-in or early drop off for 20 years.

Reading comprehension much?

"primarily done via paper ballot, same day voting"

Obviously absentee ballots and special accommodations were made for a minimal % of population...but if you're claiming voting procedures weren't dramatically altered due to Covid, maybe clueless and STFU hits you in the asss.

Yes they were altered in some states that didn’t have any system to accommodate quarantines. In California every election since 2006 has been more than 40% absentee. Over 50% since 2012. Not “primarily” same day. And BTW, those are all paper ballots.

And how do YOU usually vote?
How does your orange demigod usually vote?

[Sven Golly]

Prior to the China virus elections were primarily done via paper ballot, same day voting.

False. Try again. Or maybe just STFU on things that you’re clueless about.

We’ve been voting mail-in or early drop off for 20 years.

WA has been voting by mail for 22 years.

WGARA - not a swing state - fraud won't matter

[Sven Golly]

False. Try again. Or maybe just STFU on things that you’re clueless about.

We’ve been voting mail-in or early drop off for 20 years.

Reading comprehension much?

"primarily done via paper ballot, same day voting"

Obviously absentee ballots and special accommodations were made for a minimal % of population...but if you're claiming voting procedures weren't dramatically altered due to Covid, maybe clueless and STFU hits you in the asss.

Yes they were altered in some states that didn’t have any system to accommodate quarantines. In California every election since 2006 has been more than 40% absentee. Over 50% since 2012. Not “primarily” same day. And BTW, those are all paper ballots.

And how do YOU usually vote?
How does your orange demigod usually vote?

WGARA - not a swing state - fraud won't matter

[Mikey]

Reading comprehension much?

"primarily done via paper ballot, same day voting"

Obviously absentee ballots and special accommodations were made for a minimal % of population...but if you're claiming voting procedures weren't dramatically altered due to Covid, maybe clueless and STFU hits you in the asss.

Yes they were altered in some states that didn’t have any system to accommodate quarantines. In California every election since 2006 has been more than 40% absentee. Over 50% since 2012. Not “primarily” same day. And BTW, those are all paper ballots.

And how do YOU usually vote?
How does your orange demigod usually vote?

WGARA - not a swing state - fraud won't matter

So, Congessional seats don’t matter? State and local races don’t matter? Talk about TDS.
Go back to watching Sesame Street, son. You’re not ready for this.

[Sven Golly]

Yes they were altered in some states that didn’t have any system to accommodate quarantines. In California every election since 2006 has been more than 40% absentee. Over 50% since 2012. Not “primarily” same day. And BTW, those are all paper ballots.

And how do YOU usually vote?
How does your orange demigod usually vote?

WGARA - not a swing state - fraud won't matter

So, Congessional seats don’t matter? State and local races don’t matter? Talk about TDS.
Go back to watching Sesame Street, son. You’re not ready for this.

We are talking about the 2020 Presidential election, which was rife with fraud, as anyone with a working brain would know.

[88BuckeyeGrad]

You guys don't get it. Two posters from reliably BLUE states have testified that mail-in ballots do not create any cause for concern because they have been used in their reliably BLUE states for years and years. Reliably.

[Diego in Seattle]

WGARA - not a swing state - fraud won't matter

So, Congessional seats don’t matter? State and local races don’t matter? Talk about TDS.
Go back to watching Sesame Street, son. You’re not ready for this.

We are talking about the 2020 Presidential election, which was rife with fraud, as anyone with a working brain would know.

So you're saying that none of the judges that heard Trump's election fraud claims (including judges that Trump himself appointed) had working brains.

Typical "everyone else is wrong!" logic.

[Smackie Chan]

We are talking about the 2020 Presidential election, which was rife with fraud, as anyone with a working brain would know.

While it's doubtful anyone has accused you of having one, I'll play along anyway. How would you define rife? Is there a numerical threshold that must be passed before rifeness is considered to have been established? If so, what is it? If not, what standard are you using to distinguish between the occasional insignificant cases (i.e., not affecting outcomes) of fraud, and widespread outcome-affecting levels of it? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to answer, so I'll just continue.

