On audits, elections and public trust

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

ME - i’M nOt mIsApPlYiNg lAcHeS. I uNdErStAnD sTaNdInG! aUdITs aRe sTiLl hApPeNiNg

ME - misunderstands laches, doesn’t understand standing, and doesn’t acknowledge audits (that he originally stated weren’t happening) are happening because his GOP bulls are damned the system looking for bamboo while ME quietly masturbates in the closet.

ME - calls everyone names, insults everyone repeatedly, claims everyone else is a partisan while he started off doing that and is doing the same crap still

Here’s the problem with people like ME. They’re smart enough to read words, but they’re too dunning-kruger to do anything other than confirm their own biases and then project their own failings onto others. This is classic Fox, Trump, GOP, and right-wing behavior. In spades.

bUt tHe LeFt dOeS iT tOo!

Sure. But we’re not on a thread a out the Left. We’re on a thread about audits, elections, and public trust. And right now it’s the Right that are running facetious audits, destroying trust in elections, and literally trying to undermine the democratic process here in America.

ME, the raging mushroom dick-obsessed cock-hungry GOP cuckold he is can’t elucidate any argument outside of WHARBRGARBLRGRRRBLEGARBLE!

What a damned clown. What a rube. What a divisive partisan crap bag. “Don’t Be a Dick”, indeed.

- Doc

[Mayan Elephant]

Doc Cam,

I have never ever given an interpretation of standing or laches as it applies to my arguments in this thread, nor have I applied either to any arguments made in this thread. Rather, I have said, that when applied in sequence, that erodes credibility of the court as a backstop. It is the sequence of the application that is, to me, laughable at best. Your inability to refrain from twisting that point into something else entirely is equally entertaining but it does not change the facts.

The rest of your insults and diagnosis, along with calling it a right-wing something or other, is further evidence of just how harsh the fault lines are for your ideology on this board. Paired with your territorial claim to this board, including your self-declared right and practice of sh*tting on people, does not invalidate my position at all. Rather, it validates the point of this thread and the topic at hand which is that these fault lines between ideologies exist. I would add that suggesting posters blow their brains out is another extreme that firms the fault lines and division.

Audits do not undermine a process. Audits validate a process. I think this conversation confirms that the validation is incomplete or insufficient. I have no investment in it either way. If the audits and process become valid AND lead to the elimination of vote by mail and a reliable voter registration process that includes ID, I look forward to voting. Without such, your vote just become a bit stronger because I will not vote and otherwise would probably not choose a candidate that shares your vitriol.

[honorentheos]

I just happen to think that a dictatorship or monarchy is a significantly better option than an election that lacks credibility from ALL participants.

Hobbes, in Leviathan, painted the natural condition of humankind as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Predating modern democratic institutions, he held a parallel view that the commonwealth governed by a sovereign monarch to whom the people ceded their allegiance was necessary and therefore good to make possible a social order to hold off the chaos and anarchy of all-versus-all where complex societies cannot exist.

His take on humankind is it places on one side of the scale a horrific vision of a Mad Max world that can only be held back by a powerful person to whose will all must relinquish their rights and freedoms. The brutishness of nature is counterbalanced by a different brute of whom it can only best be said that at least it is our brute. Except instead, we are the brute's. Put simply, Hobbes' pessimism is reflected in both the problem and the solution to it.

So, the statement above is a strange one to me. It's better to live subject to the whims of one person rather than to live under an imperfect system of representative government? How so? Because the lack of fraud in the election can never be perfectly assured to the full satisfaction of all people living within the system? That's a strange standard where zero tolerances are possible. I mean, we eat peanut butter with x% of bug parts, drink water with x% of poisonous substances, spray chemicals on surfaces to kill 99% of germs but not 100%...where then comes this argument for perfection or else subjugation to bow to the will of some person who apparently was able to win power in this poor, nasty, brutish world?

My position is that the principles and institutions of democratic societies have helped create unprecedented opportunities, elevated individual rights in ways impossible under despots or monarchs.

There is something monarchs, despots, presidents and legislatures hold in common - their power derives from the people's willingness to live under those systems. If one person decides to not watch football on Sunday, no matter. The NFL will never even notice. If enough people in a city or state decide they won't buy tickets to watch football in a stadium on Sunday, the owner of the team there finds a new home and the NFL sanctions the move of the franchise. If so many people stop watching football on Sunday, though, the NFL just stops being. What fills the entertainment and fan identity void left behind would matter to different degrees to different people but probably wouldn't affect anyone's life who couldn't care less about the NFL.

Society isn't the NFL, though.

So what is it that monarchy or despotism has to offer that you prefer it to imperfect elections if the fact is they are all sustained by belief?

[Mayan Elephant]

So what is it that monarchy or despotism has to offer that you prefer it to imperfect elections if the fact is they are all sustained by belief?

