Yea, that's what he said.
Regarding the rest of your comment: I don't think _anyone_ is arguing that the US electoral system is without flaw. A large system of any kind will have many flaws. Ask any software engineer.
Indeed, I'm also not aware of any person that wants to avoid, indefinitely, having a discussion about how we can improve the US election system. That being said, RIGHT NOW is decidedly not the right time. I'll be all for having an honest, bipartisan discussion as soon as there are no longer parties actively trying to steal an election. When it comes to election integrity, 100% of our focus needs to be on making sure that the results of _this_ election are respected. Then we can focus on improving things for future elections.
Well, the two comments are not very far apart in substance, somewhat further apart in terms of emphasis. Often two people can be close to agreement on what the facts are, much further apart in which of those facts they think ought to be emphasised.
> Regarding the rest of your comment: I don't think _anyone_ is arguing that the US electoral system is without flaw. A large system of any kind will have many flaws. Ask any software engineer.
Every large system has flaws, yes. But how does the US electoral system compare to those of other countries? It is far from being the worst, but it is also far from being the best. If someone was pointing out flaws in one of the countries with the best organised election systems, then "A large system of any kind will have many flaws" may well be a decent response, but it is less so when pointing out flaws in a system which is at the best somewhere in the middle.
Imagine your product has lots of flaws which many of its competitors lack. In such a situation, the truism "a large system of any kind will have many flaws" is missing the point.
> That being said, RIGHT NOW is decidedly not the right time. I'll be all for having an honest, bipartisan discussion as soon as there are no longer parties actively trying to steal an election
I don't agree that anyone is trying to "steal an election". President Trump is being a sore loser, but I am certain he is leaving the White House peacefully come January 20th. His attempts to challenge the result in the courts have always been half-hearted. Back in 2000, each of Bush and Gore made sure they had the brightest legal minds of their respective parties on the case. Trump has not signed up the brightest legal minds of the GOP to challenge the result. I don't think he was ever really serious about it, he is just putting on a show. He can't steal an election, he doesn't even know how to pull that one off. But I think a lot of people – his supporters and detractors alike – fall too easily for Trump's shtick.
This line of reasoning doesn't jive with me, for the same reason a person trying, and failing, to commit a crime like murder is still guilty of committing a crime. If I attempt to kill you, and fail, a defense of "I was just putting on a show" isn't going to go so well for me in court. In short, his ineptitude doesn't make him any less guilty for what he's actually attempting.
Too many people - his supporters and detractors alike - give him too much credit when it comes to his abilities, and not enough credit when it comes to what he's actually capable of trying.
I'll add that, "Trump has not signed up the brightest legal minds" is an absurd justification for the opinion that this isn't a legitimate attempt to steal an election. At what point during Trump's presidency has he EVER selected the "brightest minds" for any post. This is Trump being Trump.
People pretending like this isn't happening, frankly, should be ashamed of themselves. And if it ISN'T happening, pretending like feigning an attempt to subvert American democracy to steal an election isn't a big deal, is also a shameful act in my opinion.
Go get 'em tigers!
[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/10/texas-dan-patrick/
He figured out a great way of proving there was no widespread fraud seeing as he's not handing out free money by the busload.
I think there almost certainly was some fraud, but not enough to change the outcome. (Whether or not "some but not enough to change the outcome" counts as "widespread", I don't know.)
But I also think it is true that the US electoral system is very poorly organised, creating a lot more scope for fraud–or at least the appearance of fraud, or the appearance of the possibility of fraud–than in some other countries. In a number of other countries, national elections are fully run by an apolitical independent national agency (e.g. the Australian Electoral Commission), not by a hodgepodge of state and county officials many of whom are politicians or political appointees. That system provides a lot more professionalism and a lot less opportunities for suspicion of fraud than the American system does.
Yet, I think some people are so committed to "everything Trump says is 110% wrong" that they want to shut down discussion of the flaws in the US election system. It is possible that both there are real flaws in the election system, including flaws that permit fraud or the appearance of a possibility of fraud, and that simultaneously those flaws while very real and in need of being addressed didn't change the outcome this time around.
Possibly, one outcome of this election might be support from Republicans for some reforms in the way elections are carried out. Given America's toxic political polarisation, there is the risk that Democrats will oppose such reforms simply because it is Republicans proposing them.