What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Zubeneschamali

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Any position that is to do with representing the country or involves sending representatives to DC should follow the same rules in every district to guarantee that there's less chance of 'But they're counting it the wrong way in PA because in Texas you can only count mail-in ballots that arrive before the day of the election'

But as we saw in the 2020 election, those complaints are just noise and Trump & co. failed utterly in overturning anything in court.

So this noise doesn't matter.

And even if the laws were completely uniform, Trump &co. would just invent stuff to complain about.

54and56

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But as we saw in the 2020 election, those complaints are just noise and Trump & co. failed utterly in overturning anything in court.

So this noise doesn't matter.

And even if the laws were completely uniform, Trump &co. would just invent stuff to complain about.

Anything which facilitates the validity of an election to be questioned does in fact matter.

This time the inconsistencies from State to State are being hijacked by the MAGA crowd to further their unsubstantiated narrative.

Removing the inconsistencies and having a uniform voting system for Federal elections is a no brainer. It'll treat all US citizens equally without fear or favour and eliminate the ability of future MAGA type loopers from creating such a smokescreen that a high percentage of genuine ordinary voters actually believe the POTUS election was rigged.

yagan

Leroy42 wrote: »

I always find it odd that a country so proud of its democracy such that it believes it has the duty to spread it to the rest of the world has such a low opinion of its own system.

I actually never got the impression that their priority was spreading democracy judging by the amount of tyrants, dictators and violent monarchies they've protected and counted as allies.

Carfacemandog

HalloweenJack wrote: »

The ones that cost Trump the election, of course.

But seriously, there should be a standardised electoral law for federal elections, at least. Any position that is to do with representing the country or involves sending representatives to DC should follow the same rules in every district to guarantee that there's less chance of 'But they're counting it the wrong way in PA because in Texas you can only count mail-in ballots that arrive before the day of the election' and that politicians throughout the country have a level playing field (in terms of the rules, at least).

Thing is, the same people comainjng about elections in certain states that didn't go their way in 2020 despite having no evidence for their claims are

The same way Texas with the strong hang up over "states rights" tried to sue 17 other states and dictate to them how they should be running their elections, and did so because they were doing something that Texas themselves (and several more states) did. In what will come to a surprise to absolutely nobody, all 17 of those states voted for Biden.

As you suggested, it's all about circumventing democracy for these types. Above and all else, that's what matters to them. To paraphrase what a Bush Jr advisor said years ago "if democracy doesn't work for republicans, they won't abandon their party - they will abandon democracy", and it has proven completely accurate.

Zubeneschamali

54and56 wrote: »

Anything which facilitates the validity of an election to be questioned does in fact matter.

Saying that doesn't make it true.

Anyone has the right to ask those questions and to apply to the courts, and Trump did, and he lost.

The local electoral differences made no difference to the outcome in practice.

robinph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Saying that doesn't make it true.

Anyone has the right to ask those questions and to apply to the courts, and Trump did, and he lost.

The local electoral differences made no difference to the outcome in practice.

But the differences do enable the likes of Trump to spout nonsense, confuse people and incite an insurrection after confusing and lying to loads of people.

Remove them being able to say "well over in state Y they let Z vote, and eat your children, so it must be the lizard people stealing our election" would be good. Even if it's only the bit about voting that you can then dispense with and leaving them with the stuff about lizards eating children, it at least makes it harder to make their case if they don't have the vaguely believable bit about different election rules to hang the rest of their lies on.

Igotadose

everlast75 wrote: »

*searches back to 2015 for your post stating the same thing*

Oh, look back to 2000.... No complaints then despite glaring bad behavior of the FL authorities and "The Brooks Brothers revolt." Ratf*cking of the highest order.

Quantum Baloney

everlast75 wrote: »

*searches back to 2015 for your post stating the same thing*

Just check what Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were saying. There was massive suspicion regarding the transparency of the voting system from their side when Donald Trump won. This whole questioning the validity of the electoral process started with underhandedness from the democrats at the start of the last cycle.

Leroy42

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

Just check what Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were saying. There was massive suspicion regarding the transparency of the voting system from their side when Donald Trump won. This whole questioning the validity of the electoral process started with underhandedness from the democrats at the start of the last cycle.

It really didn't. They never claimed the votes cast were fraudulent

They investigated whether Russia had played a role in the spreading of disinformation aimed primarily at helping Trump to win.

There is a massive difference between the two.

robinph

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

Just check what Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were saying. There was massive suspicion regarding the transparency of the voting system from their side when Donald Trump won. This whole questioning the validity of the electoral process started with underhandedness from the democrats at the start of the last cycle.

Questioning foreign influence and voter suppression or gerrymandering are not the same as claiming fraudulent votes happened.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you can't specify anything...

