On audits, elections and public trust

[honorentheos]

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?

What role does the booth play in this? I'm a bit confused on why the booth is needed. As a lock box?

[Mayan Elephant]

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?

What role does the booth play in this? I'm a bit confused on why the booth is needed. As a lock box?

It was said as a point of ideation. My point was only that there are ways for election workers to replicate the service in a mobile way that would maintain chain of custody. The booth itself, the little curtain, was not what I was referencing. I was referencing a form of mobile but in person voting that had some mobility to it.

Had to edit. Came off a bit strong. Not intended that way.

[honorentheos]

What role does the booth play in this? I'm a bit confused on why the booth is needed. As a lock box?

It was said as a point of ideation. My point was only that there are ways for election workers to replicate the service in a mobile way that would maintain chain of custody. The booth itself, the little curtain, was not what I was referencing. I was referencing a form of mobile but in person voting that had some mobility to it.

Had to edit. Came off a bit strong. Not intended that way.

No worries. I don't call people out for behaving like an asshole on post one. It takes effort to earn that.

So the key we are seeking is chain of custody? In this chain we have election workers we trust, a means of obtaining and verifying a signature, a means of observing that the person who provided the signature to be matched provided the signature, and some means of identity verification (assumed as of now to be a form of ID).

Does that seem to capture what we'd want our model of credible voting to contain?

[Mayan Elephant]

No worries. I don't call people out for behaving like an asshole on post one. It takes effort to earn that.

So the key we are seeking is chain of custody? In this chain we have election workers we trust, a means of obtaining and verifying a signature, a means of observing that the person who provided the signature to be matched provided the signature, and some means of identity verification (assumed as of now to be a form of ID).

Does that seem to capture what we'd want our model of credible voting to contain?

Seems so, yes. That is a better and succinct description. Yes.

[Gadianton]

I think it comes down to these two line items, Mayan.

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.

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.

That call was one example of an endless number examples. "No, when I said make Johny disappear, I wasn't ordering a hit," the mob boss said. Even if by some bizarre fluke he meant nothing malicious at all -- bizarre fluke from my way of seeing it -- it certainly could have been taken that way. And had Brad invented the numbers as any reasonable person could have interpreted the request, would you really argue that Trump wouldn't have accepted them, or would have expressed any skepticism at all in whatever mechanism Brad would hypothetically offer for the change? Trump didn't directly ask that people storm the capital. But his speech certainly could have been taken it that way, and it was taken that way. It's too much for me to believe that you don't honestly see this. You're too intelligent.

And for the second quote, I suppose all I'm inclined to do now is frame our disagreement. According to you, it shed light on a broken process that now might be fixed. According to me, it's irrelevant if it shed any light, because what Trump and team pulled off was right out of the playbook of the religious right's campaigns for creationism. It doesn't matter how credible the evidence is for evolution, memes, talking points, and junk news will prevail with public opinion. Likewise, I guarantee you that no matter what is done to improve election security, that those influenced by "Stop the steal" will never accept an election as credible where a democrat wins. You might, but, as you say, you're an outlier. Do you think that Roger Stone will accept a democrat win if all those things you wish to change are changed?

One good that I CAN see coming from the voter ID stuff; one of the things I don't like, and no liberal has ever explained that I can see, is why the staunch aversion to it? Poor people who are underdocumented and underbanked shouldn't just be fodder to keep a system in place that isn't helping them -- or perhaps one that doesn't not help them slightly less than when Republicans are in. If historic efforts were expended to get these people ID's, then aside from voting, they are that much closer to participating in society; jobs, loans, heck, getting their pandemic tax break. The marginal good ID would do for an underprivileged person I'd assume is greater than the marginal good a democrat as president will do -- for them personally.

And just one more thing. While there might be fraud, why assume that it would be biased by party? Petty fraud certainly cancels out. On the table would be organized fraud operations across multiple states -- I assume the swing states, for starters. Do you really believe this is a serious concern? Sure, we can't know for sure that it isn't, but as Honor pointed out, there are lots of things we don't know for sure. If you have the paragon example, I'm willing to take a look at it. Nothing I've seen presented so far impresses me in the least.

