US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[donlever]

True, but as I noted earlier in this thread, in California, first-time voters are asked to show id.

Maybe.

[5thhorseman]

We've circled back to where we always end up you and I 5th.

You continue to harbour faith in what I believe to be both a corrupt and entirely inefficient system whereby the information we are being provided is not skewed nor blatant lies usually if not always.

I have zero confidence of that.

Not sure what efficiency has to do with this discussion. The relevant issue here is transparency. It's transparency that gives one faith in the system.

The fact is that there is an extensive audit trail of votes cast, and both sides are allowed to provide watchers that can observe all stages of the voting and counting processes, and all the data is available for after-the-fact enforcement. How much more transparent does it need to be? What else do you want in order to spot corruption?

[donlever]

Inefficiency leads to skewed data.

[5thhorseman]

I don't know what you mean by that Donny. You would need to elaborate.

It's not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. Black swans may exist, we just haven't found one. So the burden of proof lies with the one suggesting there is corruption. The data is there for anyone to look at. Or, if you don't trust the data, it lies with you to suggest how the process should be amended so that the audit trail can be trusted.

So again, how can the audit trail be improved?

[Topper]

The issue with no ID is matching the voter to the voter list. Who is voting for their grandfather, uncle, father, brother, neighbour ...

It can mean packing the voters list.

Not sure if any voted in the recent BC election, requirements are:
One piece of government photo ID with address or

Two pieces of ID one of which has your address or

Someone in the voting place who can swear who you are.

Valid ID with address for the second item includes a whole host of things, a prescription, utility bill, car insurance, Library card, student card .... The other piece only has to have your name.

With the voters list on laptops, once you were marked on the voters list. That was it. Most boring places had internet access to the government network and all the laptops sync 'd with Victoria every five minutes.

Integrity of the voters list was maintained.

[donlever]

Right...well stated....they basically wanted to grab my nuts in a death grip and take my first born son (sic) in order to vote in a 'hood I have done so in for 30 plus years.

I doubt that's happening in Newsom Land (for instance).....

Hence, inefficiency and corruption.

Hence skewed data.

I mean, at some point we need to read the tea leaves no?

[Per]

Black swans may exist, we just haven't found one.

That statement predates the "discovery" of Australia:

[Per]

The whole voter ID thing is mind boggling. I mean, you couldn't survive in Sweden without an ID. You can't do anything.
Yet I understand in the USA loads of people lack photo ID?
That's so weird. So they have never worked, attended school, opened a bank account or driven a car?

We do ask for ID, but there are two other options:
1) if the voter is known by the staff at the polling station
2) if another person, who has an ID, signs an affidavit stating that they can confirm this person is who they claim to be

And registration? The Swedish authorities knows what citizens there are, and everyone that has turned 18 before the election day are listed. We always vote on the third Sunday of September, and the lists are updated on September first, so the number of dead people listed is truly insignificant. You don't need to register, you just need to show up. And show ID.

[UWSaint]

Per, people in the US do have IDs. It makes people wonder, what is the purpose of not requiring (or permitting, see California!) IDs to vote? That’s why there’s a lack on confidence among many in the integrity of the system—there’s no great answer to this question.

Beyond that, elections in many states are not taking place on Election Day, at the polls. In some states to get an absentee ballot, you have to request one in person or by mail, and must prove your identity. In other states (Colorado, I believe is one) they just mail out absentee ballots to registered voters. You can then just drop ballots off at drop boxes. What’s the certainty on chain of custody? Minimal. There might be bar codes on envelopes, but not on ballots (it is a secret ballot).

I remember being gaslit in 2020 before the election being told that absentee balloting was just as secure as in person, and that there’s no fraud and that even if they were, it’s such small amounts. This after just 2 years previous, there was mail in balloting fraud that changed the outcome of congressional race in North Carolina (the cheater was a Republican). Now congress could refuse to seat him until the matter was thoroughly investigated (that’s what they did) but you don’t really have a good option with an executive. You don’t want holdover presidents in our system. And you don’t want to seat the cheater. And you don’t want to seat the loser when they didn’t win.

Ultimately, there is always a trade off between systems designed for security and systems designed to minimize voting burdens (which minimizes oversight). If you keep lawful voters from voting, it is disenfranchisement. If you allow unlawful voters to vote, it is disenfranchisement. There’s also a trade off with secret ballots, because by their nature, you are taking a host of possible security protocols off the table.

Even where state laws have systems designed to secure the integrity of elections, when the rubber hits the road, courts or election adminstrators often err on the side of “count every vote”. Ballot harvesting fraud can be mitigated by, say, ID requirements, affidavit requirements (witnesses and the voter), requiring ballots to be returned in envelopes absentee ballots are delivered in, and allowing voters to check in real time whether someone has voted their ballot. But when those administrators apply the law to its letter, there are understandable complaints that not counting those votes on a “technicality” disenfranchises voters. And these arguments often prevail in courts.

Of course there is election fraud. I say this because people cheat. They cheat on their wives, they cheat on their taxes, they steal, they look up an answer on their phone during a trivia game at a bar. The higher the stakes, the greater the incentive to cheat. If Americans collectively gave over a billion dollars to a candidate in the hopes that candidate would win, might some risk breaking the law to secure a victory? Why would elections and elections alone be exempt from avarice and greed?

How much? Depends. Does it favor one side over the other? Don’t know, but one side wants less security. Is it possible to catch it when it’s happening? Sometimes. Is it possible to audit after the fact? Not perfectly (and I remember when the Milwaukee police department did an audit of the 2004 election, discovered an alarming amount of irregularities (many likely due to administration errors and not fraud), and the moment a new police chief was hired and said “I didn’t approve that report’s release,” the press reported the audit was “debunked.” Because a political appointee said there was nothing to see…..

I also know that where there is a culture that you are a wingnut for questioning the integrity of an election, legitimate questions are likely to get less of a review, and that label carries even to legislators who seek modest reforms designed to increase election integrity.

I agree with 5th that transparency plays an important role to both having elections that have integrity and having people perceive that there is integrity. I think we should all be able to agree that every lawful voter should be able to cast a single ballot and every unlawful voter should not be able to cast a ballot. The best way for achieving this standard is a matter of some debate, though it should be boring policy wonk debates not hyperbolic and existential claims that one side is trying to disenfranchise the other and the other claiming that cheating is the norm. Still, to have that debate in good faith we should at least acknowledge as we do with all other aspects of law that there may be attempts to take advantage of system weaknesses.

[donlever]

It's time for Molecular Transmutation.

Draining of the Swamp.

[Cornuck]

Musk will be slashing regulations, but will he slash his subsidies?

[5thhorseman]

Musk will be slashing regulations, but will he slash his subsidies?

He doesn't need subsidies if the regulations for self-driving cars are relaxed.

[Topper]

Musk and Vivek will be advisors.

On top of the $1M that went to Oprah, half a million dollars went to Reverend Al Sharpton.

Why weren't these paid political endorsements disclosed as such?

Money laundering of election funds that make Pelosi, Maxine and the Squad envious.

Can't buy me love

[donlever]

Can't buy me love

Or Gov apparently....

[Chef Boi RD]

“The Great Elon Musk”

Is this the bar for humanity, FFS?

What a model citizen.

Looking forward to seeing how this pans out for the “little guy” who voted for this greedy fucktard.