There is no question that vulnerabilities exist in our current voting system. Always have been, always will be. Securing those vulnerabilities is made difficult by at least two major factors: 1) Every state, and in many cases counties within a state, conducts elections using different equipment, ballots, processes, etc., so coming up with a standardized solution is nearly impossible. 2) The solutions must be balanced against the competing interest of giving every eligible voter relative ease of casting ballots. Given these imposing obstacles, the best we can really hope for, at least in the near term, is that progress can be made on multiple fronts to minimize opportunities for fraudulent activity to occur, while recognizing that there will always be some instances of foul play. If you accept this, then each individual has a choice: have faith in the system that serves as the bedrock of democracy (majority rule as determined by free & fair elections), or don't. There is nothing our enemies would love more than for us to opt for the latter. That's not to say just lie back and enjoy it, but rather to seek solutions while retaining faith that the current system, while not perfect, is good enough for now.

If you consider politics as sport, there are essentially three major entities involved - the two teams competing against each other to win, and the officials charged with trying to ensure the games are played fairly and according to the rules. There will always be an Angel Hernandez or Scott Foster who will do their best to sully the reputations of other officials. But at the end of each season, sports fans are relatively confident that the teams that win their divisions or conferences have done so based primarily on their merits and not because umpires or refs ("the system") have rigged the outcomes in their favor.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains a database of proven election fraud cases. It's worth checking out. The quote below is take from their web site:

There are people who claim that election fraud is massive, and those who claim it is exceedingly rare or doesn’t occur at all. But as the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, “flagrant examples of such fraud … have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists … [that] demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

The big problem is that nobody really knows the extent of election fraud, including us. While we are not making any definitive claims about the extent of election fraud in our country, we are confident in saying that there are far too many vulnerabilities in our current system...
This fraud, committed by Democrats, Republicans, and independents, happened because of vulnerabilities in the states’ election laws.

You seem to know something they admit they don't. What evidence do you have, or what otherwise makes you so sure, that the 2020 presidential election was rife with fraud? That big "working" brain you sport?

This site provides some common sense steps that can be taken by each state to shore up vulnerabilities. Again, I'm not suggesting the system is perfect or even nearly so. But the American experiment falls apart once a significant number of its citizens lose faith in its ability to determine a majority.

I'll close by posting this link to what I feel is the best way to resolve the issue.

[Bill in Houston]

The Chan Solution!

[88BuckeyeGrad]

I started reading Chan’s post before I scrolled up and discovered it was Chan. And then it made sense. Chan is no dummy (i.e., Chan ain’t Screwy. Poptard or Diego - Yes, Mikey I let you slide, but only because you can cook, appreciate good wine, and would also avoid Screwy, Poptard and Diego at a Troll Stop, restaurant or other location where sane people can scoot politely away from droolers).

Chan is about 70% right. Which is good. But politics isn’t sport when ballots are cast. At that point, the system has to be nearly perfect. The sport is what drives people to the polls, and that is fair game and largely unregulatable. But when it comes to counting what the fucktards have done with their votes, that cannot have any slop or wiggle. Act like beasts outside the booth. But once the vote is cast, it better be real and counted.

It seems that many are willing to sacrifice the absolute count for a higher potential participation rate. In other words, some are cool with a 5% fraud rate if there is a 15% higher participation rate. That is fucking stupid. And yes, I’m drinking Mikey’s wine and looking at you. Chan.

Systems must be protected. Voters can fuck up. When they do, the next election cycle can clean up the mess. But you cannot let the system get compromised. That is fatal. When people quit on the system, your system collapses and you have Haiti.

I don’t know whether Dump got more votes than Bidet in 2020. No one else does either. The courts are not built to decide that kind of shit in 45 days. It makes little sense to me that a guy who wouldn’t leave his basement would get 20M more votes than Obama. And it is hard to understand how Dump could get more votes than any incumbent president in history, and get more black and Latino votes than any Repuke ever, yet still lose. But shit happens. It’s possible. It is also improbable. That’s why you need unassailable systems. Roll snake eyes 32 times in a row. But use clean dice and let all of us see what’s happening. Don’t put paper over the windows etc.

