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

[Revoltingest]

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.

The large scale effect of improving security measures would
more likely be increased confidence by more voters, which
could prevent problems like Trump is now causing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The large scale effect of improving security measures would
more likely be increased confidence by more voters, which
could prevent problems like Trump is now causing.

Perhaps. Or we could strive to educate people on the security presently in place and why it is adequate.

Trump's claims are a false narrative. If those could be adequately dealt with that too would return confidence to the system.

I think a huge part of the problem is TDS with voters on the right. No amount of evidence will convince them. It may not be until after Trump is convicted of various crimes once out of the WH that the blinders will be removed.

 

[exchemist]

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.

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

These can be addressed.

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

Yes for me it's a done deal, as we have very good evidence from multiple sources that the last US election was, as one of the Trump-appointed supervising officials put it "the most secure in US history". The view that there has been no significant fraud or error is borne out the by the results of the (quite unnecessary and futile) recounts, all the numerous court cases alleging irregularity that have been thrown out - and now even confirmation from the Justice Dept. I mean, Christ Almighty, what more can anyone ask for? There is no issue to be solved here.

And what is more, we know damned well that the US has a sordid history of tinkering with election rules at state level in the hope of disenfranchising certain groups. So it is for those advocating change to the system to show that this will in no way lead to selective disenfranchisement.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps. Or we could strive to educate people on the security presently in place and why it is adequate.

You're convinced that improvement would be wrong.
While I say it should be considered.

Trump's claims are a false narrative.

I've said so too.

I think a huge part of the problem is TDS with voters on the right. No amount of evidence will convince them. It may not be until after Trump is convicted of various crimes once out of the WH that the blinders will be removed.

Some of us see the system as part of that problem.
If improving the system can make things better, I
say that's better than saying things are good enuf,
& if there are problems, then blame some people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes for me it's a done deal, as we have very good evidence from multiple sources that the last US election was, as one of the Trump-appointed supervising officials put it "the most secure in US history". The view that there has been no significant fraud or error is borne out the by the results of the (quite unnecessary and futile) recounts, all the numerous court cases alleging irregularity that have been thrown out - and now even confirmation from the Justice Dept. I mean, Christ Almighty, what more can anyone ask for? There is no issue to be solved here.

And what is more, we know damned well that the US has a sordid history of tinkering with election rules at state level in the hope of disenfranchising certain groups. So it is for those advocating change to the system to show that this will in no way lead to selective disenfranchisement.

You have good reasons to oppose examining the system for improvement.
I have good reasons for considering improvements.
We should agree to disagree.

 

[sun rise]

That implies that the current method is not secure. Yes, it is possible for a few people to cheat if they really want to. But most find it enough of a bother to vote, much less cheat. Such safeguards have been found to be unnecessary. It is not that people are not above cheating. It is that it takes too much time to cheat and for almost no advantage.

And of course there's a serious criminal penalty associated with cheating.

 

[sun rise]

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.

Europe has national identity cards and that's often used. Do you want everyone in the US to have to carry an identity card or is it one more instance of big government intrusion?

As far as improving the system, I'm all for it. Voting day should be a national holiday.

We should make it easier for people to vote with universal and automatic registration. For example, if someone submits a change of address card to say the Post Office, a question on the card should be "do you want to update your voting information" (or some such) to make it easier to updating voting records. There are probably a lot of ways to do this and no doubt better ways than the suggestion I made.

 

[sun rise]

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

And from my software perspective, too often 'improvement' is anything but. I've found too often that what software vendors say is improvement is just change for change sake or change to charge for an upgrade sake while introducing new bugs into existing software.

I'm not opposed to true improvements but I'm very leery of changes that are not improvements.

 

[Revoltingest]

Europe has national identity cards and that's often used. Do you want everyone in the US to have to carry an identity card or is it one more instance of big government intrusion?

I've no worries about ID cards.
And I've no particular security improvements in mind.

As far as improving the system, I'm all for it. Voting day should be a national holiday.

We should make it easier for people to vote with universal and automatic registration. For example, if someone submits a change of address card to say the Post Office, a question on the card should be "do you want to update your voting information" (or some such) to make it easier to updating voting records. There are probably a lot of ways to do this and no doubt better ways than the suggestion I made.

Look at you! Considering security improvements.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you'd become a
Republican....although not a Trump fan.

 

[Revoltingest]

And from my software perspective, too often 'improvement' is anything but. I've found too often that what software vendors say is improvement is just change for change sake or change to charge for an upgrade sake while introducing new bugs into existing software.

I'm not opposed to true improvements but I'm very leery of changes that are not improvements.

I'm OK with leery but open to improvement.

 

[ecco]

And from my software perspective, too often 'improvement' is anything but. I've found too often that what software vendors say is improvement is just change for change sake or change to charge for an upgrade sake while introducing new bugs into existing software.

Uh huh.

I spent my entire career as a software engineer starting back when we were called programmers.

If I had made changes for the sake of making changes, I wouldn't have lasted too long.
If I had charged for improvements that didn't improve anything, I wouldn't have lasted too long.

I'd really like to know what your "software perspective" is based on. For sure, it's not the real world.

 

[sun rise]

Uh huh.

I spent my entire career as a software engineer starting back when we were called programmers.

If I had made changes for the sake of making changes, I wouldn't have lasted too long.
If I had charged for improvements that didn't improve anything, I wouldn't have lasted too long.