[Mayan Elephant]

Trump didn't directly ask that people storm the capital. But his speech certainly could have been taken it that way, and it was taken that way. It's too much for me to believe that you don't honestly see this. You're too intelligent.

I will respond more thoroughly to your post. I have some responses building on it.

On this topic however, I am bowing out in this forum. I see what you are saying. I see it. I will leave it at that. Given the foundational topic of this thread, no effing way. No chance. I think I said enough about it already when I said the bird is not being buttered, it is cooking. I think Honor used the metaphor of a powder keg.

I will talk about reactions to triggers in generalities like that. Not as a metaphor for the capital riot, but in terms of people losing their everloving gaddamn minds.

Now, lets get a beer and talk in person about the capital. I promise you - you would find it interesting. I agree with you a hell of lot more than you would think, and probably not exactly as the board will allow.

More later.

[Mayan Elephant]

That call was one example of an endless number examples. "No, when I said make Johny disappear, I wasn't ordering a hit," the mob boss said. Even if by some bizarre fluke he meant nothing malicious at all -- bizarre fluke from my way of seeing it -- it certainly could have been taken that way. And had Brad invented the numbers as any reasonable person could have interpreted the request, would you really argue that Trump wouldn't have accepted them, or would have expressed any skepticism at all in whatever mechanism Brad would hypothetically offer for the change? Trump didn't directly ask that people storm the capital. But his speech certainly could have been taken it that way, and it was taken that way. It's too much for me to believe that you don't honestly see this. You're too intelligent.

Let's call this a disagreement.

I agree with the logic that a wink wink nod nod request to, ya know, "take the guy fishing for the weekend," can be interpreted as something else. On that we agree. I do not concede that there was an expectation to "invent" numbers when doing so would have been absolutely egregious and exposed. I do think that there was pressure for a signature match, and that would have changed a lot. Again, asking if Trump would have accepted or refused just plain changed numbers is not a hypothetical I can entertain.

uuuuhhhhggggghhhhh. On the capital mess. It made me sad. It made me angry. I promise you would understand, even if you disagreed. I was not there. My opinion is meaningless and certainly unwelcome.

And for the second quote, I suppose all I'm inclined to do now is frame our disagreement. According to you, it shed light on a broken process that now might be fixed. According to me, it's irrelevant if it shed any light, because what Trump and team pulled off was right out of the playbook of the religious right's campaigns for creationism. It doesn't matter how credible the evidence is for evolution, memes, talking points, and junk news will prevail with public opinion. Likewise, I guarantee you that no matter what is done to improve election security, that those influenced by "Stop the steal" will never accept an election as credible where a democrat wins. You might, but, as you say, you're an outlier. Do you think that Roger Stone will accept a democrat win if all those things you wish to change are changed?

Whoa. Yes. We have a disagreement. But, the evidence is relevant. The evidence is important. And getting to credible evidence is a good thing. I am not afraid to surrender to the facts. I welcome that, even when it is hard. Surrendering to alcoholism, as a matter of fact, was one of the hardest things I have ever done. I did it. It has been a fortunate 8 year run. Submitting to alcoholism almost killed me and hurt a lot of people. It hurt them bad. It hurt me bad. There is a difference between surrender (these are the facts, dummy) and submission (I can't, so whatever.)

Getting to credible facts and evidence was important. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether state governors, courts and AGs can change the laws without consent of the legislature. Addressing that is important. Not for Trump - for all of us. It did not happen. Standing! What? I wanted it addressed, others too. And, F*CK YOU PEASANT is unkind and lazy. That, was true submission.

Trump was leading, and doing it poorly, in this process. But he would not have been doing anything if the people did not want it. I flat out reject the assertion that the people were behind Trump in this. In my opinion, he was representing his constituents more than he was leading them. Case in point, Pence. Pence submitted to the pressure that the people wanted to keep. He gone.

I know we disagree on this. I am not trying to change your mind. I hope you never take my word for anything. I want, merely, to say that there is another point of view here and the populists who brought you Trump (not the other way around) could have been appeased and given an explanation.

I do not know Roger Stone. However, if he is such a dipshat that he would not accept a loss if standards such as mine were met, he is not a good dude. And, for the record, I accept the outcome of any election, I just don't have any interest in participating in putting a veneer on the election if it is a calamity or has VBM. I am not abstaining because I reject the outcome. I abstain because I reject the process.