[Softball Bat]

It seems that many are willing to sacrifice the absolute count for a higher potential participation rate. In other words, some are cool with a 5% fraud rate if there is a 15% higher participation rate. That is fucking stupid. And yes, I’m drinking Mikey’s wine and looking at you. Chan.

Nobody in this thread has posted about percentages like that, except -----> you.

[Smackie Chan]

the system has to be nearly perfect.

Getting there is a noble and worthy goal. Depending on what you consider nearly, it may be unattainable. But let's assume it can be reached. What would it take for you to be 100% convinced that such a system has been created? How would it be verified? And if it can't be at the 100% level, then what? You throw up your hands and consider the election to be a sham? Why vote then?

It seems that many are willing to sacrifice the absolute count for a higher potential participation rate. In other words, some are cool with a 5% fraud rate if there is a 15% higher participation rate. That is fucking stupid. And yes, I’m drinking Mikey’s wine and looking at you. Chan.

Well, I hope you like what you see, although it is creeping me out a little. And it appears it's not Mikey's wine you're drinking, but rather Cheetoh McTinyhands' Kool-Aid. I'm not willing to sacrifice an iota of accuracy and/or integrity for convenience. I was merely pointing out the challenges faced in trying to shore up whatever vulnerabilities need to be.

Systems must be protected.

You'll get no argument from me on that. Not sure who in their right mind would argue against it. And given that no one knows the extent to which voter fraud was conducted in the 2020 election or any election before, how does anyone know if the rate of fraud has risen, fallen, or remained about the same throughout history? It seems plausible to perhaps assume that it has become more rampant with increased mail-in and electronic voting, but I won't jump to the conclusion that it has because there's been no evidence presented to support it. Were systems better protected back in the good ol' days of in-person voting only? I dunno. Do you? And if so, how? As a realist, I know there's no going back to those days. As technology progresses, it will be further introduced into election systems. And as is usually the case, it may not get addressed at the proper level until an election occurs during which massive fraud is uncovered. 2020 was not that election.

Voters can fuck up. When they do, the next election cycle can clean up the mess.

Not sure where you meant to go with that, but it's not really what I'm talking about. My concern is the ability to carry out large-scale efforts to successfully have vote counts not match what was actually cast. And little to no evidence has ever been presented by the Mike Lindells, Kari Lakes, and Donny Big Macs of the world to show that it has been. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't stay vigilant in trying to prevent it from happening.

When people quit on the system, your system collapses and you have Haiti.

We appear to be in violent agreement on this, and it's the key point I was trying to make. If you didn't like my sports analogy, you REALLY won't like this one: what's needed to maintain our democracy is the same asset required to have religious belief - faith. And that faith cannot be predicated on having a perfect or near-perfect system because, like the existence of God, it can't be verified. It would be nice to believe that it could be and maybe someday will be verifiable, but it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

[Smackie Chan]

To add to the last point I made, one of the candidates, Captain Bonespur, wants you to not have faith in the system, to believe that America is not a great nation, and that Democrats (and some Republicans, and Facebook, and people who stutter, and...) are America's enemies. Get enough people to buy into that, and Russia & China will be the least of our worries. They won't have to lift a finger to destroy us, and won't even have to buy a ticket to watch us destroy ourselves.

[Carson]

Wait until both parties nominate replacement candidates from the convention floor.

Conspiracy nuts will have a field day.

[Diego in Seattle]

To add to the last point I made, one of the candidates, Captain Bonespur, wants you to not have faith in the system, to believe that America is not a great nation, and that Democrats (and some Republicans, and Facebook, and people who stutter, and...) are America's enemies. Get enough people to buy into that, and Russia & China will be the least of our worries. They won't have to lift a finger to destroy us, and won't even have to buy a ticket to watch us destroy ourselves.

To a certain degree that's what happened when Trumpy McFuckface tried to minimize Covid in early 2020. I'm sure Putin was guffawing at how conservatives railed against masks, social distancing & vaccines. Millions of American citizens died w/o Putin having to life a finger.

