On audits, elections and public trust

[Mayan Elephant]

Next, I do believe that the republic is sustained by belief, as are other forms of government. My issue with elections that are not credible in a republic as that they put a veneer on the representative principle of the republic where there really wasn't a credible selection of the representatives.

Good point, but while I understand what you mean by 'belief' I'm not sure what you mean by 'credibility'.

I was quoting and using the term from the post I quoted.

Credibility, in this case, is that if the process and the quantifiable outcome are not credible to the losers and winners that the trust or belief that it is still a republic is eroded. That, to me, is a faster road to chaos than a monarchy where one may not like the leaders, but there is no question that they are the leaders. Put another way, in a monarchy or dictatorship the populists may not like the leader, but they agree that the leadership is "the leadership." In a republic where the election is a sham, the populists lose faith in both the leadership and the actual existence of the republic.

I haven't read every post on this thread thoroughly, but my impression is that you're your own man on this issue. Though you voted for Trump, nothing out there in Trump-land represents your unique views on election problems. You don't seem to believe as did Trump, as he expressed his views with Brad Raffensperger on the phone, that malicious voting machine parts miscalculated votes in his state, and it would be the right thing to do to for Brad to compensate for the votes by inventing a guestimate number of votes that he was owed. You don't seem to believe, as did Trump, that Trump "won by a lot" in many of the states that he lost, prior to the votes even being counted, or that they needed to "stop the counting now because he won" prior to all votes being counted. Unlike you, Trump was convinced of fraud and preached fraud night and day prior to having any ideas of what might account for that fraud.

Surely you had your reasons for voting for Trump, but given your strong beliefs about credible elections as the beating heart of a republic, you must have been disappointed with him after the election.

Yes. Perhaps not for the reasons you think. I think he had bad counsel, and he had a bad strategy. That is consistent with his presidency, one of bad counsel and often a bad strategy. His strategic and personal ridiculousness is the reason for the outcome we have more than anything else. Stylistically, he was a bad president and one may agree with me that he gave reason to conclude that he is also a bad person. There is no question that he made his bed on this.

Let me put it another way: if belief and credibility aren't the same thing, then what good is credibility, when (as people report it) 75% of Republicans believe the election was stolen? Given your non-alignment with the bulk of what's out there regarding the "stolen election", then even if they fixed everything on your list, it's clear that team Trump would not be satisfied. In other words, just because elections may one day become objectively secure according to your standards, that in no way assures us that people will believe that they are secure.

Is evolution credible because there's evidence for it, or is it credible because the public believes in it?

My issue with the election is not the same as other folks' issues.

I was also referring to belief in the republic system and credibility in the process. I believe that our country was established as a voting republic, and operated as such for over 200 years. It is not perfect, but I am/was loyal to that belief. I had faith in it. I believed in it. Presidents I voted for were President, and presidents I did not vote for were President. I voted twice in elections that were lost by my choice (Bush1 and Dole.) My hardcore D grandmother worked with the Doles, Gores and Biden, among others. She voted for Gore, I voted against him three times. I believed in the process.

Given what happened leading up to Nov 3, 2020 and after. I no longer find the process credible. The situation in Georgia (my daughter worked HARD for S. Abrams) and other states with backchannel changes to the process is more than I can accept. That is not credible at all to me. The process is flawed or not credible and I could or will lose my belief that with such, we will remain a true republic. We are imitating one for now, but to me, it is a shiny oligarchy in disguise.

What we have is a paradox, ME. Because if it's belief that sustains the republic, then if Brad Raffensperger had invented the numbers Trump demanded, or if the Supreme court swooped in and did Trump's bidding, then the republic would have been saved so long as people 'believed' that right had been done. My unhinged right-wing friend couldn't even look me in the eye and honestly say that he believed the election was stolen. But he was very clear that he hoped the Supreme Court would overturn it, because it was the right thing to do.

This is an assumption too far for me. The assumption is that Trump asked for an invention of numbers. I listened to the entirety of the call that was released to the press, twice. I do not arrive at that conclusion. And with that, I can't really accept the paradox.

