Why Are Democrats Dragging Their Feet on the Electoral Count Reform Act?

Biden says Republicans are plotting a repeat of 2020 in 2024. Maybe Congress should do something to prevent that?

The way President Joe Biden tells it, Republicans are already laying the groundwork to steal the 2024 presidential election.

"They're working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election-deniers to undermine democracy itself," Biden warned in an ominous and overtly political speech in Philadelphia last week.

For Biden, former President Donald Trump's slapdash attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election and the chaos that some of Trump's supporters caused at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, are harbingers of what's to come. "I will not stand by and watch elections in this country stolen by people who simply refuse to accept that they lost," Biden pledged.

In some regards, this worry is a legitimate one. Fealty to Trump and his notions about the results of the 2020 presidential election has become a potent litmus test within the Republican Party. The results of this year's primary elections have made that much clear.

According to an analysis by data-nerds at FiveThirtyEight, 195 of the 529 GOP candidates running for House, Senate, governor, secretary of state, or attorney general this November have claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump or have taken actions (including filing lawsuits or refusing to certify elections results) that attempted to block Biden's win. A mere 71 Republican candidates in those same races have said they accept the results of the 2020 election without reservations (and the rest are somewhere in the middle).

A sizable chunk of one of America's two major parties is now partially defined by its willingness not just to go along with Trump's election-denying scheme but to actively embrace it. Even if most of those candidates lose in November, those numbers represent a potentially serious problem for the country heading into the presidential election in 2024.

So Biden's not totally wrong to be sounding the alarm about this. But instead of lecturing voters or trying to score political points, maybe he could try giving that same speech to the Democrats in charge of Congress?

It's been months since a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, which is easily the most important and straightforward way to prevent a repeat of what nearly happened in January 2021. The bill would address the procedural mechanisms that Trump and his allies sought to exploit to overturn the 2020 election. It would head off future attempts by state lawmakers and governors to refuse to certify the results of a presidential election, and it would clarify that the vice president does not have the power to unilaterally reject the Electoral College results (as Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to do).

In short, the bill doesn't overhaul election rules in partisan ways or tell states how to conduct elections. But it does force states to abide by the results of the elections they conduct.

That's pretty important, but the bill seems to be getting shifted to the back burner in Congress even as Democrats ramp up their rhetoric about Republicans trying to destroy democracy.

Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine), one of the bill's sponsors, "would like to see pre-election consideration of Electoral Count Act reform," Politico reported earlier this week. But, for now, Democrats "are committed to little other than confirming judges and funding the government after a surprisingly fruitful summer session of legislating on firearm access, climate and taxes, microchip manufacturing and veterans' benefits." It's also possible that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) will cancel a two-week session scheduled for October so senators facing re-election this year can stay on the campaign trail, according to the same Politico piece.

Prioritizing winning elections over actually safeguarding them? Yep, that sounds about right. After all, Democratic campaign operations spent heavily to promote some Trump-loving, election-denying Republicans in primaries this year while simultaneously warning that those same candidates are existential threats to American democracy.

Playing those cynical games might help Democrats win a few elections they would otherwise have lost. But if Congress doesn't find the time to pass the Electoral Count Reform Act before the end of the year, there's little hope that it will ever reach Biden's desk—because Republicans are expected to take control of the House, at least, after the midterms.

Biden says Republicans aim to use their attempted subversion of the 2020 election "as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections" in ways that "threatens the very foundations of our republic." All the more reason for congressional Democrats (and Republicans who refuse to be complicit in Trump's schemes) to do the important work of shoring up those foundations now, while they still have a chance.

Comments

[Spiritus Mundi]

In short, the bill doesn't overhaul election rules in partisan ways or tell states how to conduct elections. But it does force states to abide by the results of the elections they conduct.

Does it force states to abide by their own constitutions when changing election laws?

[Don't look at me!]

Can’t have that…

[angliadavid]

I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (ani-05) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/

[JasonAZ]

That's racist or something.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

PEOPLE IN STATES OWNED SLAVES!

[Radlib]

That is the root of the issue that no one is willing to have a rational conversation about...They might not like a logical conclusion.