[Softball Bat]

And given that no one knows the extent to which voter fraud was conducted in the 2020 election or any election before, how does anyone know if the rate of fraud has risen, fallen, or remained about the same throughout history? It seems plausible to perhaps assume that it has become more rampant with increased mail-in and electronic voting, but I won't jump to the conclusion that it has because there's been no evidence presented to support it.

Donald has said that fraud was widespread, and that he truly won the election.
The end.

[Smackie Chan]

Donald has said that fraud was widespread, and that he truly won the election.
The end.

Trump said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

[The Seer]

Donald has said that fraud was widespread, and that he truly won the election.
The end.

Not quite up to this nonsensical blurb -

Department of Homeland Security declared Nov. 3 election most secure in American history

[smackaholic]

You guys don't get it. Two posters from reliably BLUE states have testified that mail-in ballots do not create any cause for concern because they have been used in their reliably BLUE states for years and years. Reliably.

I’m still waiting on an explanation other than “we been doing it for 40 years” tripe to explain the mechanism that validates these millions of mail in votes.

There is none. It is an honor system in a system with very little honor.

Anyone appalled by the Jan 6 shit show should be in favor of doing whatever it takes to restore confidence in voting.

But these fukkers have their business model and they ain’t giving it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Seer]

Donald has said that fraud was widespread, and that he truly won the election.
The end.

Trump said it, I believe it, and that settles it.



Hillary Clinton is sticking with her conviction that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying the details surrounding her loss are still unclear.

“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”

“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”

[Mikey]

You guys don't get it. Two posters from reliably BLUE states have testified that mail-in ballots do not create any cause for concern because they have been used in their reliably BLUE states for years and years. Reliably.

I’m still waiting on an explanation other than “we been doing it for 40 years” tripe to explain the mechanism that validates these millions of mail in votes.

There is none. It is an honor system in a system with very little honor.

Anyone appalled by the Jan 6 shit show should be in favor of doing whatever it takes to restore confidence in voting.

But these fukkers have their business model and they ain’t giving it up.

As usualm, you really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. First of all, yes I live in a BLUE state. I can't speak to what's happing in RED states because I don't live in one, dumbfuck.

Second, you seem to think that there's no validation of mail-in votes. Have you ever actually looked into it, or are you going from another of your orange fever dreams?

[Mikey]

- Yes, Mikey I let you slide, but only because you can cook, appreciate good wine, and would also avoid Screwy, Poptard and Diego at a Troll Stop, restaurant or other location where sane people can scoot politely away from droolers).

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I think.

I've been tempted to jump into this discussion, but it's hardly worth the time. Your argument is 100% based on counterfactuals and strawmen. As an attorney, I would have thought that you were better than this.

You do know what a counterfactual argument is, don't you? It's impossible to "prove" that there was no rampant fraud, other than the fact that, despite the best efforts of experts on both sides, there is no evidence of it, on either side. So, let's see your evidence. It consists, basically, that without this assumed widespread fraud, there's no way that Biden could have won. And what are you basing that on, besides the fact the Trump says so? Really, you should be better than this. Without some "proof" that there was no fraud, there is not way to convince you that the election was legitimate. I guess there will never be a legitimate election where your side loses.

It's kind of telling that the only time you people talk about voter fraud is when your guy loses. So, was there no fraud in all those Congressional districts won by Republipukes?

Systems must be protected. Voters can fuck up. When they do, the next election cycle can clean up the mess. But you cannot let the system get compromised. That is fatal. When people quit on the system, your system collapses and you have Haiti.

Yes, systems must be protected. And they are being protected. The people undermining the system are the ones, like you, who claim that the results are invalid, without a shred of evidence to show it to back it up. Like I said, it can't now, and never will be able be proven that there was no fraud, other than that the systems we have in place have not found it.

I don’t know whether Dump got more votes than Bidet in 2020. No one else does either.

I, for one, know that Biden got more votes. Feeling sorry for you here. Because you will never feel comfortable with the results of an election where your guy loses. After all, if YOU think he's the better candidate, how can anybody vote the other way?