The Russians hacked the 2016 election allowing Trunp to win.

It was all over the news at the time

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The Russians hacked the 2016 election allowing Trunp to win.

It was all over the news at the time

Election interference via things like propaganda, why must you misrepresent? Trump opened an investigation into electoral fraud because he didn't like losing the popular vote... The investigation found no evidence of large scale electoral fraud.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Election interference via things like propaganda, why must you misrepresent? Trump opened an investigation into electoral fraud because he didn't like losing the popular vote... The investigation found no evidence of large scale electoral fraud.

Why did the news tell is that the Russian hacks allowed trump to win the election then?

Interference in any form be it propaganda or vote tampering all taints a fair result

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Why did the news tell is that the Russian hacks allowed trump to win the election then?

Interference in any form be it propaganda or vote tampering all taints a fair result

Why did some news report it as such? The same reason that some news claimed that H was a criminal or that Biden was in hock to China.

I am pretty sure you know there is a massive difference. One is using lies and mistruths to try to sway a persons vote, the other is taking away a persons vote or adding fake voters to reduce a persons vote impact on a given election.

On disinformation, people are still free to seek out proper information. What caught so many off guard is that there are many people that are unwilling to see behind a headline of a meme and are so easily lead.

But again, what is your solutions? You welcomes the massive increase in laws to affect voters, yet have still not provided any reason why you want things to change apart from the whole thing is a mess.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Why did the news tell is that the Russian hacks allowed trump to win the election then?

Interference in any form be it propaganda or vote tampering all taints a fair result

Hacks of dnc servers did not relate to voting laws or electoral fraud. You said previously that all voting laws need to be overhauled, the laws that the GOP want to update effectively relate to preventing people from voting legally, not remotely related to preventing interference by a foreign state as it occurred in 2016.

So yep, you vaguely claimed voting laws need to be overhauled but can't point to what laws....

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Which voting laws need "some serious scrutiny"?

Which laws in particular and what's wrong with them?

I'm surprised some states don't require ID when voting. What's to stop someone going in pretending to be you

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm surprised some states don't require ID when voting. What's to stop someone going in pretending to be you

It's not just that they want iD, they want particular forms of id, and then in some cases make it difficult or costly (or both) to obtain said form of iD.

There are also the tales of reducing voting offices, voting hours.

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm surprised some states don't require ID when voting. What's to stop someone going in pretending to be you

I live in the UK (moved from Ireland) and have voted here numerous times. No ID is ever requested.

You just present yourself at the desk and the person just strikes a line through your name and address with a pencil and ruler- high tech stuff.

I have forgotten what is done in Ireland.

Leroy42

partyguinness wrote: »

I live in the UK (moved from Ireland) and have voted here numerous times. No ID is ever requested.

You just present yourself at the desk and the person just strikes a line through your name and address with a pencil and ruler- high tech stuff.

I have forgotten what is done in Ireland.

Same. Although you can be asked for ID, and refused a voting form if you don't have it. Of course that can lead to voter fraud, but there have been very little evidence of anything even remotely material.

So all the calls for the need to voter id etc need to be taken on the premise that it is making our as if there is a problem, when there is no evidence that there actually is.

Based on there not actually being a problem, then one has to wonder why anyone would want to create obstacles to voting, on the premise of making this more secure when nobody says it isn't secure

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm surprised some states don't require ID when voting. What's to stop someone going in pretending to be you

Mostly it's hard enough to persuade people out to vote in person anyway, so the idea that someone will be able to mobilise a mass of people to physically turn up and vote multiple times on behalf of someone else is a bit of a non-runner. Not that it can't happen, but it's not a wide spread thing because people can't be bothered to vote normally.

If there was masses of people suddenly turning up to vote then it would be spotted in the changes of voter turnout and would need to be on such a massive scale with so many people involved that it would easily be discovered. If I turn up twice in a day to my local polling place it's likely the people there will recognise me, if I turn up 10 time I will definitely be recognised and someone amongst the peoples whose vote you use will likely also turn up and wonder why they have already been crossed off the list. Even if you do get away with those 10 fake votes by maybe going to 10 different polling stations that is a massive amount of effort for very little effect, and to get thousands of people to do the same thing you are not going to be able to keep it a secret.

Therefore it doesn't happen on any meaningful scale other than maybe the occasional person voting on behalf of their spouse/ parent/ child.

VinLieger

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The Russians hacked the 2016 election allowing Trunp to win.

It was all over the news at the time

Ohh look were back to this bad faith argument, nothings changed from you I see. How many times has the difference between interference and hacking been explained to you at this stage I wonder?

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

I live in the UK (moved from Ireland) and have voted here numerous times. No ID is ever requested.