[Dan S.]

That's a matter for state courts to decide, not Congress.

[Octavio Feltmann]

Federal supremacy was OK for the Voting Rights Act, but stepping in to prevent states from violating their constitutional procedures and illegally changing their voting laws is a bridge too far.

[Ecoli]

According to Democrats (and apparently to Reason editors), that is election denying. I suspect that violation of state constitutions would be "the end of Democracy" if those violations favored Republican victories.

[Truthteller1]

Eric, like the other Trump thumpers, conflate republicans that acknowledge that 2020 was rigged but ultimately legitimate , with the tiny fraction that believe Trump won the election. This isn't complicated, but the Trump deranged just can't grasp reality.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

"Biden warned in an ominous and overtly political speech in Philadelphia last week."

That's puting it mildly. That was Biden's Nuremburg moment. It would be better to call it was it was, a threatening and hateful political speech.

[Don't look at me!]

The visuals were perfect to convey the real message.

[Vernon Depner]

And there's no way that was accidental.

[R Mac]

Just a regular political speech.

— ENB

[JasonAZ]

It was boring and hardly newsworthy. - ENB

[Rex L'Amoureaux]

A mostly peaceful political speech.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

"I will not stand by and watch elections in this country stolen by people who simply refuse to accept that they lost," Biden pledged.

The irony burns.

[JasonAZ]

Enough about Abrahams and Hillary...

[MoreFreedom]

"Biden says Republicans are plotting a repeat of 2020 in 2024."

No doubt Democrats are plotting a repeat of 2020 in 2024.

[TJJ2000]

Democrat Projection... It's their favorite game... Blame the innocent first then DO exactly what they're blaming on someone else.

[Briggs Cunningham]

As a whole lot of people including Reason pointed out in 2016, the electors are under no obligation to vote for the person they ran supporting in the election. They generally do but there have been cases of "faithless electors" in the past. Indeed, electors are the last line of defense if there something really unexpected happens, like say evidence of massive fraud or the winning candidate dying, in between the election and inauguration.

If someone believes that an election was stolen, they have every right to urge the electors to refuse to abide by that election's results. That is perfectly in keeping with the system as it was intended to function.

A sizable chunk of one of America's two major parties is now partially defined by its willingness not just to go along with Trump's election-denying scheme but to actively embrace it. Even if most of those candidates lose in November, those numbers represent a potentially serious problem for the country heading into the presidential election in 2024.

How is that a problem much less a problem demanding to be solved? If you don't agree that the election was stolen, fine. Maybe you are right. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking otherwise. If you think people believing otherwise is a problem, the solution is to go back and investigate and audit the 2020 election and remove all doubt of its legitimacy. I don't see a single Democrat or certainly any of the hacks at reason interested in doing that.

The bill would address the procedural mechanisms that Trump and his allies sought to exploit to overturn the 2020 election. It would head off future attempts by state lawmakers and governors to refuse to certify the results of a presidential election,

There is no way that is constitutional. The Presidential Election is decided by the electors. And who the electors are is decided by the states. How those electors are chosen and whether or not the ones that the public chooses actually go and vote is entirely left to the discretion of the states. Indeed, reason seems to love states deciding that their electors will not all go one candidate but be split according to vote share. Where do you assclowns think the power to do that comes from?

The Congress has no business limiting anything the states decide to do with regard to their electors. The states could decide to determine electors by vote in the legislature if they wanted to.

Is there anyone at reason who isn't an ignorant hack?

[ElvisIsReal]

Exactly. the way to convince isn't to lock people up, it's to have an actual transparent investigation into the cleanest election ever. If you've got nothing to hide, right?

https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/bidens-extremist-maga-claims-lie

Yet the media doesn’t seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of 1/6 OR the underlying issue: the 2020 election. And thanks to Alex Berenson and others, we know that the government is in regular communication with giant social and traditional media outlets about the ‘proper’ narrative to follow. I love Alex, but if they are in communications to squash a little fish like him, they are CERTAINLY in communications to squash the most important stories of the day. There’s no doubt that (if we were allowed to see the communications of our public servants) we’d find ‘don’t cover this story’ or ‘ban this guy’ memos surrounding both the coverage of Election 2020 AND the coverage of 1/6 — just like we’re (still) learning about the Hunter laptop story.

