Possible for election results to be rigged?

[HarryStotle]

Can we all agree that the places for evidence to be evaluated are courtrooms?

You really need to remind those who truly need reminding of this - the media.

According to the press the courts are irrelevant because they have declared Joe president and that is all that matters.

 

[MNathaniel]

Yes, well, the media are unlikely to take their cues from me.

So I’ll settle for just speaking to the other regular humans in the fora where I find myself, and trust the rest to God.

We can each only do what we can do.

 

[MNathaniel]

PS I agree with you, for the record, that it’s been a sad sight to watch how the media have conducted themselves before and during this.

At the same time, my personal scope of action seems at the simple level of conversation among regular individual persons. And reminding each other that we’re allowed to see four fingers even if we’re told there are five.

 

[TMC]

Can we all agree that the places for evidence to be evaluated are courtrooms? And can we all recognize that any evidence (whether we personally suspect it is strong or weak) is indeed proceeding to courtrooms to be analyzed there?

I haven’t seen anyone suggest that the courts should not play their appropriate role. The issue from the Dem point of view, I believe, is that even if the Trump campaign were to somehow produce evidence and “win” all of what they are alleging, it does not appear there is anything there that changes the outcome. That said, I am certainly happy to have the process work out, and I agree both sides should lower the heat level while that happens.

On the other hand, we will hit a point eventually where continued delay will have a significant negative impact on transition. If there has been no material evidence produced by that point, I think the analysis shifts a bit.

 

[MNathaniel]

May I ask where you see the line between:

I am certainly happy to have the process work out, and I agree both sides should lower the heat level while that happens.

and

we will hit a point eventually where continued delay will have a significant negative impact on transition. If there has been no material evidence produced by that point, I think the analysis shifts a bit.

?

Are you suggesting that there will be a point before the process has worked itself out in the courts, when the analysis “shifts” and the outcome should be presumed instead of awaited?

It sounds to me like you’re factoring in a “significant negative impact on transition” that might be experienced by the 75+ million people who voted Biden, if his victory isn’t declared before the courts have finished assessing the evidence presented to them. Are you also factoring in the “significant negative impact on transition” that might be experienced by the 70+ million people who voted for Trump, if Biden’s victory is declared before the courts have finished?

Honestly, I can see cascading consequences both ways.

Those who are convinced that Trump is a racist Hitler-ian fascist (and believe his 70+ million voters are racist pro-Hitler fascists) may take anything short of an immediate, universal endorsement of Biden as the inevitable next president, as some kind of a declaration of ‘continued’ racist, ignorant belligerence – and may burn for years with resentment towards those who drew out a one-month delay.

And at the same time, those who believe that Trump has been unfairly demonized (and that they themselves have been unfairly demonized) and undermined by a corrupted media and potential real-world voter fraud, may take the refusal to patiently wait all the way through (and report neutrally on) court processes, as further evidence of entrenched, systematic bias and corruption – and may burn for years with distrust of their country’s institutional procedures, suspected illegitimacy of their country’s leaders, and deepened resentment of the media and fellow citizens who couldn’t wait one month to graciously and thoroughly ensure that the necessary legal processes were allowed to be followed through to completion, before presuming to act independently of them.

In all sobriety, I think each individual – whether a member of the media or just the 50% of the population who wants the vote to be finalized in their favour – should think very, very carefully, before trying to rush through this period when courts are taking their part in the process. Your mileage may vary, but personally I think public trust in institutions is more fundamental to a country’s stability than whichever individual occupies a specific office in an institution. It would be a mistake to underestimate the harm that may be done by leaving any doubt in any minds about whether this election was conducted fairly, including allowing every relevant court process to wrap up before calling it.

 

[Annie]

Well, that was weird.

You tried to get me to promise to admit I was wrong if things under the Ds in 3 areas I mentioned.

I gave one example in each area for how the issue had already been handled badly in the past.

You thought I didn’t want to promise that I would admit that I was wrong, so I clarified that I would admit I was wrong but did not think I would have to.