One good that I CAN see coming from the voter ID stuff; one of the things I don't like, and no liberal has ever explained that I can see, is why the staunch aversion to it? Poor people who are underdocumented and underbanked shouldn't just be fodder to keep a system in place that isn't helping them -- or perhaps one that doesn't not help them slightly less than when Republicans are in. If historic efforts were expended to get these people ID's, then aside from voting, they are that much closer to participating in society; jobs, loans, heck, getting their pandemic tax break. The marginal good ID would do for an underprivileged person I'd assume is greater than the marginal good a democrat as president will do -- for them personally.

I hate all forms of condescension. I think it is mean. In the case of voter ID, I find the condescension unacceptable. I reject it outright. I have no patience for it. Everyone can get an ID. If there is a problem with them getting an ID, fix that problem without the name-calling and condescension. The aversion is just shameful victimization and it is nonsense.

And just one more thing. While there might be fraud, why assume that it would be biased by party? Petty fraud certainly cancels out. On the table would be organized fraud operations across multiple states -- I assume the swing states, for starters. Do you really believe this is a serious concern? Sure, we can't know for sure that it isn't, but as Honor pointed out, there are lots of things we don't know for sure. If you have the paragon example, I'm willing to take a look at it. Nothing I've seen presented so far impresses me in the least.

I think that organized fraud is a MASSIVE concern. I didn't, but I do now. I have no evidence that there has been fraud. I think the concern for fraud is not just real, it is frightening real. We have established in our courts that states have no standing in the fraud of another state even in the case of federal offices. Nothing could green light fraud more than that. There is no reason not to organize fraud now. Why would a liberal court or SoS not orchestrate a shatshow of fraud in a state with a republican legislature? Neither side has any fear of consequences, and they lose if they do not do it. I think that we are about to see equal opportunity fraudsters. There are no consequences for writing new laws days and weeks before an election. So they will, and to me, that is organized and that is a scam. Hopefully, the scrutiny that is landing on the swing state hurts their wallets a lot and hurts them bad and they will decide to abide. But, I doubt it.

Fraud is not limited just to ballots being cast. It can and will include that. It can also include how they are counted, how the signatures are matched, etc. It can also include organized propaganda like the fake as shat fact checking and banning of certain forms of media. At this point, there is no reason to think that fraud and misinformation are not going to be BETTER in the coming elections. I am willing to show some faith if we cut out vote by mail, but it will take some massive reform for me to trust a system that disallows evidence until the damages are done/final and then it is too late to remedy the damages.

[Moksha]

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.

While Joseph Goebbels might mention Trump overdid it by lying about everything even when such lies were unnecessary, he would congratulate him on being one of the foremost advocates for the Big Lie. This tactic of lying about everything has altered everything about the Republican party. The party now concerns itself with self-interest and domination by subverting the electoral process.

Today's Republicans note that the time for tyranny is now and that they can deliver it.

[Mayan Elephant]

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.

While Joseph Goebbels might mention Trump overdid it by lying about everything even when such lies were unnecessary, he would congratulate him on being one of the foremost advocates for the Big Lie. This tactic of lying about everything has altered everything about the Republican party. The party now concerns itself with self-interest and domination by subverting the electoral process.

Today's Republicans note that the time for tyranny is now and that they can deliver it.

horse crap, not original, and definitely not helpful.

This is exactly the tone that is creating the powder keg. It is ridiculous, based on speculation and so unbelievable it does nothing but create the distrust that will ignite the powder keg. I am beginning to think more, and more, and more that a civil war is wanted. I do not want one. But when I read comments like yours, I am becoming convinced that many people do.

I am sure you are convinced that you can say things like this and it is not your fault. That does not change the response that you are hoping for, which is a fookin fight. It damn sure was not said in a tone of reconciliation, understanding or betterment. It was meant to start a fight and give you deniability.

I am surprised it took this long to invoke Godwin. Congratulations.

[Moksha]

I am surprised it took this long to invoke Godwin. Congratulations.

Is denying credit to Goebbels essential for Trumpian advocacy?