2022: The most secure election in history

I think this falls more in the category of post dating a check.

 

Meh, you are probably far closer to being a socialist than me, which is why you offer nothing to back up your bull-crap. Don't be ashamed of it.

How come you suddenly dropped the topic and started whining about me?

 

Yea, its amazing that is happens in a county where most votes would have been for Dems.

Tends to show the "election reform" bills were only to tickle the ears of the masses.

I had no complaints about Crist when he was Governor. Jeb Bush was fine too. Don't know much about Demmings, and it doesn't matter since both lost their races months ago. You would think the chief of police in Florida would have some leadership skills, but like I said, - they lost a long time ago.

 

IOW, Even when DP insiders admit rigging elections and confess the details of exactly have to do it you insist in denying the Inconvenient Truth.

“Since the country's colonial days, concerns of voter fraud have inspired ever-more complicated ways to cast one's ballot. Depending on where you live, you may vote tomorrow with a lever, a punch card, a marker or a touchscreen. As election scholar Andrew Gumbel notes, the U.S. has been both a "living experiment in the expansion of democratic rights" and a "world-class laboratory for vote suppression and election-stealing techniques.”
TIME MAGAZINE, A BRIEF HISTORY OF, Ballots in America, By M.J. Stephey Monday, Nov. 03, 2008. (emphasis mine)
http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1855857,00.html

I am sure the RP does the best it can to rig elections, but there has not been a RP political machine in charge of our high population urban hell holes for generations. Effective voter suppression and vote fraud have always been a specialty of the DP which controls the count where the large voter blocks live.

But yes, the two Party System = a "vote suppression and election-stealing" system. Real reform would be easy. I wonder why it never happens?

 

Everyone knows that election rigging is common in the US. Only corrupt insiders and extreme partisan pretend otherwise.

 

LOL! Of course the RP is trying to enforce the law, especially when it would "suppress" thousands of illegal ballots in DP population centers.
Why wouldn't they do that?

 

Human error is involved in everything a human creates. I've never met a perfect human or a perfect human process.
The question and answer we strive for as imperfect beings, is how close to 0% can we make a process?

How many absentee ballots did get mailed?

 

Anyone who insists that we have "safe and secure elections" in the US is denying the nations well documented history of election fraud and voter suppression.
DP insiders in particular who have always overseen massive election rigging in the US know this very well. Informed DP voters like you should be well aware of this Inconvenient Truth -- it is has been fully exposed repeatedly.

 

Everything going through the USPS gets a post date stamp on it.
That tells you the date it was mailed.

 

So I agree, in days of paper ballots, fraud was rampant and much easier. That's why we ended such fallacy in the majority of the country and moved to secure, safe methods used today. That's why hand counts aren't the primary method ever outside of really really small counties. Even then, there aren't that many. But notice your own article fails to bring up examples outside of Florida in 2000 with punch cards. The "scandal" a Diebold was resolved and didn't create any problem with the 2004 vote. No system is perfect, however the notion that ours is flawed to the point that one party stays in power at the expense of the other because of fraud is utterly false. Saying so is an out right lie or an admission one doesn't live in reality. Or perhaps one lives in one of the many rural hell holes the RP political machine has dominated for generations where meth flow freely and money, education, and jobs...well, don't. I can't say. What I can say is our current system is very secure, fraud is not a common problem, and believing so is fine as long as you recognize just because you believe it doesn't make it true. You have to have evidence to make something true much less make a decision based upon it.

 

What are you talking about? Did you not pay attention to the last election? We literally had multiples of states claiming they were “finding” boxes of ballots which just happened to be massively democrat.

And lookie there the Dems are already prepping for the steal:

“Arizona officials in Maricopa County on Tuesday said that roughly 20% of their polling sites were experiencing "issues" with tabulation machines just hours after Election Day polls opened.

"Unfortunately we've had some hiccups with about 20% of these tabulators," Chairman to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Bill Gates told Fox News.”

 

Careful now, heads are going to explode over all those questions.
But the postage stamp date is on every piece of mail.
And those ballots received weeks, days, or on the day of the election that have been received, would seem quite obvious, they were mailed within the correct time frame.
I don't see how they could be received before election day, if they were mailed after the election day.

 

Just how large is this history of election fraud?
You do understand, there is no perfect system that man can make. Man is imperfect. And any system man creates, man can also fraud.

So the real question is, just how close to perfect can the system be made?
Now that we know if will never be 100% perfect, how close to perfect is good enough.
So, post your fraud cases vs number of votes and lets see just how close to perfect we have been.