It makes little sense to me that a guy who wouldn’t leave his basement would get 20M more votes than Obama. And it is hard to understand how Dump could get more votes than any incumbent president in history, and get more black and Latino votes than any Repuke ever, yet still lose. But shit happens. It’s possible. It is also improbable. That’s why you need unassailable systems. Roll snake eyes 32 times in a row. But use clean dice and let all of us see what’s happening. Don’t put paper over the windows etc.

It makes little sense to me that a known liar, fraud and serial rapist could ever be nominated but either party. But there you go. And why are these other things so hard for you to understand? There a all sorts of explanations, but obviously conjecture like all of your arguments here. Maybe more people were motivated to vote in 2020. And how you do you know that more blacks and Latinos voted for Trump than any Republican ever? Polls? We all know how accurate they are. Can you present this convincing analysis?


BTW...here's your strawman.

It seems that many are willing to sacrifice the absolute count for a higher potential participation rate. In other words, some are cool with a 5% fraud rate if there is a 15% higher participation rate. That is fucking stupid. And yes, I’m drinking Mikey’s wine and looking at you. Chan.

Presenting data that have no basis in fact, and implying that others are willing to accept these completely imaginary values.

[Screw_Michigan]

I've been tempted to jump into this discussion, but it's hardly worth the time. Your argument is 100% based on counterfactuals and strawmen. As an attorney, I would have thought that you were better than this.

He's not. Conservative authoritarianism addles brains.

[Mikey]

WGARA - not a swing state - fraud won't matter

So, Congessional seats don’t matter? State and local races don’t matter? Talk about TDS.
Go back to watching Sesame Street, son. You’re not ready for this.

We are talking about the 2020 Presidential election, which was rife with fraud, as anyone with a working brain would know.

You do realize (maybe I'm wrong here) that during a Presidential election, all of the other races (House and Senate, state and local elections) are all on the same ballot? So, there was rampant fraud in the Presidential vote, but all the rest are somehow legitimate? Ponderous.

[smackaholic]

You guys don't get it. Two posters from reliably BLUE states have testified that mail-in ballots do not create any cause for concern because they have been used in their reliably BLUE states for years and years. Reliably.

I’m still waiting on an explanation other than “we been doing it for 40 years” tripe to explain the mechanism that validates these millions of mail in votes.

There is none. It is an honor system in a system with very little honor.

Anyone appalled by the Jan 6 shit show should be in favor of doing whatever it takes to restore confidence in voting.

But these fukkers have their business model and they ain’t giving it up.

As usualm, you really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. First of all, yes I live in a BLUE state. I can't speak to what's happing in RED states because I don't live in one, dumbfuck.

Second, you seem to think that there's no validation of mail-in votes. Have you ever actually looked into it, or are you going from another of your orange fever dreams?

Well, let’s hear it. Tell me with just the slightest bit of detail what the validation process is.

You can’t because there isn’t one.

If you are going with signature analysis, it puts all the power into the hands of the signature checker to it only validate some, but to disqualify others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Softball Bat]

- Yes, Mikey I let you slide, but only because you can cook, appreciate good wine, and would also avoid Screwy, Poptard and Diego at a Troll Stop, restaurant or other location where sane people can scoot politely away from droolers).

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I think.

I've been tempted to jump into this discussion, but it's hardly worth the time. Your argument is 100% based on counterfactuals and strawmen. As an attorney, I would have thought that you were better than this.

You do know what a counterfactual argument is, don't you? It's impossible to "prove" that there was no rampant fraud, other than the fact that, despite the best efforts of experts on both sides, there is no evidence of it, on either side. So, let's see your evidence. It consists, basically, that without this assumed widespread fraud, there's no way that Biden could have won. And what are you basing that on, besides the fact the Trump says so? Really, you should be better than this. Without some "proof" that there was no fraud, there is not way to convince you that the election was legitimate. I guess there will never be a legitimate election where your side loses.

It's kind of telling that the only time you people talk about voter fraud is when your guy loses. So, was there no fraud in all those Congressional districts won by Republipukes?