Ultimately, Biden’s statement about MAGA Republicans being a unique threat is based on the very dubious (but potentially easily proven, if the footage backs it up) claim that 1/6 was an attempt to overturn a free and fair election. If it was shown (through footage) that 1/6 was nothing close to an ‘insurrection’, the entire narrative would crumble and Americans would see that political violence has been coming from the left for years, as the ‘leaders’ cheer it on for political gain. After all, cities weren’t boarded up on election night in case Biden won.

[Briggs Cunningham]

If the people on 1/6 were there to overturn the election, how were they going to do that? They could have burned the Capitol to the ground with everyone in it and it wouldn't have overturned the election. Congress could have refused to certify the results. They have the power to do that. The people on 1/6 were there trying to convince Congress to do that. Last I looked that was called petitioning the government. According to reason, it is an "insurrection".

[Will Nonya]

You are implying rationality where none was exhibited while seriously misconstruing what unfolded on 1/6. I don't agree that it was insurrection but it sure as hell went way beyond petitioning the government...

[DesigNate]

For the thousands of people that were there but didn’t go in and for the hundreds of people that went in and didn’t harm any people or property, it sure as heck was.

For the metaphorical handful or more of the people with I’ll intent, not so much.

[retiredfire]

The reasoning seems to be that the Capitol building was somehow sacrosanct as a location, for the people to petition for a redress of grievances.
How could the seat of government not be the appropriate setting for such petitioning?

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

How could the seat of government not be the appropriate setting for such petitioning?

I am convinced this lies at the root of the persecution of people at the Capitol on 1/6. The left has tried to convince the public for years that protests completely removed in space and time from whatever it is they are supposedly protesting are legitimate. People blocking a freeway in Austin or attacking a police station in Seattle are somehow justified because someone was killed by a cop in Minneapolis weeks or months earlier. Along comes a group protesting the results of an election the day it is being certified at the time it is being certified.

If 1/6 was in fact 'just a protest' then what has been going on in cities around the nation is revealed as pure puppet theater. So it has to be an insurrection.

[MoreFreedom]

Thank you Briggs for a comment on subject, of substance, using reason. You are correct; state legislatures control selection of electors for the presidential election, and they aren't required to have an election to choose those electors.

Regarding the Reason authors, I'm afraid they've somehow failed to ignore the MSM's lies and disparagement of Trump (after all the MSM is part of the political class, and was captured by the government the same way corporations capture the regulators), and they got a contagious case of TDS. I've been reading Reason since the early 80s, and it didn't use to be this way. They should have been celebrating Trump's policies and actions, that make him the most libertarian president in my lifetime.

[DesigNate]

He was against Mexicans and Weed so he failed two of their three planks.

[Ben of Houston]

I like to put forth the hypothetical. What if Lex Luthor got elected and then was recorded on live television boasting about how he hacked all the voting machines to change the vote. Would your reform enable us to prevent him from taking office?

From my understanding, this act would not.

[Will Nonya]

I agree, closing the Lex Luthor loophole couldn't be any less useful than what Congress has been up to anyway.

[Quicktown Brix]

I think nothing in the act would prevent the electoral college from switching their vote from Lex Luthor to Clark Kent in mid December. Then, up to Jan 6 certification, objections can still be made as long as at least 20% of both chambers object. Finally, candidates can object to a 3 judge panel with appeal to SCOTUS. The bill would make it illegal for states to switch their electors after the election and clarify that the VP's role is only ceremonial. These things are ambiguous under current law.

So, much like now, if Lex Luthor brags before Jan 6, the election could be overturned. After that is just impeachment and conviction, I guess?

[Ted]

Yes. The only avenues for removing a president under the constitution are impeachment, or the exercise of the 25th amendment.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

According to an analysis by data-nerds at FiveThirtyEight, 195 of the 529 GOP candidates running for House, Senate, governor, secretary of state, or attorney general this November have claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump or have taken actions (including filing lawsuits or refusing to certify elections results) that attempted to block Biden's win.