I'd really like to know what your "software perspective" is based on. For sure, it's not the real world.

I spent just about a decade doing software development for a small company in a vertical market. The size of the company precluded "change for change sake" software tweaks given the small number of buyers who owned businesses and knew what they wanted.

But clearly you've missed articles like these which echo what I've been the recipient of and which formed the background of my post:
Abandoning Change for Change's Sake - The Knowledge Economy
The Web's Big Problem: Change for the Sake of Change
https://davescomputertips.com/windows-10-rant-too-many-changes-for-the-sake-of-change/
Change for the Sake of Change? |
Is change actually needed?

 

[Audie]

Wow! They are not even trying to hide their racism. Hmm, what can they say about other races . . . Nope, nope. Not even going to go there as a joke.

"They". Some don't try to hide their stereotyping.
That kind of " they" is no better than any other prejudice.

 

[Audie]

We gotta get a DNA sample.

Do Chinese people have DNA?

Sure, we just don't call it that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, we just don't call it that.

Aren't you all GMO clones?
I should ask Mrs Revolt too.

 

[Audie]

Aren't you all GMO clones?
I should ask Mrs Revolt too.

Nah. We were clones when cloning wasn't cool.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Yes, but in a democracy that is a huge issue, that people so easily buy into this, and whether it's a lack of education, transparency or the system itself, maybe its certain news stations not demanding evidence or reporting false things. People apparently buy into this and is not convinced that fraud is not in play.

Because as I see it, Trump is basically giving a demonstration of how far a person can go while being the president and apparently its pretty damn far.
He have shown that a president can basically say as many wrong things without any consequences as they like and people will still vote for them. How one can behave and get away with it, also seem like no issue as the US people are not really reacting to it and that almost 50% of the population think that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

There is no doubt in my mind, that Trump have really shown how far a president can go if they want without having to worry too much about it.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, but in a democracy that is a huge issue, that people so easily buy into this, and whether it's a lack of education, transparency or the system itself, maybe its certain news stations not demanding evidence or reporting false things. People apparently buy into this and is not convinced that fraud is not in play.

Because as I see it, Trump is basically giving a demonstration of how far a person can go while being the president and apparently its pretty damn far.
He have shown that a president can basically say as many wrong things without any consequences as they like and people will still vote for them. How one can behave and get away with it, also seem like no issue as the US people are not really reacting to it and that almost 50% of the population think that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

There is no doubt in my mind, that Trump have really shown how far a president can go if they want without having to worry too much about it.

I think we are in broad agreement about that. The two issues are the immense power of the president under the constitution and the discovery that lies can become so widely believed in a politically fractured society. I begin to wonder if the USA is just too big and diverse to be governed as a single country. But perhaps that is a counsel of despair.

 

[Audie]

Yes, but in a democracy that is a huge issue, that people so easily buy into this, and whether it's a lack of education, transparency or the system itself, maybe its certain news stations not demanding evidence or reporting false things. People apparently buy into this and is not convinced that fraud is not in play.

Because as I see it, Trump is basically giving a demonstration of how far a person can go while being the president and apparently its pretty damn far.
He have shown that a president can basically say as many wrong things without any consequences as they like and people will still vote for them. How one can behave and get away with it, also seem like no issue as the US people are not really reacting to it and that almost 50% of the population think that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

There is no doubt in my mind, that Trump have really shown how far a president can go if they want without having to worry too much about it.

In fairness to Trump, it was an election fraud witness, not Trump who said that.

I am confident that not every Obama supporter
-or, say, his minister-is exactly an angel of meliflously modulated temperance.

So, really, don't you think your thesis here is a bit of a stretch? T provides enough that is solid, no need for false attribution.

BTW, Chinese have a bit of the same habit, re white folks. Its just human nature, and not about prejudice. Where you don't see many
white people, just that is what is noticed. Just the basic,
Oh, white person.

Asked later about hair, eye color, nose,
anything of the police sketch sort, draw a blank..

And Chinese are a bit more uniform in appearance than white.

Its possible, easy, to get way so hyper sensitive about race!
I hope America outgrows it some day!

Funny story- a friend in the US traveled in Taiwan, stayed two days with a Chinese family in a small rural town.

He went out of the house by himself, and
first person who came along offered to let him try his motorcycle. Then it's "come to my house", someone else comes ," now let him come to mine'; passed him to here to here ended a couple of miles away.

His host saw hed disappeared.

So he just asks, "where is the American?"

Anyway..the guy is right about voter id.
Freaking insane not to have it.

He probably has learned tho that yours is the America of pc at what
I HOPE is out toward the end of its overreaction to the very intense
racism of the past.

 

[Revoltingest]

He have shown that a president can basically say as many wrong things without any consequences as they like and people will still vote for them. How one can behave and get away with it, also seem like no issue as the US people are not really reacting to it and that almost 50% of the population think that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

People have long been voting for Presidents who do unacceptable things.
Sure, Trump is glorious in the volume of his unacceptablilities. But others
have also done terrible wrongs without facing voter rejection. Dubya started
2 disastrous wars, & was re-elected. Obama promised to end them, but he
didn't, & was re-elected. Reagan killed many hundreds of thousands of Iranians,
& he was re-elected. Eisenhower staged a coup in Iran, yet even to this day
is highly regarded. Bill Clinton...no more need be said, eh.
Trump has merely joined an elite club of dubious choices enabled by party politics.