You said I was using weasel words based on a too-vague description of their promises so I apologized for being vague and gave examples of what they said.

And for some reason, you decide to bow out.

I can’t find a head-scratching emoticon or I would put three right here.

For anyone else who might be reading these posts, I forgot to add that eliminating dirty energy will probably require moving those activities which generate greenhouse gases to other countries… outsourcing redux

 

[whatistrue]

Well, that was weird.

Yeah, but it didn’t play out exactly as described. You had a list of 3 things. Based on that list I broached the idea of both of us committing to an admission of error. You then brought up 3 different ones. Later, you added the caveat about the overall presidency turning out different from what was “promised” or something. All I saw was galloping goalposts, so I declined to continue participating. Really not that hard to figure out for those paying attention.

 

[TMC]

Are you suggesting that there will be a point before the process has worked itself out in the courts, when the analysis “shifts” and the outcome should be presumed instead of awaited?

Yes, it is possible. Here is what I am imaging. This first wave of court filings and challenges are going to be wrapped up in a couple of weeks. None of them is even challenging enough votes to actually change the outcome.

But, I have some concern that as we near the actual legal deadline of December 14, new challenges will be filed simply to try to keep some states from certifying the vote. IF that happens, there is legitimate reason to say that behavior is improper and should not be taken seriously.

It sounds to me like you’re factoring in a “significant negative impact on transition” that might be experienced by the 75+ million people who voted Biden, if his victory isn’t declared before the courts have finished assessing the evidence presented to them. Are you also factoring in the “significant negative impact on transition” that might be experienced by the 70+ million people who voted for Trump, if Biden’s victory is declared before the courts have finished?

I am considering both. Or rather, I am factoring in neither but looking at the impact on the country. All Americans have a right to have this election properly adjudicated in a manner that allows either for proper transition, or proper continuation by Trump. Although I don’t see any scenario where Trump prevails, that also needs to be decided. As just one example, Trump now needs a new Secretary of Defense. That will be hard to accomplish in a lame duck environment.

I would also take issue with the terminology that Biden’s victory would be “presumed” or “declared.” Biden’s victory will be certified by the states, and there is a legal process and timeline for doing that.
Both parties need to work within that process and timeline.

 

[Annie]

Well, that was not my intention–i was trying to make what I was talking about clearer to you, to show I wasn’t just being vague about saying bad things will occur in this Biden/Harris administration. I kept my examples to the topics I first brought up; I don’t know why you think I brought up different ones.

 

[MNathaniel]

But, I have some concern that as we near the actual legal deadline of December 14, new challenges will be filed simply to try to keep some states from certifying the vote. IF that happens, there is legitimate reason to say that behavior is improper and should not be taken seriously.

I hadn’t heard that concern before. I’d agree with you in hoping it doesn’t happen.

My understanding was that there’s a deadline of December 8th, for recounts and court contests. (Got that from AP, I think.) It is my hope that everybody involved will enthusiastically work together to make sure everything gets thoroughly investigated and definitively taken care of by then.

I would agree that if everyone cooperates to put all relevant evidence before the courts now, it would be untoward for new challenges to be filed later. At the same time, I think it would be untoward for one side to drag their heels or try to obstruct any court contests now, in the hopes that they can make the other side ‘look bad’ for having to continue their attempts further into the future.

I honestly see no downsides (and every upside) to everyone cooperating in trying to make this as much of an immediate, light-of-day process as possible, right here and now.

I see downsides to any even-perceived attempt to obstruct such. The American people need to actually see – and believe – that the institutions and processes are being respected. Any perception of shenanigans poisons the ability to trust eventual results.

I guess that’s my continuing takeaway here. We should all be more concerned with integrity of process – including perceived integrity of process – than with short-term results. Because if a person doesn’t like the results of one election (but trusts the process) – they can just vote again next time. Whereas if a person doesn’t trust the process… Oh my God. And I don’t say that phrase lightly.

 

[whatistrue]

I don’t know why you think I brought up different ones.

