Evidence of voter fraud - “all Chinese people look alike”

[exchemist]

Yeah completely agree and evidence for these claims are definitely a must, because as you say, people can easily be mislead or believe in conspiracies, we have seen that many times before.

In fact of course we have plenty of evidence that the vote was fair and accurate. You can tell that from the results of the recounts and by the statements of the various agencies involved, especially those whose leadership were appointed by the losing candidate, including the Justice Dept. So the whole ID thing is just another red herring.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our problem is that voter ID has been so politicized.
Better security is politically useful to either oppose or
favor, depending upon one's party. On the surface,
& looking at it neutrally, bettering it is a good idea.
But I think it will be some time before things calm
down to the point both sides reach consensus
on what level of security is best, ie, fair, useful,
& cost effective.

The problem with excessive security is that it does suppress the votes of the poor. And even with low security the fraud issue is all but nonexistent. It simply takes too much time to vote for voter fraud to be an issue.

Even mail in votes appear to be very safe from fraud since each vote has to go through signature verification. Time needed to vote fraudulently is the best security factor that we have. It simply takes too much time for voter fraud to be an issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem with excessive security is that it does suppress the votes of the poor. And even with low security the fraud issue is all but nonexistent. It simply takes too much time to vote for voter fraud to be an issue.

Even mail in votes appear to be very safe from fraud since each vote has to go through signature verification. Time needed to vote fraudulently is the best security factor that we have. It simply takes too much time for voter fraud to be an issue.

Could we agree that "excessive" security should be avoided?
That changes the conversation, eh.
Removes it from the partisan wrangling de jour.

 

[exchemist]

Our problem is that voter ID has been so politicized.
Better security is politically useful to either oppose or
favor, depending upon one's party. On the surface,
& looking at it neutrally, bettering it is a good idea.
But I think it will be some time before things calm
down to the point both sides reach consensus
on what level of security is best, ie, fair, useful,
& cost effective.

What ever happened to the old adage : "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."?

 

[Revoltingest]

What ever happened to the old adage : "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."?

Oh, you're not an engineer.
Continual improvement is useful.

 

[exchemist]

Oh, you're not an engineer.
Continual improvement is useful.

You're not a businessman or an economist.

 

[ecco]

Trump Election Fraud Witness Says We Need Voter ID Because 'All Chinese Look Alike' (Video)

I'm not saying that her comment is acceptable. However...

Back in our evolutionary history, it was important to be able to identify members of our own tribe.

Back in our evolutionary history, it was important to be able to identify others as strangers. We didn't care which stranger it was - we didn't need to identify each, so - they all looked alike.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not saying that her comment is acceptable. However...

Back in our evolutionary history, it was important to be able to identify members of our own tribe.

Back in our evolutionary history, it was important to be able to identify others as strangers. We didn't care which stranger it was - we didn't need to identify each, so - they all looked alike.

Then clearly that's where she belongs: somewhere back in our evolutionary history.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're not a businessman or an economist.

Au contraire, jungfrauzer, I am indeed in business.
And not just unclogging stubborn toilets.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well, as I used to say to my Japanese ex-wife, "Don't wander away in the mall. You know I'll never find you -- especially if you go into that Chinese restaurant. How could I tell you from one of the cooks?"

I'll bet she was so charmed!

 

[Nimos]

In fact of course we have plenty of evidence that the vote was fair and accurate. You can tell that from the results of the recounts and by the statements of the various agencies involved, especially those whose leadership were appointed by the losing candidate, including the Justice Dept. So the whole ID thing is just another red herring.

Don't misunderstand what im saying as if I believe that fraud was involved, because to the best of my knowledge, none of the observers have reported it. But the issue is still there I think, because lets say that 74 million voted for Trump, and out of those 40 million have a feeling that something is not right. Then that is quite a huge amount of people, and if so many are so easily convinced that fraud is involved, then to me the whole system or transparency of the system seems to lack something.

I have never heard people accuse elections in Denmark of being rigged, which to me shows that the population trust the way we do things, whether they win or lose.

So its not only that Trump spread factual wrong information, without providing evidence, but I find it much more worrying that so many people believe him more than the way things are done. And since im not from the US and don't really know all the details of how elections are handled there. My initial opinion is just that something in this whole way of doing it doesn't seem to encourage the required trust.

Because if people had that, Trump simply wouldn't be able to get away with it. And maybe its because you have more of a two party system, whereas we have at least 10 parties here I think, so its probably easier for the US to end up in a "Us vs Them" kind of scenario, than it is here. Also votes here are counted one to one, so your vote will go to the actual party you voted for, as we don't have an electoral system here, where if one party get more, they get all the votes or what to say.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What ever happened to the old adage : "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."?