And 100% of the Democratic field believes the 2016 election was stolen. Oh those data nerds at FiveThirtyEight.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

80% of Democrats believed that a positive COVID diagnosis had a 50% chance of sending you to the hospital.

That continuing problem led us, in our most recent Feb. 9-12 “Winning the Issues” survey to compare voter confidence in the outcome of the 2020 and 2016 elections. We asked people first whether they believed Joe Biden had won the November election fairly or because of voter fraud. And then whether Donald Trump had won fairly in 2016 or because of Russian interference.

What we got was an almost perfectly partisan result — two sides of the same coin. By almost exactly the same percentage, Democrats and Republicans opted for a conspiratorial cause for their parties’ defeats.

Overall, 57 percent of voters believed that 2020 was a fair election, while 34 percent said Biden won through fraud. Democrats agreed it was fair by an 87 percent to 12 percent margin. So did a majority of independents, 55 percent to 28 percent. But 61 percent of Republicans blamed fraud for Biden’s win, while 28 percent said he won fairly.

When we asked about 2016, 51 percent of voters overall said Trump won fairly, while 33 percent blamed Russian interference. Very similar to the 2020 results. Republicans believed 2016 was a fair election, 82 percent to 10 percent. Independents were closer to Republicans, calling it fair by a 52 percent to 24 percent margin. But 62 percent of Democrats opted for the Russia explanation for Hillary Clinton’s loss, while 21 percent said Trump won fairly.

So it comes down to this. Sixty-two percent of Democrats don’t believe the results of the 2016 election, and 61 percent of Republicans don’t believe the outcome of the 2020 election. A statistical dead heat.

[Briggs Cunningham]

In a podcast in spring of 2021, Suderman admitted that he wore a mask outside in his DC neighborhoods even though he knew it was useless because "he didn't want his neighbors thinking he was a Republican". That moment summed up the level of thinking that goes on at reason better than any moment could.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I have seen multiple reports of that sentiment. For most liberals, the worst thing possible--even worse than death--is being taken as a conservative

What are the odds that these people also do not wish to share a government, and maybe even a country, with deplorables?

[Ted]

We should accommodate them.

[Zeb]

whether...Joe Biden had won the November election fairly or because of voter fraud

Those aren't the only possibilities.

[Briggs Cunningham]

The thing is that even if Biden did in some Plutonic reality win the election, he won it in such a way that a whole lot of people doubt its legitimacy. Reason seems to think that the problem is people doubting. No, the problem is Biden and the rest of the political establishment doing nothing to allay those doubts. It is the government's burden to show that an election was free and fair. It doesn't get the benefit of the doubt such that anyone who so much as asks a question is considered an enemy of the state.

[Zeb]

Yeah, I've been saying pretty much that since beginning of 2021. Even if all complaints about the election are wrong, the fact that so many people find it at least plausible that some funny business was going on is not something you can ignore or dismiss as extremism if you have any actual interest in healing divisions in the country. When 1/3 of the country believes something, even if it is completely false, you can't just dismiss it out of hand and expect good things to happen.

[Briggs Cunningham]

The worst thing you can do is say "you can't say that". All that does is confirm their suspicions.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

I totally bought into the pipe bursting in Atlanta at 10:30pm and sending all the observers home, which was actually a toilet overflowing at 9AM, and the count resuming at midnight.
Plus all the people on video destroying or “fixing” ballots

[ElvisIsReal]

I still have the Atlanta footage.

https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/746699743

You can see them send everybody home starting about 5 minutes in. Once everybody is gone, THEN they pull the ballots out from under the table (but since they weren't in SUITCASES, this video has been 'debunked').

[Briggs Cunningham]

And the 2000 election as well. One wonders what Boem thinks people should do if there is a stolen election. Let's assume this one wasn't but a future one is. What does Boem expect people to do about that? Depend on the winners being gracious and admitting their fraud and stepping down? Boem's position seems to be that questioning the legality or fairness of an election should be prohibited. How very "Libertarian" of him.