Thank you honorentheos. Very well crafted.

First, let me make HUGE clarification. I said dictatorship. I did NOT say despot. I do not prefer despotism over anything.

My daughter studied abroad for both of her last few years of college. She was in the Netherlands and in Singapore. I had Singapore in mind when I used the term dictatorship. I would ask only that you accept my lack of clarification as a fault of mine, and understand that at no point ever did I suggest that despotism was better than wonky elections in a republic.

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. I think the authenticity of a monarchy or dictatorship is better than the facade of a representative government where the belief is compromised.

My issue with future elections is not limited to VBM. While that is a hard line I have based on a personal career of auditing (performing and consuming) and predictive modeling, I have other issues that concern me. For example, I find the massive investment in elections by our oligarchs to be problematic. This concerns me not just because oligarchs have power or a voice, but also because they can and do sway elections of so-called representatives of the people who are actually representatives of the oligarchs.

While you did not address this specifically, I would like to make a generalized point about the populists in the republic and in the monarchy or dictatorship. I do not have the same references, nor have I done as much research as you. My observation of the populists (BOTH sides, not red/blue, not left/right) is that they give benefit of doubt until they don't. They will be forgiving and kind, until they are not. They will give second chances, until the the 29th second chance was too gaddamn much. They can be managed to sustain faith (or belief as you refer to it) until they just stop.

Making a sham of the elections is triggering as hell to people for a lot of reasons. Efforts must be made to make it credible for all participants. I am not saying the credibility or quantifiable aspects of the election must be perfect. But, when that credibility is taken for granted, or completely shat upon, we are getting close to a populist revolution. Now, are we there yet? Some would say yes. I do not think so. But, I think conversations like what we are seeing in information silos and media slants and obfuscations and censorship are not buttering the goose.... they are cooking that bird on high heat.

Final point. Republics can have despots. Some may think that about Cheney when it convenient to think that about Cheney. Some may think that about Obama. There are varying points of view. There are differences. A republic has to hold those differences and credibility in the elections is critical. Without it, we are holding TNT and not flowers.

[Brack]

The increase of mail-in ballots during the 2020 Presidential election is a big reason why about 95% of the votes cast have a paper record compared to about 82% of votes cast during the 2016 Presidential election. But right after the Presidential election, a lot of folks in right-wing media were blaming the voting machines for Joe Biden having won. These folks in right-wing were also blaming a voting machine company that was only used in LA County, CA during the 2020 Presidential election. Link

Our GOP Governor in March of 2019 signed a bill into law expanding the voter ID law, which was in effect within this state for the 2020 election. Link

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

[Gadianton]

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, let me get this straight. Elections are untrustworthy. A dictatorship is preferable. And ME voted for Trump.

Color me damned SURPRISED.

I can’t wait to see what else leaks out ...

- Doc

[Mayan Elephant]

So, let me get this straight. Elections are untrustworthy. A dictatorship is preferable. And ME voted for Trump.

Color me stupid SURPRISED.

I can’t wait to see what else leaks out ...

- Doc

Keep making stuff up, Doc. I will not participate in VBM elections because that is not credible for me and my expectations. I do not prefer a dictatorship. However, I do think that a dictatorship is preferable to a fake-democracy with non-credible elections where the voters within a republic are used to shine an election that is not what they expect.

It is obvious that you are defending the fault line still. We can work with that. Keep it up. I appreciate the transparency even if your obfuscations are ridiculous.

You can keep on lying about me and to me, want me to explain my conclusions about that again?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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

[honorentheos]

Thank you honorentheos. Very well crafted.

Likewise, thank you as well.

First, let me make HUGE clarification. I said dictatorship. I did NOT say despot. I do not prefer despotism over anything…I had Singapore in mind when I used the term dictatorship. I would ask only that you accept my lack of clarification as a fault of mine, and understand that at no point ever did I suggest that despotism was better than wonky elections in a republic.

Thank you for pointing out my mistake and for the clarification. Citing Singapore as an example of what you may prefer is helpful.
I assume, but maybe am mistaken, that most people who post on this board are informed enough about the world to realize there is a meaningful struggle (perhaps the MOST meaningful besides the one around climate change) taking place around the world between command and control authoritarian governments and the kind of democracy the United States supposedly exemplified and advocated to the world at least for the last half of the twentieth century. China and Russia are openly attempting to convince the world their forms of authoritarian rule are best suited for dealing with the challenges of the twenty-first century and are engaging with overlooked countries in Africa, frequent antagonists in the western hemisphere, and traditional allies in Europe to prove it through economic, infrastructure, and power projection. Singapore is a model of central command and control authoritarianism that falls squarely in this camp. Authoritarianism is the communism of the twenty-first century if you just look at which ideology is being lined up to stand against the United States. Only, we’re in the vanguard of potentially changing ideological allegiance in order to simply oppose them nation-against-nation.