Trump's bidding? Again, I cannot accept this paradox. It was my bidding at the Supreme Court level. It was yours too. It was not about the vote count. It was not about the inauguration. It was about the process, and Supreme Court claimed standing. It had NOTHING to do with the numbers or a count. It had EVERYTHING to do with the integrity of all future elections. It was my bidding. It was your bidding. Supreme Court refused on standing. THAT was my breaking point. By the way, Trump joined that case. It was not him. He filed by amicus. It was OUR case, not his. And the court said, pound sand losers.

I cannot look anyone in the eye and say it was stolen. I can say, without reservation, that the greenlight has been given for shenanigans because - standing then laches. There is no standing in these courts for a claim, but if you finally have standing in an election - LACHES! Sit the f**** down. So, with that, both the belief that we have a three branch system in our republic and the credibility of that election and others is dashed. In ONE submissive move, it was dashed.

If 'belief' and 'credibility' are the same thing, then all that work to make elections secure is a waste of time, as it's easier to get people on the same page by propaganda. You lose.

And if 'belief' and 'credibility' are not the same thing, then nobody has done more than the guy you voted for to undermine belief in the election process independently of whatever problems the system may legitimately have or not have, such that if elections were one day fully secure, you could still count on people to disbelieve if their candidate loses. You lose again; that is, if 'belief' sustains the republic.

The opposite of what you are saying is also true. And a hard fault line on this is very problematic.

I distinguish the belief in our system (republic up to now) with the credibility of the process for operating as a republic. And if EITHER of the belief or the credibility is shot by propaganda or in favor of propaganda, we all lose.

It is very possible that Trump fighting to the very end in his flawed stylistic way is the most anyone has ever done to expose the lack of credibility in the process. I would never have advised Trump to do it the way he did it. But my god do I think that something had to happen. Something, anything. The propaganda was too much. The bullsht was too much. The changed process and governor executive orders was too much and the vote by mail was too much.

We disagree Gadianton, and that is a great great thing. We need that.

[honorentheos]

Stylistically, he was a bad president and one may agree with me that he gave reason to conclude that he is also a bad person.

I don't think it would help this thread, so perhaps we could have the discussion in another, but I would argue he was a substantively bad president.

[Mayan Elephant]

I've said elsewhere on this board that I may be a bit delusional in my faith in democratic institutions. So be aware of my very strong, foundational bias in this regard. And with that, here’s my first counter-argument.

I read everything you wrote twice. And frankly, I am humbled and impressed. I highlighted the above for this reason - I never ever found the counter argument. I do no see where you disagree, even where I read your preferences and faith in democratic institutions.

We may have a level of faith that is different. We seem to hope for similar things and fear similar things.

I do not want a monarchy or dictatorship. I want a democracy. However, given the choice between a fake democracy or republic with elections that are purposefully contentious and not credible for my standards (Choice 1 = inauthentic), and a dictatorship (Choice 2 = authentic) I am all about choice 2. I think the populists are more likely to rise (particularly Americans) when they know what they are up against and it is worth fighting. Equally, I think Americans are likely to act out, spin out, rage, get nuts and crazy when they think they are getting the shaft or getting conned. It is important to make the process believable and credible.

Again. Very well said in your post. You have me beat on the information and scholarship, no question.

[Mayan Elephant]

Stylistically, he was a bad president and one may agree with me that he gave reason to conclude that he is also a bad person.

I don't think it would help this thread, so perhaps we could have the discussion in another, but I would argue he was a substantively bad president.

I would listen. But frankly, I do not think that it would be allowed for me to do anything more than listen.

I have no question you would make valid points. None. I believe it can be made with factual information.

And NOTHING exclaims the need for credible elections more than having a bad president. In my opinion, the best presidents can't or will not run because why the hell would they put up with an election that happens like that? What respectable person would do that? As long as the elections are run by assclowns at FOX/CNN, or Twitbook. As long as lies are spread like truths, the best folks are not available. And THAT is why we need a credible process.

I would have voted for Tulsi. I voted for Bloomberg because Tulsi was out.

[honorentheos]

I think the populists are more likely to rise (particularly Americans) when they know what they are up against and it is worth fighting....It is important to make the process believable and credible.

Supposing this thing is worth fighting for rather than losing, what would you suggest as a first step in shoring up the credibility of elections?

[Mayan Elephant]

You’re such a transparent hypocrite. i d9nT tRuSt fAkE dEmOcRaCiEs implying what exactly? Are you implying we live in one? Let me guess, you’ll just pivot to some nonsense or go on the attack again instead of just stating plainly what you’re getting at.