 

That is what MAGA trump does, accuse others of doing something as a deflection, from the fact, that is what he and the MAGA group are actually trying to do.

I mean, he called the Ga SoS and told him to find 11,380 votes, just 1 more than need for him to win. How much more open and fradulant can it get?

 

When politicians in both major party's leaders routinely complain about election rigging and fraud you can be assured it is a serious problem.

Real reform would be relatively easy if the leadership in either party was interested in free and fair elections. I see little evidence that they are.
RP in particular has always seemed content to allow the corrupt DP machine pols rig the elections in all our urban hell holes.

 

If you would be honest within the context of the conversation he was explicitly talking about LEGAL votes.

 

OK, but you have to concede that based on that criteria and equally valid conclusion is they didn't like the results. And when you both major party's leaders routinely complain, who are you referring to? Because I'm only aware of a couple democrats in recent times who made complaints and only one may have been the party leader at the time. Or rather, whatever is often called the party leader.

What is the reform? Not use machines? What's your answer to solve this problem if it's so relatively easy?

 

Investigating election fraud should be a high priority for any government that wants free and fair elections.
Have there been any full due process hearings into the thousands of allegations of election fraud during the last few election cycles?

The Inconvenient Truth straight from the COTUS:

"It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,[Footnote 11] that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years,[Footnote 12] and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor[Footnote 13]—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (200 (emphasis mine)

 

Everyone knows...

Only dummies who are easily persuaded know that.

 

Yes, as I said, he Party leaders have any interest in free and fair elections.

When the parties propose things like:
1. doubling the number of polling places, and the pay for election judges/observers,
2. providing close public video streaming of the examination and verification of ballots from every angle
3. lots of sitting grand juries ready to quickly examine the witnesses involved in every allegation of election crime

Then we will know that real reform is at least being considered.

I am expecting that to happen right on the '12th of Never' -- 'and that's a long long time'.

 

So, are you saying I am one of the "dummies"?

Or are you just pushing for my nomination to join the other "dummies" on the Supreme Court?

"It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,[Footnote 11] that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years,[Footnote 12] and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor[Footnote 13]—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (200 (emphasis mine)

 

So I don't understand. First of all, one party wants more polling places, and it's not the Republican Party. And we DO pay election judges, just not by the parties running for election. They are paid by us, the people, to monitor and judge our elections. Why would we have the parties pay for them? That would only increase the risk of fraud.

We don't allow people in the voting booth with you for a reason. If people knew their votes were being monitored, they might construe that as a form of intimidation. Who would get this video? How would it be used? What do you mean by every angle? And why is this needed if we have accurate means to tabulate what people voted for and how based on forced choices on ballots and machines?

You don't need this. Elections don't produce change instantly. We have time baked into the process to ensure there's plenty of time to investigate SUPPORTED claims of election crimes. Not EVERY claim as clearly some people make them based on belief and without any deference to reality.

I'm all for more polling places and drop boxes and more states using mail in ballots. Those do nothing but safely increase voter turn out. I don't know about the video of people voting. I don't care if they video me, but I could see legit arguments by others against it. Don't let the parties have anymore say in elections than they already do, they already get to pick their own districts in most states for God's sakes. That has to stop. You should add that to your list, house districts decided by non-partisan committee ,not whoever is in power and is looking to stay there. As for sitting grand juries, we have time to put them together before the winners actually take office. We should investigate every supported claim as long as there's evidence. We should dismiss the ones that lack evidence out of hand.

 

Read my post again. Please note that nothing in your first two responses addresses what was actually in my post. For instance, I said nothing about the parties paying for the judges, and I said nothing about the RP wanting anything -- certainly not more polling places.

If you have the time read carefully and share your thoughts. I always find them interesting.

 

I see, I misread your part on election judges and the videoing of ballots. I was reading too quickly, my bad. You said double their pay, right? Fine, we can double it. I'm OK with that too. I have no problem with videos monitoring the counting of ballots. The press is allowed in there during and I don't think they are restricted from using video while inside, so I don't see why we couldn't video more of it. I also don't think there's a lot of fraud that happens in elections, but given we already allow this more of it doesn't bother me.

I don't think I misread your other point though on sitting grand juries. I think we have plenty of time to investigate potential voter fraud prior to candidates actually taking office. Especially at the federal and state level. I can't speak for every local level election and how they work. I know the local school board seats relatively quickly but that's also a much smaller election.

 

Then we are essentially in agreement. I do think and fast examination under oath of any witnesses claiming to have observed serious incidents of election fraud would eliminate almost all fraud and fake allegations of fraud.