[Number 2]

Why stop at 2000? Remember “October Surprise,” the claim that Reagan won the 1980 election by having George Bush meet secretly with the Iranians in Spain and persuade them not to release the Embassy hostages until after Election Day? The Democrats pushed this nonsense - dare I call it a “lie” - for over a decade, culminating the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to “investigate” the allegations just before Bush ran for re-election against Clinton.

I don’t remember any hand-wringing over the number of Democrat candidates who believed that the 1980 election had been stolen.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

They still push that shit till this very day. If it was Reagan, then the hostages would've been released on that Wednesday. The hostages were not released until 12:01 pm on January 20, 1981. That by itself tells me that Reagan had nothing to do with it. The mullahs just hated Carter that much that they wouldn't release the hostages until he was out of office.

[Mother's Lament]

If they really wanted to put to rest concerns that the 2020 election was stolen, they could do a real audit. Not a recount, an audit.

If the election was as legitimate as they insist it is, they should be chomping at the bit to do an audit and prove it.

That would seem to be a lot better of a method than censoring the 50%+ part of the population who questioned it.

[Briggs Cunningham]

If you are really that concerned about the public's perception of the fairness and legality of elections, and you should be, maybe acting guilty and calling anyone who asks any questions a "denier" is a bad idea? Just saying.

[Moderation4ever]

A "denier" is not a person who asks a question. It is someone who will not accept the evidence they are given. They simple move on to the next conspiracy.

[Mother's Lament]

What evidence?

"Shut up conspiracy theorist, or we'll censor you!" isn't evidence.

[Hank Ferrous]

A moderate holds moderate views, not the view that asking questions involves 'denial' or conspiracy theories.

[Octavio Feltmann]

That's not what "denier" means, shreek. No one denies that an election took place, and inventing a non-sequitur phrase like "election denier" in a pathetic attempt to make a connection to "Holocaust denier" is particularly rich coming from a party so rife with antisemitism that it has dozens of elected members of congress who have called for the total annihilation of Israel.

[JasonAZ]

It's almost like they have something to hide...

[Vernon Depner]

Some of the serious irregularities in the election are bald-faced and don't require any "audit" to uncover, for example, Pennsylvania changing its ballot handling procedures after the fact in direct violation of their own constitution, or Gov. Dewine moving the date of the Ohio primary against the direct orders of the judge in the case. Is there no recourse for such blatant violations?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

So, Vern, what are you thinking of doing? Have you thought about kidnapping or bombing someone? (And I am totally not an FBI informant.)

[Mother's Lament]

If you were an FBI informant you'd have already arranged everything from the target to the bombing, and be simply inviting him along for the drive.

[NOYB2]

If they really wanted to put to rest concerns that the 2020 election was stolen, they could do a real audit. Not a recount, an audit.

You can't audit US elections: there are hundreds of different voting processes, there is no reliable chain of custody, there is no reliable logging, ballots and envelopes routinely become separated and mingled in different ways, etc.

Other countries have worked out how to make their elections auditable. It's actually not that hard. You have to assume that US election procedures are willfully designed to be unauditable.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

You have to assume that US election procedures are willfully designed to be unauditable.

Bingo! An individual's choices on a ballot are secret, as they should be. The fact that an individual cast a ballot and the evidence that they were casting it legally is not and should not be secret. Without controls, there is no accountability.

[Moderation4ever]

What exactly do you mean by an audit? It's a nice thing to say but it has no meaning. You need to define what steps you want to take, what are your trying to measure and what are the expected results (so you will know when a measure appears in error). So, before you start talking about an audit start with a scope of work.

You might also start by working some elections, so you understand the process. Understand that there are many checks done before, during and after the election.

I might add, that had you been listening to the January 6th hearings you would have noted that Trump own data people told him that he had lost. That is because they know how votes are counted and they would know if some suspicious numbers were being reported.

[Mother's Lament]

Well that's a smarmy little pile of inference, but there's actually hundreds of different methods a national audit committee could use and adapt to conduct a national audit. Regardless of different voting methods in different states.