Trump voter gon’ Trump.

- Doc

Doc Cam, you do realize just how ridiculous your post is, right?

Is there something I have said that confuses you? If so, please point it out. You may feel attacked, but you are not. How can we help you with those feelings? I am here for you and will gladly clarify anything I have said. I am not implying anything, I said it directly.

[Mayan Elephant]

I think the populists are more likely to rise (particularly Americans) when they know what they are up against and it is worth fighting....It is important to make the process believable and credible.

Supposing this thing is worth fighting for rather than losing, what would you suggest as a first step in shoring up the credibility of elections?

Good question. Very good question.

BIGGEST SUGGESTION: Term Limits in the house and senate at the national and state level.

Specific Election Suggestion:
1 - In person voting only with an ID.

Other suggestions:
2 - Paper ballots only.
3 - Allow courts to hear election cases, even if that means the position is not filled. I include President in this by the way. If the case is outstanding, send it to the house. Let the evidence be heard.
4 - Get the dirty money out of the process.
5 - Audited voter registration rolls.

[Gunnar]

Maricopa County in this state already had two legitimate audits done earlier this year. Link

Obviously the only audit hard right Trumpists will accept as legitimate is one that confirms what they want it to confirm - no matter how many previous attempts have failed to do so, no matter how carefully done, and no matter who certified them.

[honorentheos]

You'll have to forgive my starting with the general point and point 1 and focusing on the point 1. It's not because I don't think all the points are worth engaging. It's because each is a thread unto itself which makes it difficult to have productive discussions if we talk in generalities about each rather than specifics. Since we're all busy people with lives, decisions have to be made, right?

Supposing this thing is worth fighting for rather than losing, what would you suggest as a first step in shoring up the credibility of elections?

Good question. Very good question.

BIGGEST SUGGESTION: Term Limits in the house and senate at the national and state level.

Specific Election Suggestion:
1 - In person voting only with an ID.

I have nothing against either point, and favor both to some degree or other. But more than the action itself I would explain the desired outcome I associate with them, where I think the suggestion succeeds in achieving the outcome, and what shortcomings I believe it has so that modifications may be considered.

Regarding term limits - I believe the desired outcome is to eliminate the creation of a political class where a person, once in office, begins to profit from their office and makes re-election to maintain access to the profitable position their priority over actually representing the people who put them in office. By setting term limits, the goal is to focus the representative or senator on their job rather than their office.

Challenges: You brought up the problem we have incentivizing good, qualified people to run for President. We have term limits on the office of President, and that hasn't led to Presidents who come into office doing great things. Being a lame duck President, one without influence or motivation, is a thing precisely because of term limits.

I'm not against term limits but they are a stick not a carrot. And people are notoriously good at finding ways to avoid negative affects. If term limits does not actually create an incentive for being a better representative or senator who produces measurable positive results for their constituents, I don't think we'll actually see the result we want to achieve with it.

So how does one incentivize a politician to work for the people they represent? I think we can look to how the radical right and left use threats of primarying a person for at least a hint. Among those who would see a person primaried out of office, the push is for measurable accountability. You have an electorate that has key issues they care about, lobbying groups that provide scores on the representative's voting record, etc.

In the information age, is there a way to engage voters such that they get credible information on how well their representatives are voting in their interests?

But this creates another issue. We elect representatives because of macro-economic principles. If we could all be educated enough on all issues all the time to not be a danger when it came to voting on legislation, we'd have a pure democracy. The tech is there. We could all spend a bit of each day clicking on our yays and nays on the internet super democracy machine. But we can't be well informed enough to do that. So we have to choose people that we think would make good decisions once they have the information we don't have ourselves.

Because of this, I assume if my elected representatives are doing a good job they would occasionally vote in ways I initially wouldn't because they have more, better information than I have. This means a pure vote scoring system shouldn't be the only way one goes about assessing the effectiveness of their reps. But I should still be able to see that the results of their votes are moving things in directions that align with my priorities and principles.

We want something simple like terms limits to achieve something complicated. Very complicated. And the more I look at it, the more work it will likely require of me to actually have legitimate assurance my rep is actually repping me and not just feathering their own nest. Or, some short cut that accomplishes this. In the past political party affiliation played this role. In fact, it often still does. But in a two-party system it's hard to imagine a less informative metric than party affiliation to tell a person how well they are being represented.

