I am not from the US. But they say, "When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold." So I watch what is happening, and I am terribly worried too. The trend is alarming. The “rigged elections” narrative is slated to play a major role in the scheme of things about to unfold. Watch out for the ever-increasing role of ICE. And to top it all, the final intended purpose of the ballroom – the final abode, a bomb shelter. Brace for impact!
I think it's much better if people NOT entitled to vote don't vote, then if they squeak by in a system that requires a challenge to be filed against them AFTER the election has already occurred.
But it seems there are people arguing in favor of a system that allows everyone to vote first, and then have a fight afterward to prove someone wasn't supposed to vote, but did vote.
This would be true IF a significant number of people not entitled to vote were voting under the present system. The total number of illegal votes cast in any election is infinitesimal when compared with the total number of votes cast.
It simply is a solution in search of a problem with the intention of disenfranchising citizens of their voting rights.
When Trump demanded Raffensberger find him 11,000 votes, what he really meant was he wanted him to disqualify 11,000 votes. The looming problem is not illegal voting but the manipulation of the way votes are counted.
I'll address the last point first: If Trump meant for Raffensberger to disqualify 11,000 votes, then why would he say something that is the complete opposite? He specifically said for him to find 11,000 votes! That could only mean that he wanted him to find 11,000 votes for him that were not previously counted.
Now for the other point. Since this statement is used by everyone that feels the same as you do, I have to ask: How many illegal votes IS enough? Or for a slightly different phrasing: When does breaking the law become a problem?
Point 1: Simple logic. Trump was essentially demanding that Raffensberger even out the vote in Trump's favor. There are only a finite number of votes cast in any election.
IF Raffensberger could not create 11,000+ votes for Trump, AND after the recounts (where Trump actually lost 100+ votes) votes could not be changed, THEN the only way to even the vote would be to find reasons to disqualify otherwise legitimate votes.
Trump didn't care how Raffensberger found the 11,000+ votes--- he only cared that the vote was evened out in Trump's favor. Like he does with his golf score.
Point 2: It depends on the seriousness of the law broken and the effect on the outcomes of the law breaking. Good laws address problems that actually exist, not to prevent crimes that might or could occur or only exist in the minds of people. Laws are not acts of the imagination.
To draw an analogy from our criminal procedures. The founders believed that there should be a bias in favor of the accused. It is better to let the law allow a dozen guilty people to go unpunished than to let a single innocent person be punished. Our current "election integrity" laws are built under the assumption that most folks would commit election fraud therefore they must meet the state's challenges to their identity in order to vote. You can vote BUT only after jumping through hoop a, hoop b, and hoop c. In Florida not only do we have to show photo IDs to vote we must also have our signatures "matched" before given a ballot. I always vote in person and I understand the signature match on mailing ballots but why when the living person with the photo id is standing before you must a signature match be made? It is absurd.
The last time I voted the poll worker had to take my signature to his supervisor before allowing me to vote. Had the supervisor not approved I would have been given a provisional ballot which ultimately may or may not be counted.
Our "helpful" county election folks tell us that we should come in from time to time to update our signature they have on file. At 72 my signature changes from day to day.
Current laws already are adequate to protect us from illegal voting. The demand for new election integrity laws have only one objective--- to stop people from voting--- and increase the methods (excuses/plausible deniability) for rejecting votes that yield the results that one political party doesn't like.
I am not from the US. But they say, "When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold." So I watch what is happening, and I am terribly worried too. The trend is alarming. The “rigged elections” narrative is slated to play a major role in the scheme of things about to unfold. Watch out for the ever-increasing role of ICE. And to top it all, the final intended purpose of the ballroom – the final abode, a bomb shelter. Brace for impact!
The world’s supply of stupid is in no danger of running out in our lifetimes. Sadly.
The old Stacey Abrams playbook of election denial
I think it's much better if people NOT entitled to vote don't vote, then if they squeak by in a system that requires a challenge to be filed against them AFTER the election has already occurred.
But it seems there are people arguing in favor of a system that allows everyone to vote first, and then have a fight afterward to prove someone wasn't supposed to vote, but did vote.
This would be true IF a significant number of people not entitled to vote were voting under the present system. The total number of illegal votes cast in any election is infinitesimal when compared with the total number of votes cast.
It simply is a solution in search of a problem with the intention of disenfranchising citizens of their voting rights.
When Trump demanded Raffensberger find him 11,000 votes, what he really meant was he wanted him to disqualify 11,000 votes. The looming problem is not illegal voting but the manipulation of the way votes are counted.
I'll address the last point first: If Trump meant for Raffensberger to disqualify 11,000 votes, then why would he say something that is the complete opposite? He specifically said for him to find 11,000 votes! That could only mean that he wanted him to find 11,000 votes for him that were not previously counted.
Now for the other point. Since this statement is used by everyone that feels the same as you do, I have to ask: How many illegal votes IS enough? Or for a slightly different phrasing: When does breaking the law become a problem?
Point 1: Simple logic. Trump was essentially demanding that Raffensberger even out the vote in Trump's favor. There are only a finite number of votes cast in any election.
IF Raffensberger could not create 11,000+ votes for Trump, AND after the recounts (where Trump actually lost 100+ votes) votes could not be changed, THEN the only way to even the vote would be to find reasons to disqualify otherwise legitimate votes.
Trump didn't care how Raffensberger found the 11,000+ votes--- he only cared that the vote was evened out in Trump's favor. Like he does with his golf score.
Point 2: It depends on the seriousness of the law broken and the effect on the outcomes of the law breaking. Good laws address problems that actually exist, not to prevent crimes that might or could occur or only exist in the minds of people. Laws are not acts of the imagination.
To draw an analogy from our criminal procedures. The founders believed that there should be a bias in favor of the accused. It is better to let the law allow a dozen guilty people to go unpunished than to let a single innocent person be punished. Our current "election integrity" laws are built under the assumption that most folks would commit election fraud therefore they must meet the state's challenges to their identity in order to vote. You can vote BUT only after jumping through hoop a, hoop b, and hoop c. In Florida not only do we have to show photo IDs to vote we must also have our signatures "matched" before given a ballot. I always vote in person and I understand the signature match on mailing ballots but why when the living person with the photo id is standing before you must a signature match be made? It is absurd.
The last time I voted the poll worker had to take my signature to his supervisor before allowing me to vote. Had the supervisor not approved I would have been given a provisional ballot which ultimately may or may not be counted.
Our "helpful" county election folks tell us that we should come in from time to time to update our signature they have on file. At 72 my signature changes from day to day.
Current laws already are adequate to protect us from illegal voting. The demand for new election integrity laws have only one objective--- to stop people from voting--- and increase the methods (excuses/plausible deniability) for rejecting votes that yield the results that one political party doesn't like.