You just present yourself at the desk and the person just strikes a line through your name and address with a pencil and ruler- high tech stuff.

I have forgotten what is done in Ireland.

In Ireland, I've always used a photo ID.

Any action where only you personally are supposed to carry out, I think you should have to prove your identity. I guess I'm in favour of the republican "voter suppression" plan if it involves photo ID requirement.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Mostly it's hard enough to persuade people out to vote in person anyway, so the idea that someone will be able to mobilise a mass of people to physically turn up and vote multiple times on behalf of someone else is a bit of a non-runner. Not that it can't happen, but it's not a wide spread thing because people can't be bothered to vote normally.

If there was masses of people suddenly turning up to vote then it would be spotted in the changes of voter turnout and would need to be on such a massive scale with so many people involved that it would easily be discovered. If I turn up twice in a day to my local polling place it's likely the people there will recognise me, if I turn up 10 time I will definitely be recognised and someone amongst the peoples whose vote you use will likely also turn up and wonder why they have already been crossed off the list. Even if you do get away with those 10 fake votes by maybe going to 10 different polling stations that is a massive amount of effort for very little effect, and to get thousands of people to do the same thing you are not going to be able to keep it a secret.

Therefore it doesn't happen on any meaningful scale other than maybe the occasional person voting on behalf of their spouse/ parent/ child.

What about this scenario; you get a list of people living in various places (phone book would have been ideal). Bus around a bunch of people to each location and they claim they are the person in that location. Rinse repeat and you've got yourself a few hundred votes. I don't see any way of stopping that without voter id.

Another scenario; your arsehole Trump-supporting uncle, let's call him Lawful Pete, goes down to your polling station and votes for Trump in your name out of spite. Then you go down to vote only to find out that you apparently already have. Tough ****?

Just because it doesn't happen on a meaningful scale, doesn't make it a non issue. If it happens to one person, its a big issue for that one person. Suddenly their political voice is silenced.

I understand there are some poorer communities that don't have ID. I think the solution is to get everyone ID's rather than allowing people to vote without them.

partyguinness

Leroy42 wrote: »

Same. Although you can be asked for ID, and refused a voting form if you don't have it. Of course that can lead to voter fraud, but there have been very little evidence of anything even remotely material.

So all the calls for the need to voter id etc need to be taken on the premise that it is making our as if there is a problem, when there is no evidence that there actually is.

Based on there not actually being a problem, then one has to wonder why anyone would want to create obstacles to voting, on the premise of making this more secure when nobody says it isn't secure

In fact, when you receive your voting card in the post it specifically states that you do not need to bring the voter card with you.

Large scale physical voter fraud in this day and age is just not credible let alone practical.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

What about this scenario; you get a list of people living in various places (phone book would have been ideal). Bus around a bunch of people to each location and they claim they are the person in that location. Rinse repeat and you've got yourself a few hundred votes. I don't see any way of stopping that without voter id.

Another scenario; your arsehole Trump-supporting uncle, let's call him Lawful Pete, goes down to your polling station and votes for Trump in your name out of spite. Then you go down to vote only to find out that you apparently already have. Tough ****?

Just because it doesn't happen on a meaningful scale, doesn't make it a non issue. If it happens to one person, its a big issue for that one person. Suddenly their political voice is silenced.

I understand there are some poorer communities that don't have ID. I think the solution is to get everyone ID's rather than allowing people to vote without them.

Well yes, but how do you go about it with disenfranchising more people than the problem currently is?

If they gave everyone the voter id as a matter of course then it would be fine. But do you use driving licence, what if you don't drive? Payslip, you are out of work? Passport, many people don't bother getting them?

The issue is not the need for iD, it is what iD, and how the requirement for iD will impact on different segments of the population.

They seem to very much want to get iD, which I don't disagree with as a principle, but offer no solutions to the problems that arise.

Its a balancing act, between 100% total security but at the cost of disenfranchising voters.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

In Ireland, I've always used a photo ID.

Any action where only you personally are supposed to carry out, I think you should have to prove your identity. I guess I'm in favour of the republican "voter suppression" plan if it involves photo ID requirement.

If you turn up to a polling place and say you are Bob who lives at number 22, and the person in the polling place has a list of people living at number 22 and one of them is Bob then what other evidence do you need?

Showing them your gun license from the next state over for Robert doesn't prove you to be the same person on the list anymore than you already did. If someone else turn up later on claiming to be Bob from number 22 as well then you know one of the people is lying, but without further investigation its a much bigger job to figure out exactly which person is lying in either scenario.