It's not like people haven't been advocating it prior to 2020.

Pilot Implementation Study of Risk-Limiting Audit Methods in the State of Rhode Island

and

Florida Post-Election Audit Procedure Summary

[chemjeff radical individualist]

From your first link:

In a risk-limit­ing audit, considered the gold stand­ard of post-elec­tion audits, elec­tion offi­cials hand count a sample of paper ballots to provide strong evid­ence that the repor­ted elec­tion-night result was correct. These audits, which can only be carried out when there’s a voter-veri­fi­able paper record of each vote, are typic­ally conduc­ted publicly and can provide voters with confid­ence that a count­ing error or mali­cious attack did not change the outcome.

Is that all you want? Well okay, fine.

[Azathoth!!]

The problem, of course is this--

These audits, which can only be carried out when there’s a voter-veri­fi­able paper record of each vote, are typic­ally conduc­ted publicly and can provide voters with confid­ence that a count­ing error or mali­cious attack did not change the outcome.

It was the verifiability of each vote that was the issue.

The Dems saw to it that the verification process was so muddied that it simply was not possible to accurately verify a ballot to the satisfaction of all.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Georgia Risk Limiting Audit

https://sos.ga.gov/page/2020-general-election-risk-limiting-audit

Following the November 2020 General Election, the Secretary of State selected the presidential contest for a statewide risk limiting audit ("RLA"). Due to the tight margin of the race and the principles of risk-limiting audits, this audit was a full manual tally of all votes cast. The audit confirmed that the original machine count accurately portrayed the winner of the election.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Pennsylvania Risk Limiting Audit

https://www.media.pa.gov/pages/state-details.aspx?newsid=453

Harrisburg PA – Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar announced today that Pennsylvania has completed a statewide risk-limiting audit pilot of the November 2020 presidential election and the results provided strong evidence of the accuracy of the count of votes cast in the November 2020 presidential election. 

Sixty-three participating counties reviewed a statistical sample of over 45,000 randomly selected ballots from the November 3, 2020, General Election. The results of the sample mirrored the reported presidential election results across the participating counties within a fraction of a percentage point, providing confirmation of the accuracy of the vote count. 

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Michigan Risk Limiting Audit

https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/30lawens/BOE_2020_Post_Election_Audit_Report_04_21_21.pdf?rev=a3c7ee8c06984864870c540a266177f2

Risk-Limiting Audits. The state conducted a risk-limiting audit exercise of the
presidential election statewide. Approximately 18,000 ballots were randomly selected
from more than 1,300 local jurisdictions statewide, and the results of the randomly
selected ballots were compared to the statewide tabulated total. The Bureau of Elections
also conducted a full hand-count audit of all presidential election ballots in Antrim
County.

The Michigan SOS couldn't actually conduct a statistically valid state-wide risk-limiting audit because a few counties refused to participate. All of those counties were red counties. So it's not a true "risk-limiting audit". So neat trick by Team Red: refuse to participate in the audit, then whine about "stolen election" because "they refuse to do an audit". Huh.

[R Mac]

I’ve been posting about the illegal election changes by democrat SOS in Michigan for over a year. You’ve never responded. Not once.

I get you lefties think you’ve found a cheat code with the mute button, in which you mute all responses that contradict the narrative, then randomly unmute others when you think you can jump in for a win. Very dishonest tactic btw.

But when you tried that shit a couple days ago, calling me the liar, I destroyed you. I look forward to future attempts by you to play gotcha and claim I’m the liar in the future.

For the record, I don’t think your tribe member Mike Liarson is an actual bird, in case that was your next attempt.

[R Mac]

For the record, I know most don’t give a shit about this, and I don’t blame you. It’s become quite silly and Lying Jeffy should recognize he’s a joke.

But BUCS started a thread about our underlying principles and I named honesty. Lying Jeffy took offense to that, and decided he would challenge my honesty at any opportunity after that.