Systems must be protected. Voters can fuck up. When they do, the next election cycle can clean up the mess. But you cannot let the system get compromised. That is fatal. When people quit on the system, your system collapses and you have Haiti.

Yes, systems must be protected. And they are being protected. The people undermining the system are the ones, like you, who claim that the results are invalid, without a shred of evidence to show it to back it up. Like I said, it can't now, and never will be able be proven that there was no fraud, other than that the systems we have in place have not found it.

I don’t know whether Dump got more votes than Bidet in 2020. No one else does either.

I, for one, know that Biden got more votes. Feeling sorry for you here. Because you will never feel comfortable with the results of an election where your guy loses. After all, if YOU think he's the better candidate, how can anybody vote the other way?

It makes little sense to me that a guy who wouldn’t leave his basement would get 20M more votes than Obama. And it is hard to understand how Dump could get more votes than any incumbent president in history, and get more black and Latino votes than any Repuke ever, yet still lose. But shit happens. It’s possible. It is also improbable. That’s why you need unassailable systems. Roll snake eyes 32 times in a row. But use clean dice and let all of us see what’s happening. Don’t put paper over the windows etc.

It makes little sense to me that a known liar, fraud and serial rapist could ever be nominated but either party. But there you go. And why are these other things so hard for you to understand? There a all sorts of explanations, but obviously conjecture like all of your arguments here. Maybe more people were motivated to vote in 2020. And how you do you know that more blacks and Latinos voted for Trump than any Republican ever? Polls? We all know how accurate they are. Can you present this convincing analysis?


BTW...here's your strawman.

It seems that many are willing to sacrifice the absolute count for a higher potential participation rate. In other words, some are cool with a 5% fraud rate if there is a 15% higher participation rate. That is fucking stupid. And yes, I’m drinking Mikey’s wine and looking at you. Chan.

Presenting data that have no basis in fact, and implying that others are willing to accept these completely imaginary values.

RACK MIkey!

[Smackie Chan]

Tell me with just the slightest bit of detail what the validation process is.

Here you go.

[Mikey]

I’m still waiting on an explanation other than “we been doing it for 40 years” tripe to explain the mechanism that validates these millions of mail in votes.

There is none. It is an honor system in a system with very little honor.

Anyone appalled by the Jan 6 shit show should be in favor of doing whatever it takes to restore confidence in voting.

But these fukkers have their business model and they ain’t giving it up.

As usualm, you really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. First of all, yes I live in a BLUE state. I can't speak to what's happing in RED states because I don't live in one, dumbfuck.

Second, you seem to think that there's no validation of mail-in votes. Have you ever actually looked into it, or are you going from another of your orange fever dreams?

Well, let’s hear it. Tell me with just the slightest bit of detail what the validation process is.

You can’t because there isn’t one.

If you are going with signature analysis, it puts all the power into the hands of the signature checker to it only validate some, but to disqualify others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The internet is your friend. Or maybe it’s not.

[Mikey]

Tell me with just the slightest bit of detail what the validation process is.

Here you go.

Probably a Democrat website. Since it doesn’t validate’holic’s fever dreams its can’t be legitimate.

[FiatLux]

Donald has said that fraud was widespread, and that he truly won the election.
The end.

How apropos!


Rack.

[smackaholic]

Tell me with just the slightest bit of detail what the validation process is.

Here you go.

So that is it.

Signature analysis certainly
Is a thing. When carried out by trained professionals, it can be useful.

But in this sort of mass voting situation, I don’t trust it.

It’s subjective and as I said, could be used to allow questionable votes and to negate legitimate ones.

It puts too much control into the hands of the officials.

Also, there’s the fact that a substantial percentage of the population, namely young people probably don’t put much though into a signature. 99% of what they sign these days is on a phone. And we all know what those signatures look like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smackie Chan]

I don’t trust it.

Seems to be you have a lot of hand wringing to get to. Or better yet, don’t vote.

[Diego in Seattle]

Tell me with just the slightest bit of detail what the validation process is.

Here you go.

But in this sort of mass voting situation, I don’t trust it.