So I guess the question is what recommends it over the institutions of democracy? I mean, I hear your argument as saying what we should consider rejecting our traditional weltanschauung.

Looking at the comments you made, this is what I take as the two answers so far.

Argument 1: The US might not be a legitimate representative republic right now, so let’s stop pretending and be what we really are.

Quotes:

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. I think the authenticity of a monarchy or dictatorship is better than the facade of a representative government where the belief is compromised.

I find the massive investment in elections by our oligarchs to be problematic. This concerns me not just because oligarchs have power or a voice, but also because they can and do sway elections of so-called representatives of the people who are actually representatives of the oligarchs.
Republics can have despots. Some may think that about Cheney when it convenient to think that about Cheney. Some may think that about Obama. There are varying points of view.

Argument 2: Populists are becoming fed up with government not working for them, and the keg may be about to blow so we need to change directions somehow.

Quotes:

My observation of the populists (BOTH sides, not red/blue, not left/right) is that they give benefit of doubt until they don't. They will be forgiving and kind, until they are not. They will give second chances, until the the 29th second chance was too gaddamn much. They can be managed to sustain faith (or belief as you refer to it) until they just stop.

Making a sham of the elections is triggering as hell to people for a lot of reasons. Efforts must be made to make it credible for all participants. I am not saying the credibility or quantifiable aspects of the election must be perfect. But, when that credibility is taken for granted, or completely shat upon, we are getting close to a populist revolution. Now, are we there yet? Some would say yes. I do not think so. But, I think conversations like what we are seeing in information silos and media slants and obfuscations and censorship are not buttering the goose.... they are cooking that bird on high heat.

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. The primary conflict is between two ideologies. Not liberals and conservatives in the US. Not elite and average Joes. Not right vs. left. Not Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump versus Joe Biden/Obama. The conflict is between Western Liberal Democracy on which side the US stands as the major advocate for our entire period of global influence, and those saying government like ours is unable to serve the needs of its citizens compared to one led by nationalist authoritarians. We’re teetering towards the side of the opposition rather than leading the free world in this new cold war.

Those in the US siding with authoritarianism seem to imagine the fight is different than I presented above. Some seem to think its between globalists and nationalists, and the only way for the US to maintain our position is shedding our commitment to our values in order to maintain global influence and power. I lack the imagination to see how that actually works.

But I actually do agree with you that the big flaw in the twentieth century up to the last two decades has been our “Freedom for me but not for thee” manner of engaging both the world as well as favoring wealth over the democratic principles we supposedly exemplified. One doesn’t overthrow an election in Iran to satisfy BP and US oil interests and then get to act surprised when radical revolution is able to grow and take over within the generation that watched that hypocrisy occur for example. One does not favor migration of wealth to the most wealthy in one’s own country through favorable corporate and individual tax codes and avoid the rising temperature of anger among the non-elites and less fortunate.
We’re a nation of contradictions in this regard, though. And this gets to my counter-argument in to Argument 2.

Authoritarian countries work well for elites. But not anyone else. It is a-historical to imagine that because China is industrializing and Singapore has created a high percentage of millionaires that this is a case of widely accessible opportunities for improving one’s lot in life if one is born to the wrong family, is the wrong ancestry, comes from a certain region, is an immigrant, or a multitude of traditional reasons elites ruling the mobs is the historical make-up of authoritarian rule from the times of ancient empires to today.

So, my counter-argument is that rejecting Western Liberal Democracy in favor of authoritarian rule isn’t a choice like picking a new mascot or deciding to move to a different state. It’s choosing to reject the social order that makes it possible to move to a different state if one doesn’t like the one they live in currently. It’s gambling that one’s children will be better off than other people’s children who weren’t lucky enough to catch the last plane out.

It’s not adjusting the game to play more like one wants it played. It’s tossing the game with the rules and background conditions involved in order to play Simon Says.

In short, you’re right when you said this - A republic has to hold those differences (between views and ideologies) and (maintaining) credibility in the elections is critical. Without it, we are holding TNT and not flowers.

The thing is, becoming an authoritarian state is the very definition of the TNT going off.

My suggestion – work to improve the system. Giving up on it is failure of catastrophic proportions if that becomes wide-spread which is very possible. Are we insincere and inauthentic in our commitments to democratic values? Recommit and champion them. Are we allowing the wealth of the nation to be siphoned off into the offshore bank accounts of a handful of global elite? Use the fact we are a representative republic to combat it because we sure as hell can’t when we’re ruled by the particular global elite and their cronies when that global elite becomes an unchecked authoritarian after the last bulwarks of democracy fall.