But being a dishonest person, he failed spectacularly. So as he was flailing, he picked a random post by me to try to make his stand. But he picked a post where I simply stated the facts of a ruling I though was fucked up and called me a liar. Poor Lying Jeffy doesn’t even know what honesty means.

https://reason.com/podcast/2022/09/06/bidens-disturbing-speech-outside-independence-hall/?comments=true#comment-9688952

[DesigNate]

I was wondering if he would come back and say something. Was not disappointed.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh, thanks for linking that, I am more than happy to continue that discussion. Because you never addressed the central point: you LIED BY OMISSION.

You pointed out that Griffin was convicted of trespassing associated with the Jan. 6 riot. That is not a lie. That is true.

You pointed out that this New Mexico judge removed him from office for "insurrection". That is mostly true, the judge used the Fourteenth Amendment "insurrection" clause to justify his decision to remove him from office.

You then IMPLIED that Griffin was removed from office by this judge for "insurrection" DIRECTLY BECAUSE of this conviction for "trespassing". THAT is the lie, the implication that your comment created in the way that you constructed it. Because you OMITTED the parts that were the ACTUAL basis for the judge's decision. Such as Griffin's rallies that he held while traveling to the Jan. 6 protest where he spoke openly about violence. Such as his direct participation in violence at the protest itself. Such as his recorded admission AFTER the riot where he advocated for a "Second Amendment Rally" to use violence to prevent Biden from being inaugurated.

You left all that out because you deliberately tried to push a misleading narrative instead of informing the reader of the actual facts. Because you are a dishonest person.

[R Mac]

So you think judges can remove people from office for crimes they weren’t convicted of. Got it. You could have responded with that when I first asked.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Once again, you dodge the central point here: you LIED BY OMISSION when you disingenuously imply that the judge removed Griffin from office because of "trespassing".

Under the Fourteenth Amendment Disqualification Clause, a person can be disqualified for "insurrection" without having been formally convicted of a crime called "insurrection". Doesn't need to be formally convicted of any crime at all.

Here you go, read it yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

But of course you know what this amendment says. You aren't stupid. You are just dishonest.

[R Mac]

Still won’t answer the question, hmm?

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Jeffy had the balls to write:

You evidently think a "commitment to honesty" means "stringing together factual statements in a disingenuous way to create a misleading impression in order to push a tribal narrative".

Pure projection.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

LOL at your overinflated ego. I pointed out what a ridiculous hypocrite you are. You claim to be motivated by "honesty" and then you post misleading and dishonest crap. You claim to be motivated by "honesty" but you run interference for your tribe when they post dishonest crap every day. Sorry, that is not honest.

You are not "motivated by honesty" as an abstract principle. Your motivation, as I see it, is to point out the claimed dishonesty of the people you don't like, while turning a blind eye to the dishonesty of the people you do like. That's not a commitment to honesty. That is tribalism. And you are as guilty of it as the next person, if not more so. So fuck you.

[Ted]

He is honest, you’re not. You’re probably dishonest. You’ve been caught so many times. However, like the child porn aficionado Buttplug, you continue to come back here.

The sad thing is, as much as you’re hated here, we’re probably the best friends you’ve ever had.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

And your very comment here on this discussion bringing up this unrelated topic is yet more evidence of your dishonesty: this is your attempt to derail this discussion about voting methods by bringing up our little feud. You are distracting and deflecting from the argument presented here because you do not have a legitimate argument against it.

[R Mac]

Still no response about the illegal election change in Michigan by Lying Jeffy the hypocrite.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

See below, asshole.

[Octavio Feltmann]

Where you asserted that the changes to Wisconsin voting law which have been ruled illegal and unconstitutional 2 years later were "thoroughly litigated at the time" you lardass fat ugly cunt?

[Ted]

Show some fucking manners or GTFO. It’s disgusting how you repay us for our generous attitude towards you. As you deserve far, far worse.

[Tony]

You don't get to endlessly challenge elections you lost until you win. At the end of the day, why aren't you just a sad little crybaby who can't handle losing like a person with descended testicles?

[R Mac]

I get you started with testicles and worked your way back from that, which has caused you to get distracted, but actual court cases have ruled against the election changes you fascists made.

