Maybe faith in the process should be shaken, but a volatile transition period isn't the time. I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome. Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism. If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed: because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy), an investigation would be in order. But it appears that fifty-seven cases have been filed, finding 108 votes whose signatures were improperly validated.
So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
I doubt that its correct to allow someone to take office under the cloud of illegitimacy because of our fears of "volatility." The best thing for stability is clearly to what is necessary to ensure that the elections are both secure and known to be secure.
> I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome.
The problem is that people with an interest in subverting the process see your faith as an asset. You have faith in elections, good. We need to demonstrate election security to people who do not share your faith.
> Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism.
I think that making sure anyone in power is actually legitimate is probably more important than that.
> If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed
Many were dismissed for procedural grounds or lack of standing; additionally proving fraud requires proving intent, which is not easy.
> because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy
Thats another problem, one shouldn't need to prove the state of mind of a hostile party in order to demonstrate that an election was corrupted.
> an investigation would be in order.
There are open investigations. Despite this, some people insist that we coronate their preferred candidate without seeing what law enforcement is able to discover.
> So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
I'm not sure what you're asking. There's a video of poll workers counting ballots that had been hidden under a table until all the R observers had left. No one has presented a chain of custody for those ballots. The people who may have stuffed the ballot box with questionable ballots say they didn't. There's an open investigation, so they won't release any evidence that would show that these ballots are legitimate (assuming they would even be able to prove that); but that doesn't stop the investigator from making a sworn statement that nothing happened; naturally there was no supporting evidence.
> without any actual weight behind them that they did happen
I'm saying it happened and its on video. I don't think the excuse "ballot stuffing is how we normally win elections" is going to de-escalate the situation.
Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election should logically be dissatisfied with every election, so should pick their battles wisely and attempt to fix the system such that their concerns are possible to alleviate. Raising concerns with this election in particular makes it seem as if this election was in any way exceptional, which except for the candidates, it was not. It's equally concerning whether the 2016 election was legitimate. Or 2012. Or 2008. Or...
There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. There is no way to prove who voted for whom, due to abuses of this knowledge in the past. There is no proof that can be provided at this point that the election was "legitimate", whatever standard of proof that requires. To provide such proof would require a change to the entire electoral system, and absolutely cannot be done retroactively.
The accusation of election fraud requires intent because fraud requires intent. The successful performance of election fraud usually involves not conveying your intent to defraud because then people wouldn't trust your role in the election.
> There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage.
Yes, this is why its suspicious that people staged ballots by removing their envelopes, then hid them under a table and waited until the (R) observers had left. So if its known and understood that no one is able to prove that those ballots had a legitimate chain of custody then how are they debunking the allegation that fraud occurred? It sounds like you're saying that the way the system is set up, its not possible to prove that the election was legitimate.
> Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election would be impossible to satisfy.
Right after you point out that it was designed in a way that would be impossible to verify, you say this.
Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC.
You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect? Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to?
Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory. It has absolutely no basis in fact. Yet this is exactly what Trump is preaching to whomever is willing to listen.
The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.
> I fundamentally agree with you that perception of this issue is just as important, and that the applebaum link is reasonably interpreted as fraud occurring.
I appreciate this.
> Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC.
Thats reasonable and in my opinion its too early (for me anyway) to understand fundamental causes at this time.
> You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect?
This is a good question and it gets into the types of election compromise and legal definition. My understanding is that (legally) fraud requires intent, and they didn't have evidence of intent. In civil election cases, (again my understanding as a layman) they are supposed to show that the number of votes that can be questioned is greater than the apparent margin of victory. So about the fraud thing, they didn't make the accusation in court because it wasn't necessary and couldn't be supported to the legal standard. But here in a normal conversation we can kind of assume that if election integrity was compromised in order to boost one candidate over another, it was intentional and call it fraud. Even though challenging the results in court might not involve alleging fraud.
> Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to?
Its reasonable to suspect that these lawsuits are intended to rile the base and lack legal merit. I'm only really concerned with the sworn affidavits filed by observers that allege they were prevented from doing their jobs. A regular poll worker assumes a lot of liability for doing this, with questionable benefit. And if people are filing false affidavits to help trump with his propaganda, that needs to be investigated and the responsible parties need to be charged. Filing a false affidavit with the court is perjury.
> Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory.
Its fine for you to have that as a prior but with strong words like "inconceivable" you should have some solid arguments as well.
> The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.
I disagree, trump's rhetoric works precisely because there is enough reasonable evidence to call into question your perspective on election integrity, and people are upset that it's being ignored.
It is clear to me that Trump and his surroundings have no qualms about fabricating "truths" in whatever quantity fitting whatever narrative to match their aims. This has been the playbook from day 1, see [0]. It appears to work regardless of any underlying facts.
I fully admit that I am not privy to the perspective of and influences on Trump supporters at large and capitol stormers in particular. However, the idea that there is a meaningful bar of evidence to clear before his supporters buy into his statements appears largely unfounded to me. Otherwise our current reality would be incompatible with [0].
And let me be perfectly clear that virtually every human will believe a convenient "truth" at some point or another. But given the degree to which Trump's entire sphere of influence has supported any outlandish, nonsensical or downright contradictory thought he expresses, I do not see how election integrity measures would have moved the needle in this regard. (Which is not to dismiss the need for them, just their influence on this attack).
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim...
This is how politics has been for a while. Trump just adopting the winning strategy employed by Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.
> I fully admit that I am not privy to the perspective of and influences on Trump supporters at large and capitol stormers in particular. However, the idea that there is a meaningful bar of evidence to clear before his supporters buy into his statements appears largely unfounded to me.
Yeah, people usually presume things they like to be valid, the same way they accept news media and blog posts uncritically when they agree with them. Its definitely part of the human condition and not anything significantly different among the different partisans these days.
> And let me be perfectly clear that virtually every human will believe a convenient "truth" at some point or another. But given the degree to which Trump's entire sphere of influence has supported any outlandish, nonsensical or downright contradictory thought he expresses, I do not see how election integrity measures would have moved the needle in this regard. (Which is not to dismiss the need for them, just their influence on this attack).
I'll just point out that there's a lot more diversity of opinion about trump on the right than you're aware of, which is normal. I hear the same shit from people on the right about people on the left.
> [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim...
Yeah, he's a politician. This is no different than Pres. Obama "you can keep your insurance if you like it", "You didn't build that", "I'm going to close Guantanamo Bay", etc. You can say that t told more whoppers, I'm not interested in disputing that. Politicians lie, if you're going to hold one accountable then you need to be consistent. But holding politicians to their word doesn't really get much traction, its always seen as partisan.
Perhaps you're right and this is a sign that democracy is fundamentally broken. If people aren't able to understand that many forms of election compromise (e.g. ballot stuffing) are indistinguishable from a normal election without properly respected controls and audits.
> but mere allegations that they were doing anything unusual.
There are allegations coupled with evidence to support them, which is what is necessary to make an accusation that can be investigated.