Someone who is prone to believing every conspiracy theory under the sun doesn't trust the verification process?

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED!

[88BuckeyeGrad]

It seems that many are willing to sacrifice the absolute count for a higher potential participation rate. In other words, some are cool with a 5% fraud rate if there is a 15% higher participation rate. That is fucking stupid. And yes, I’m drinking Mikey’s wine and looking at you. Chan.

Nobody in this thread has posted about percentages like that, except -----> you.

The percentages I used were exemplary and arbitrary. I have no idea what they really are. The point is that some people are cool with a system that allows for some amount of fraud if the system has a chance to increase the participation rate. And that is dangerous. No amount of fraud should be acceptable.

[Mikey]

It seems that many are willing to sacrifice the absolute count for a higher potential participation rate. In other words, some are cool with a 5% fraud rate if there is a 15% higher participation rate. That is fucking stupid. And yes, I’m drinking Mikey’s wine and looking at you. Chan.

Nobody in this thread has posted about percentages like that, except -----> you.

The percentages I used were exemplary and arbitrary. I have no idea what they really are. The point is that some people are cool with a system that allows for some amount of fraud if the system has a chance to increase the participation rate. And that is dangerous. No amount of fraud should be acceptable.

The fact is that no system is perfect. There’s going to be some amount of fraud, or error, or whatever no matter how good the system is. You pulled those numbers completely out of your ass and I know you realize how ridiculous they are. So what’s acceptable to you? Would you be OK with 0.5%? 0.005%? 0.0000005%? And why? What’s the actual percentage of fraud, and does it have any real effect on the electoral outcomes? Try and be realistic OK?

[Mikey]

Tell me with just the slightest bit of detail what the validation process is.

Here you go.

So that is it.

Signature analysis certainly
Is a thing. When carried out by trained professionals, it can be useful.

But in this sort of mass voting situation, I don’t trust it.

It’s subjective and as I said, could be used to allow questionable votes and to negate legitimate ones.

It puts too much control into the hands of the officials.

Also, there’s the fact that a substantial percentage of the population, namely young people probably don’t put much though into a signature. 99% of what they sign these days is on a phone. And we all know what those signatures look like.

You don’t trust the system. You don’t trust the voters and you don’t trust the officials. So how would you run things? Someone has to administer the elections. And don’t forget, to have every vote happen on paper and be hand counted, you’ll need hundreds of thousands if not millions of vote counters. Are you going to trust all of them? Are you going to hand pick all of them to make sure they’re trustworthy? And what’s your test for trustworthiness - subservience to your orange demigod? Of course he’s completely trustworthy. You want to use AI or something?

Sounds to me like you have some deep seated trust issues. Is this a reflection of your own lack of integrity? Did your mother refuse to breast feed you?

[Bill in Houston]

It seems that many are willing to sacrifice the absolute count for a higher potential participation rate. In other words, some are cool with a 5% fraud rate if there is a 15% higher participation rate. That is fucking stupid. And yes, I’m drinking Mikey’s wine and looking at you. Chan.

Nobody in this thread has posted about percentages like that, except -----> you.

The percentages I used were exemplary and arbitrary. I have no idea what they really are. The point is that some people are cool with a system that allows for some amount of fraud if the system has a chance to increase the participation rate. And that is dangerous. No amount of fraud should be acceptable.

No amount of disenfranchisement should be acceptable.

You and your made up, arbitrary bullshit should be ashamed. You aren’t interested in fairness. You’re interested in your own selfish interest. You and your fraudulent ilk are sickening.

[88BuckeyeGrad]

the system has to be nearly perfect.

Getting there is a noble and worthy goal. Depending on what you consider nearly, it may be unattainable. But let's assume it can be reached. What would it take for you to be 100% convinced that such a system has been created? How would it be verified? And if it can't be at the 100% level, then what? You throw up your hands and consider the election to be a sham? Why vote then?

