On audits, elections and public trust

[jpatterson]

Continuing a side discussion from another board

Yes, I read the article.

Your argument is that THERE ARE NO AUDITS.

That is demonstrably untrue. It seems that now your argument is that there are no state-wide audits (which I don't believe is true given that the Michigan audit news article I linked above says it was statewide)? Or that there were no pre-inauguration audits? Or that the audits were not a specific type of audit that meets your standard of approval?

Well those are entirely different arguments. Goalpost moving is not very conducive to establishing credibility.

https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncount ... TypeId=108

Here is another example. Fulton County has not audited a damn thing. and yet, one can find countless articles about Georgia "audits." Here is one...

https://georgiastarnews.com/2021/01/02/ ... bb-county/

This all goes to credibility and ideology. If we like something, we find confirmation. If we do not like something, we find confirmation. I am saying that claiming that something was done when, in fact, it was not done or not done satisfactorily, is just huffing and puffing across the fault line.

Again, I'd be happy to entertain evidence of wide-spread voter fraud that would have tipped the scales of the election. To date, I haven't seen any.

Instead, you are on a wild, pedantic goose chase about what constitutes an actual audit in your mind and the level of trust of a 94% canvas vs a 100% canvas.

I think you like the idea of elections being untrustworthy, and so you've latched onto the above narrative as confirmation when it's in no way supported by fact.

[jpatterson]

Put another way, it's a classic rhetorical headfake to, instead of showing evidence of voter fraud, instead attempt to erode confidence in public trust of elections by saying things like "THERE HAVE BEEN NO AUDITS, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?!?!?"

When, in fact, there have been audits.

Then, you move the goal posts. Oh, there have been audits, just not statewide audits.

Oh, there was a Michigan statewide audit, but it's not an audit according to my standards.

You keep moving the goalposts until people eventually get so exhausted they give up trying to understand the issue. And, boom, you've now used misinformation to erode public trust.

Show me new, credible evidence of voter fraud or a stolen election that would have reversed the election. Otherwise, I'm not interested in these games.

[Mayan Elephant]

Continuing a side discussion from another board


Again, I'd be happy to entertain evidence of wide-spread voter fraud that would have tipped the scales of the election. To date, I haven't seen any.

Instead, you are on a wild, pedantic goose chase about what constitutes an actual audit in your mind and the level of trust of a 94% canvas vs a 100% canvas.

I think you like the idea of elections being untrustworthy, and so you've latched onto the above narrative as confirmation when it's in no way supported by fact.

I have never mentioned voter fraud in this conversation. And, your caveat is darling AF. Any voter fraud is a concern and leads to credibility issues.

I live and breathe audits every damn day and have for many years. I do understand an audit. Clearly, you do not. A fractional or complete audit is not defined by the amount of information that is canvassed. It also involves an audit of the process. But go on.

Go ahead and believe what you want to believe. That is EXACTLY the point about of the conversation. There is a lot of reason to not find the elections credible. But, you just keep calling people goose chasers if that helps. No sense doing anything that could lead to any amount of understanding of that other continent across the great fault line. Name-calling is way better than the facts now, especially when it is done with metaphors. Is there any wonder why the fault lines exist? It is going to get worse, a lot worse, a whole lot worse.

It really is this simple; I say that some people find elections, including the results and the process, not credible. That is my claim. There are Americans that will not participate because they distrust the process. I have provided an example of how something as innocuous as "there was an audit" is not a credible claim. And, you call me a goose chaser for stating THAT fact and suggest that I like the idea of elections being untrustworthy. A claim you cannot even begin to backup - you have no idea what I actually like or do not like. I have voted in every election in my adult life. So how ever would you back up the claim that I "like the idea of elections being untrustworthy?"

It is not even allowed to consider the fact that... hmmmm, maybe...... maybe...... possibly..... someone has a reason to distrust the election process. Perhaps there is value in that acknowledgment? Oh, hell no you say. Way better to just insult those people and select different facts.

FTR, this was never a conversation about audits, elections and public trust. This was a conversation about ideological fault lines. And something as simple as audits, elections and public trust are so effing ideologically founded that they cannot even happen in the telestial world, such a suggestion must be banished. Ain't that somethin? God forbid there would ever be a conversation about censorship, imagine the uselessness of facts in a conversation like that.