All you do by requiring people to turn up with a gun license is to exclude people who don't have gun licenses, or can't afford gun licenses, or don't want gun licenses. Other forms of ID are accepted, but once you start digging into the rules in each state it quickly becomes very restrictive in the what and how you can obtain the various forms of ID... and for voting purposes it add nothing to the security of the system, it just excludes people.

yagan

There is deep insecurity in a puritan psyche, an uncertainty that god favours them. In the land of guns and god that shouldn't be overlooked considering how the commemoration of the puritans arriving is their greatest annual family tradition.

The internet is the greatest communications disruptor since the printing press (TV and radio are censurable one way broadcasting) and social media has been like petrol on the bonfire of puritan paranoia, real Nathanial Hawthorne stuff with Russians, BLM and socialists taking the place of witches and demons.

Their psyche needs a tangible tormentor, and if the Russians/Chinese/Jews/Muslims etc didn't exist the puritan would invent them.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

What about this scenario; you get a list of people living in various places (phone book would have been ideal). Bus around a bunch of people to each location and they claim they are the person in that location. Rinse repeat and you've got yourself a few hundred votes. I don't see any way of stopping that without voter id.

Another scenario; your arsehole Trump-supporting uncle, let's call him Lawful Pete, goes down to your polling station and votes for Trump in your name out of spite. Then you go down to vote only to find out that you apparently already have. Tough ****?

Just because it doesn't happen on a meaningful scale, doesn't make it a non issue. If it happens to one person, its a big issue for that one person. Suddenly their political voice is silenced.

I understand there are some poorer communities that don't have ID. I think the solution is to get everyone ID's rather than allowing people to vote without them.

Your bus will be noticed for starters, 50 people turning up in a group would be noticed at many polling stations so they would get suspicious, the volunteers at the polling station are local and you need to know that those 50 people are all using names that none of the polling staff know, that none of those people have already been in to vote that day, that the 50 fake voters all keep shtum. Only takes one person who is in the queue at the same time as your fake voters to know that your fake voter isn't actually Mary from number 52 and they'll know something is up and your bus of fake voters would be arrested at the next polling station you turn up at.

It's a massive task, with massive risks of getting caught to do it in a way to actually influence an election result. Just for one by-election you'd need to get thousands of people placing fake votes, none of them using names that have already voted, and with the distribution of the votes matching the historical record of voter turnouts in that constituency, and all of your fake voters keeping quiet.

Edit: Getting the list of voters is easy though, just pop down the local library for the electoral roll. But that then gives another way that you'd be found out as if you manage to get 10,000 extra votes than normal made and it then turns out that the voter turnout percentage was only increased in people on the public electoral roll and not on the supressed list of voters they would know something was up quite easily.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Another scenario; your arsehole Trump-supporting uncle, let's call him Lawful Pete, goes down to your polling station and votes for Trump in your name out of spite. Then you go down to vote only to find out that you apparently already have. Tough ****?

I mean, not really. Voter fraud has serious repercussions in most states (the first state I checked for example has a punishment of 2-10 years jail time plus a large fine). If you are told that you already voted when you arrive but you are adamant that you didn't, an investigation will most likely be launched, CCTV will most likely be checked, and whoever is determined to have voted in your place will suffer the consequences. It's not like there are enough people willing to take that risk to make up a significant number of votes in any state. And even if there was, the majority will be found out and their vote deemed null and void.

yagan

robinph wrote: »

Your bus will be noticed for starters, 50 people turning up in a group would be noticed at many polling stations so they would get suspicious, the volunteers at the polling station are local and you need to know that those 50 people are all using names that none of the polling staff know, that none of those people have already been in to vote that day, that the 50 fake voters all keep shtum. Only takes one person who is in the queue at the same time as your fake voters to know that your fake voter isn't actually Mary from number 52 and they'll know something is up and your bus of fake voters would be arrested at the next polling station you turn up at.

It's a massive task, with massive risks of getting caught to do it in a way to actually influence an election result. Just for one by-election you'd need to get thousands of people placing fake votes, none of them using names that have already voted, and with the distribution of the votes matching the historical record of voter turnouts in that constituency, and all of your fake voters keeping quiet.

Edit: Getting the list of voters is easy though, just pop down the local library for the electoral roll. But that then gives another way that you'd be found out as if you manage to get 10,000 extra votes than normal made and it then turns out that the voter turnout percentage was only increased in people on the public electoral roll and not on the supressed list of voters they would know something was up quite easily.

The reason we have an exclusion zone around voting centres has to do with the ballot stuffing practices of past times, when ballots could be premarked and handed out along with a cash payment etc..

To me voting in England seemed rife for corruption. All this talk of people in the voting centre knowing you is aspirational as I'd only been in one constituency for a couple of months but once my name and address was on their role they gave me a ballot.

I could have voted for my neighbour as easily with there being no ID checks.