That is a lot of questions. But I'll try to answer them. First of all, you can do all kinds of things to improve election integrity. You could require all votes to be cast at supervised polling locations in person, as they do in some countries. You could require that every person who wishes to cast a vote produce identification establishing that they are qualified to vote, as they do in some countries. You could require that every vote be cast on a paper ballot, which includes information sufficient to identify the person who cast the vote, as they do in some countries. And, you could mark the voter who cast the vote with a dye that lasts for a few days, again as they do in some countries. There are lots of other things that can be done to improve election integrity. And I'm not advocating for any of them here. There is obviously a balance to be struck between convenience, participation and accuracy/integrity. When you have a situation as we have now, where whenever anyone loses (Clinton 2016; Trump 2020), the loser claims that the election was rigged or corrupted, you need to make efforts to tighten up the election rules. If you do not, the voters will decide that the game is rigged, and then all hell breaks lose. I've never seen more people talking about election fraud from both sides of the political spectrum in my life. The situation is not good.

It seems that many are willing to sacrifice the absolute count for a higher potential participation rate. In other words, some are cool with a 5% fraud rate if there is a 15% higher participation rate. That is fucking stupid. And yes, I’m drinking Mikey’s wine and looking at you. Chan.

Well, I hope you like what you see, although it is creeping me out a little. And it appears it's not Mikey's wine you're drinking, but rather Cheetoh McTinyhands' Kool-Aid. I'm not willing to sacrifice an iota of accuracy and/or integrity for convenience. I was merely pointing out the challenges faced in trying to shore up whatever vulnerabilities need to be.

Yes you are. If you oppose voter identification requirements, the purging of voter rolls that are not accurate, requirements to closely monitor ballot drop-boxes, rules prohibiting ballot harvesting, rules that prohibit mass-mailing of actual ballots to every potential voter etc., then you are not serious about improving election integrity.

Systems must be protected.

You'll get no argument from me on that. Not sure who in their right mind would argue against it. And given that no one knows the extent to which voter fraud was conducted in the 2020 election or any election before, how does anyone know if the rate of fraud has risen, fallen, or remained about the same throughout history? It seems plausible to perhaps assume that it has become more rampant with increased mail-in and electronic voting, but I won't jump to the conclusion that it has because there's been no evidence presented to support it. Were systems better protected back in the good ol' days of in-person voting only? I dunno. Do you? And if so, how? As a realist, I know there's no going back to those days. As technology progresses, it will be further introduced into election systems. And as is usually the case, it may not get addressed at the proper level until an election occurs during which massive fraud is uncovered. 2020 was not that election.

It does not matter whether voter fraud increased or decreased in prior elections. That it could have occurred and there is no way to audit it with any reliability should be reason enough to do something to make sure it is not happening. Where are you going to get evidence of fraud if no one is looking for it and there is no way to identify it using the records that are maintained? After the Bush/Gore election in 2000, the news media made a full-court press to independently audit the Florida election (finding more votes for Bush, by the way). But there has been no comparable effort by the major news outlets to see if the election in 2020 was conducted in an honest manner. The Press (and the droolers on this board) just say that no one has found any evidence of fraud, while knowing full well that there has been no serious effort to attempt to find it.

Voters can fuck up. When they do, the next election cycle can clean up the mess.

Not sure where you meant to go with that, but it's not really what I'm talking about. My concern is the ability to carry out large-scale efforts to successfully have vote counts not match what was actually cast. And little to no evidence has ever been presented by the Mike Lindells, Kari Lakes, and Donny Big Macs of the world to show that it has been. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't stay vigilant in trying to prevent it from happening.

Those kooks should not be engaged in trying to determine if elections are being conducted fairly. On that we completely agree.

We appear to be in violent agreement on this, and it's the key point I was trying to make. If you didn't like my sports analogy, you REALLY won't like this one: what's needed to maintain our democracy is the same asset required to have religious belief - faith. And that faith cannot be predicated on having a perfect or near-perfect system because, like the existence of God, it can't be verified. It would be nice to believe that it could be and maybe someday will be verifiable, but it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

If you have faith, but refuse to look objectively at things, you end up living of a flat erf filled with conspiracies.

We can improve election integrity. We should improve election integrity. Anyone who opposes efforts to do so lying frauds.