Simple. Because that’s the way it looked to me. I am done; if you want the last word, go for it.

 

[Annie]

You can have it.

Pax!

 

[TMC]

I honestly see no downsides (and every upside) to everyone cooperating in trying to make this as much of an immediate, light-of-day process as possible, right here and now.

That is what I hope for, and I think there is reason to believe that is what is happening. There is no barriers that I am aware of to the Trump campaign filing whatever they think is appropriate. I was expecting to see a flurry of suits today, but I have not seen much about it.

 

[HarryStotle]

As just one example, Trump now needs a new Secretary of Defense. That will be hard to accomplish in a lame duck environment.

He can simply appoint an acting Sec of Def until a nominee can be properly vetted is my understanding.

 

[HarryStotle]

MNathaniel:

I honestly see no downsides (and every upside) to everyone cooperating in trying to make this as much of an immediate, light-of-day process as possible, right here and now.

That is what I hope for, and I think there is reason to believe that is what is happening. There is no barriers that I am aware of to the Trump campaign filing whatever they think is appropriate. I was expecting to see a flurry of suits today, but I have not seen much about it.

Not sure of your sources but I know of at least three including one by the Republican Attorney Generals of four states as reported by Catherine Herridge at CBS.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBS_Herridge

Edit: And a fourth.

Detroit Election Worker Ordered To Backdate Ballots, Saw Democratic ‘Coaching’ At Polls, Affidavit Says | The Daily Wire

 

[TMC]

He can simply appoint an acting Sec of Def until a nominee can be properly vetted is my understanding.

Yes, he has already named one. But he may well name someone else if he knew he was going to have a second term and needed a permanent replacement. Even more so for things like legislative priorities - if he knew he was continuing, he would presumably be working on his second term priorities. So both sides, and the nation, have an interest in an orderly and quick resolution.

 

[TMC]

Not sure of your sources but I know of at least three including one by the Republican Attorney Generals of four states as reported by Catherine Herridge at CBS.

The one referred to in that tweet appears to be the ongoing dispute about mail-in ballots in PA. That is an existing issue that does not impact anywhere close to enough votes to change the outcome.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

He can simply appoint an acting Sec of Def until a nominee can be properly vetted is my understanding.

Yes, he has already named one. But he may well name someone else if he knew he was going to have a second term and needed a permanent replacement. Even more so for things like legislative priorities - if he knew he was continuing, he would presumably be working on his second term priorities. So both sides, and the nation, have an interest in an orderly and quick resolution.

Merely orderly and quick?

What about verifiable and accurate?

 

[TMC]

Edit: And a fourth.

These things should be adjudicated, but none seem like they will make a difference in the end. The postal worker’s claim doesn’t make sense to me - why would they change dates way back in September, well before any relevant deadlines?

As to the suit from the poll watcher - that is what poll watchers are for. If there were any shenanigans from either side, the poll watcher is supposed to make a record on that so they can be looked into. But a miscounted vote here or there is not going to matter. I saw a Trump proxy on TV saying they knew of at least six votes by dead people in Pennsylvania, and believed there may be as many as 100. OK, let’s look into that, and take appropriate legal action if a crime was committed, but 100 votes is not going to change the outcome.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Edit: And a fourth.

These things should be adjudicated, but none seem like they will make a difference in the end. The postal worker’s claim doesn’t make sense to me - why would they change dates way back in September, well before any relevant deadlines?

As to the suit from the poll watcher - that is what poll watchers are for. If there were any shenanigans from either side, the poll watcher is supposed to make a record on that so they can be looked into. But a miscounted vote here or there is not going to matter. I saw a Trump proxy on TV saying they knew of at least six votes by dead people in Pennsylvania, and believed there may be as many as 100. OK, let’s look into that, and take appropriate legal action if a crime was committed, but 100 votes is not going to change the outcome.

Dead people voting is like the tip of an iceberg. If the dead can get away with vote fraud, the living are far more capable. It is an indicator of a more extensive problem that needs to be investigated.