When it comes to in-person voting with ID, the intent I assume is to ensure the election is being decided by the people who are eligible to vote. This solution helps reduce potential of a person voting under an assumed identity to get more than their one vote, and it helps reduce the potential a person would successfully cast a vote who isn't qualified to vote.

But it has gaps if we agree the intent is to ensure the election is being decided by the people eligible to vote. We'd need to come up with means of getting the vote to people who can't appear in person for various reasons or by fiat decide they lose their vote. Being physically capable of appearing at a polling location is now a criteria that defines citizens. Living somewhere that makes getting to a polling station difficult makes a person a lower class citizen than someone who have easy access to their polling location. States that fund numerous polling locations equally available to all people regardless of their living in a rural county or major city are ensuring their residents are better able to have a voice in democracy than states that manipulate the availability of polling stations. Same with ID laws.

So, if the intent is as suggest, it seems we need to find accommodations to ensure our voting system isn't a sham without credibility if we make it so some people who are otherwise eligible to vote still can't participate because to me, driving to a polling station and casting a vote by showing my drivers license is as easy as buying beer at the store...for me.

Right?

Being credible requires a bit of work, and it requires focusing on the intent and meeting different people with different needs where they need to be met so we aren't artificially creating different classes of citizens just because one option works well for us. So I think we need to work on this one a bit more.

[Mayan Elephant]

But it has gaps if we agree the intent is to ensure the election is being decided by the people eligible to vote. We'd need to come up with means of getting the vote to people who can't appear in person for various reasons or by fiat decide they lose their vote. Being physically capable of appearing at a polling location is now a criteria that defines citizens. Living somewhere that makes getting to a polling station difficult makes a person a lower class citizen than someone who have easy access to their polling location. States that fund numerous polling locations equally available to all people regardless of their living in a rural county or major city are ensuring their residents are better able to have a voice in democracy than states that manipulate the availability of polling stations. Same with ID laws.

So, if the intent is as suggest, it seems we need to find accommodations to ensure our voting system isn't a sham without credibility if we make it so some people who are otherwise eligible to vote still can't participate because to me, driving to a polling station and casting a vote by showing my drivers license is as easy as buying beer at the store...for me.

Right?

Being credible requires a bit of work, and it requires focusing on the intent and meeting different people with different needs where they need to be met so we aren't artificially creating different classes of citizens just because one options works well for us. So I think we need to work on this one a bit more.

Very right. That is my answer. Very Very Very Right.

Again, I agree with you on all points.

It is funny, I was talking about both those points in the last 48 hours. The Amazon delivery guy came in the house the other day, and we were hanging out and talking. After he left, I asked my wife, if this guy can deliver me something in 24 hours, why can't we figure out a way for people who cannot leave their house to also vote in person. Why can't that guy show up with a valid voting booth in his truck, get a signature, visit for a minute, slam a mint julip, and get on down the road?

I am not saying that is the solution, but damn. We deliver all sorts of stuff, why can't we deliver an in-person voting station for some folks.

On the term limits thing. I have thought of the lame-duck stuff a lot. On the one hand, I am fine with having lame duck politicians. I am losing patience with all their priorities. But, there are also things to talk about with term limits that are good and bad, or that meet the intent or not. Here is how it came up in our conversation. My first banking job required every employee to take a two week uninterrupted vacation within a 15 month period. Anyone who did not do that, in big trouble. Non negotiable. I audited cash balances, a low level job, and it applied to me.

I have no problem making the term limits consecutive limits only. That would do what our vacation did, kick the bums out to make sure their shenanigans were interrupted. If the house was limited to 4 consecutive terms, take a break, come back - way better than what we have. We have legacy clowns in there now.

There are other limits we could put within the terms served. I think Nadler could use a different role, for example. Been doing a shat job for too long. Let someone else do the job. There are many clever ways for it to be implemented. But, if i am totally honest.... I mostly just want term limits and let other people come along. 2 year terms in the house are almost like lame duck terms the second they start. So what if they can only serve 5 or six. Senate terms are 6 damn years, so what if they can only serve two or three. My god. let them have a lame season.