But in government, the adage is "If it ain't broke, break it."

 

[exchemist]

Don't misunderstand what im saying as if I believe that fraud was involved, because to the best of my knowledge, none of the observers have reported it. But the issue is still there I think, because lets say that 74 million voted for Trump, and out of those 40 million have a feeling that something is not right. Then that is quite a huge amount of people, and if so many are so easily convinced that fraud is involved, then to me the whole system or transparency of the system seems to lack something.

I have never heard people accuse elections in Denmark of being rigged, which to me shows that the population trust the way we do things, whether they win or lose.

So its not only that Trump spread factual wrong information, without providing evidence, but I find it much more worrying that so many people believe him more than the way things are done. And since im not from the US and don't really know all the details of how elections are handled there. My initial opinion is just that something in this whole way of doing it doesn't seem to encourage the required trust.

Because if people had that, Trump simply wouldn't be able to get away with it. And maybe its because you have more of a two party system, whereas we have at least 10 parties here I think, so its probably easier for the US to end up in a "Us vs Them" kind of scenario, than it is here. Also votes here are counted one to one, so your vote will go to the actual party you voted for, as we don't have an electoral system here, where if one party get more, they get all the votes or what to say.

I disagree that there is any genuine reason for mistrust. The biggest single lesson from Trump's presidency is that one can get a whole lot of people to believe a pack of lies, if they are lies which they are disposed to believe for reasons of tribal allegiance.

There is nothing in the US system that warrants mistrust and the elections were never mistrusted previously. The issue has been whipped up completely artificially by the Republican party, as a ruse to help them wreck Biden's presidency and thus, they hope, regain the presidency in 2024. The price of that strategy is undermining faith in democracy itself.

The Republican party has decided to turn away from democracy. We seem to be witnessing the fall of the USA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could we agree that "excessive" security should be avoided?
That changes the conversation, eh.
Removes it from the partisan wrangling de jour.

Sure, but then we would be debating how much is reasonable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, but then we would be debating how much is reasonable.

And that can't happen until the partisan divide becomes less hostile, &
until neither side sees an advantage to increasing or decreasing security.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that can't happen until the partisan divide becomes less hostile, &
until neither side sees an advantage to increasing or decreasing security.

I do not see anything wrong with our current security. The question is how could someone steal an election?

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not see anything wrong with our current security. The question is how could someone steal an election?

I'm not versed in election stealing. But it's possible
that in a close election, fraud could tip the win.

There's no reason to believe that election security
measures around the country are all optimum.
(Where I live, ID isn't required in order to vote.
This does have potential for small scale mischief.)
Some day....a calmer friendlier day...it could all
be examined, evaluated, & changes designed.

 

[exchemist]

Au contraire, jungfrauzer, I am indeed in business.
And not just unclogging stubborn toilets.

OK then, but you should then see my point that the effort and resources to fix a supposed problem that has no impact on the validity of the electoral process could be a lot better spent.

@Subduction Zone 's point comes into play here. It is not fixing a problem if the measures taken disenfranchise citizens by making it harder for them to vote. Most of the proposed measures involve some form of extra ID check, requiring documents that poorer people and those on the fringes of society may not have, or that they may not realise are now required. A subterfuge in fact, as we all know, called voter suppression, something that has been tried many times over the years, especially in the Southern, more racist, states of the USA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not versed in election stealing. But it's possible
that in a close election, fraud could tip the win.

There's no reason to believe that election security
measures around the country are all optimum.
(Where I live, ID isn't required in order to vote.
This does have potential for small scale mischief.)
Some day....a calmer friendlier day...it could all
be examined, evaluated, & changes designed.

I agree that small scale cheating is a possibility. But it is extremely rare that even small scale cheating can change a local election. I am not saying that it does not happen, but it seems to be counterproductive to form security laws for the very rare exceptions.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK then, but you should then see my point that the effort and resources to fix a supposed problem that has no impact on the validity of the electoral process could be a lot better spent.

This is an open question...how much effort to improve security by how much?
For you it's a done deal.
But I see problems (disputes) worth mitigating, ie, quelling the perception of fraud.

@Subduction Zone's point comes into play here. It is not fixing a problem if the measures taken disenfranchise citizens by making it harder for them to vote.

I don't automatically presume this can't be solved.

Most of the proposed measures involve some form of extra ID check, requiring documents that poorer people and those on the fringes of society may not have, or that they may not realise are now required.

These can be addressed.

A subterfuge in fact, as we all know, called voter suppression, something that has been tried many times over the years, especially in the Southern, more racist, states of the USA.

I'm not proposing subterfuge or voter suppression.[/USER]