[Mayan Elephant]

Show me new, credible evidence of voter fraud or a stolen election that would have reversed the election. Otherwise, I'm not interested in these games.

I said nothing about a stolen election.

I am not attempting to win an argument about the election.

I will say this though, this "show me the proof or else" logic is an emphatic statement of where we are in this country. Another person could ask you for proof that every mail-in ballot represented the vote cast by the registered voter and that the voter was a living resident of that state. You cannot do that. I can't either. Nobody can. There was no signature match, not even in Michigan. So we have no clue. None.

If someone thinks your logic is just dickish self-righteousness from across the fault line, they would not be out of line. A more centered approach would be to see the facts and realize that there are reasons for concern from both sides. Perhaps you are concerned that people think the election was stolen. Perhaps others are concerned that the election might have been stolen.

Clearly this topic triggers the everlovin' hell outta ya. I find it fascinating that something as innocuous as the quality or credibility of audits and elections is so damn triggering.

as for elections going forward. Do not worry. This all works in your favor. You win no matter what. The less credible the elections are, and the more name calling that comes with that, the more people will check out and let it play out without them. Not everyone is as rabid about it as you, despite what the silos would lead you to believe. There are many that just shrug and vote as if none of this happened. There are many that will not vote because they want no part of the veneer the so-called election puts on a non-credible process. They will resist in other ways, but pretending that a fake audit was a real audit and voting by mail is suddenly celestial ain't working out for everyone. Pretending that a verdict that ended with "standing" was evidentiary is validating for some, and for others it is insulting. And, pretending that a verdict that ended with "laches" was proof of anything is very comforting for some, and unsettling for others. So be it, the divide remains. A fault line of tectonic proportions. Perhaps the best approach would be to acknowledge and embrace the fault line and get the battles over with, finally.

[jpatterson]

Lots of projection going on in your last few posts. You're posting in call caps, but I'm rabid?

Also, I never posited that the 57 failed court cases were evidentiary, except for being evidentiary that there have been zero legitimatized claims of fraud or stolen elections.

I have a very hard time believing your real beef is with a lack of quality election auditing.

[Gunnar]

I have a very hard time believing your real beef is with a lack of quality election auditing.

So do I! I seriously doubt Mayan Elephant would have had any comments or complaints about the possible lack of integrity of election audits, had the election gone the other way.

[master_dc]

ME, I am trying to follow.

Is your argument, people will see things how they want to see things, so there is no use debating?

[Mayan Elephant]

Lots of projection going on in your last few posts. You're posting in call caps, but I'm rabid?

Also, I never posited that the 57 failed court cases were evidentiary, except for being evidentiary that there have been zero legitimatized claims of fraud or stolen elections.

I have a very hard time believing your real beef is with a lack of quality election auditing.

My beef is not with the lack of quality election auditing. I have shared examples where concerns are valid. That is not by beef.

I have two beefs that are relevant to this conversation. I have a lot more, but two that are relevant here.

Beef One: People on both sides of the fault line have valid concerns or interests. The hyper polarization of the division is counterproductive to the resolution of concerns or interests. Winning a side show argument does not, in fact, soften the fault line. I have a beef with the complete lack of empathy for others.

Beef Two: These conversations are useless, really. I mean, if a non-evidentiary hearing is "evidentiary" of a conclusion you want there is nothing anyone can do with that. That is the ultimate FU card to a conversation. And, frankly, the courts did that, not you. You are just parroting the talking points.

[Mayan Elephant]

ME, I am trying to follow.

Is your argument, people will see things how they want to see things, so there is no use debating?

No. My argument is that people will see things to confirm their bias, and both sides are susceptible to that. Blue Anon and QAnon are the same damn thing in this regard.

My second argument is that there are valid concerns and facts on the other side of the fault lines.

[Mayan Elephant]

I have a very hard time believing your real beef is with a lack of quality election auditing.

So do I! I seriously doubt Mayan Elephant would have had any comments or complaints about the possible lack of integrity of election audits, had the election gone the other way.

I am not complaining about the possible lack of integrity of election audits. Though, I am saying that the integrity is not there. I am not complaining about it. Just saying, here are the facts and I can roll with that. I am complaining about, or pointing to, the lack of integrity in these ideological conversations that those on the other side of the fault line are one hundred percent ****** in the head and those on the same side as you/me/us are one hundred percent awesome.

But, go on.