[Octavio Feltmann]

Now do the thing where you tell us that Russia hacked the 2016 election and changed the votes to make Trump the president, and Stacy Abrams is the governor of Georgia, and George W. Bush was selected, not elected. Then cry and whinge about how literally the entire country has been persecuting you for being a faggot while you wave to the guy in assless chaps throwing flavored condoms from the Coca Cola float in the Tulsa Pride parade you mewling little cunt.

[Tony]

You morons all have the exact same talking points all at the exact same time.

None of those people is continuing to refuse to concede any election. Even if they did, two wrongs don't make a right. Speaking of things you learn before puberty.

[Ted]

You talk big for a vapid, raving little bitch faggot.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Arizona doesn't have a law requiring a risk-limiting audit. Hmm, aren't they controlled by Team Red? Why haven't they implemented one yet? Maybe Jesse can tell us. I'm sure it's all the Democrats' fault somehow.

And Nevada just implemented a risk-limiting audit law to be implemented for the 2024 election.

And even if we make the ludicrous assumption that Arizona and Nevada were totally stolen, then Biden still wins in the EC.

So the states (except Arizona) either already did, or doing exactly what you demand of them.

So since I've demonstrated that the swing states (except Arizona) that you all complain so bitterly about are doing the audits that you demand, are you going to shut up about "stolen election" and "MASSIVE FRAUD" now? Hmm? Of course not. You are just going to move on to the next complaint on your endless list of grievances. Maybe it's all those "ballot harvesters" (because 2000 Mules is completely statistically valid, right?) Maybe it's "they changed the rules at the last minute waah no fair (even though the issue was thoroughly litigated at the time)". Maybe it's "corrupt judges (that Trump appointed!) rigged the vote for Biden".

That is why so many people tune you all out when you just go on and on about "voter fraud". It's not that we think there is zero fraud. It's because we know your complaints are offered in bad faith and are just sour grapes because your candidate lost. You will never be satisfied until your candidate wins. Then and only then will you declare "the election is totally secure" even if nothing actually changed about the election process itself. Trying to seriously address your concerns is just playing a game of whack-a-mole and very few people have time for that.

[R Mac]

“Hmm”

The mating call of the douche.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So, you spend zero effort actually responding to the topic at hand, and instead spend your time with insults and bringing up past personal grievances. So honest. So so honest.

[R Mac]

Calling you a douche is extremely honest.

[Ted]

Yes it is, and notice how he deflects from his own dishonesty? He tries that shit a lot.

[Octavio Feltmann]

It's almost like the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party which has been running Arizona for half a century and gave us the legacy of John McCain hates Trump's guts and has been vocally saying so ever since he announced his candidacy, but you're a retarded pile of non-sentient cunt mucus simply regurgitating Orange Man Bad NPC talking points you picked up 6 years ago.

[NOYB2]

Pilot Implementation Study of Risk-Limiting Audit Methods in the State of Rhode Island

Those are not meaningful audits, since they only audit a non-random subset of votes, and in many districts don't apply at all.

Voting in the US is f*cked, and it will likely never get unf*cked.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Biden won the states in question off mail-in ballots. They 'audited' the ballots after they were separated from the signature envelope. So if there were fraudulent submissions, they would simply be counted again. That is not much of an audit.

An audit of the signature envelopes would give you an indication of the amount of fraud, but many jurisdictions destroyed that evidence.

Anecdotally, I never 'un'registered to vote in Oregon. I have no idea if there is a method to do so. If the rolls were not purged then OR may have sent a ballot with my name on it to the home I previously owned. Every new owner of a home has access to the signature of the previous owner. It is on the documents transferring them title to the home. It would not have made a difference in the deep blue OR, but this is also true in every state where they mailed out ballots unrequested.

Vote by mail is ripe for fraud.

[Octavio Feltmann]

cytotoxic knows all of that, he was just hoping everybody else reading the thread was as stupid as he pretends to be when its convenient.

[DesigNate]

It has no meaning to people who continue to fight against any system like most of the civilized world uses that IS auditable.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

So do I actually have to read this entire bill to discover it's complete shit, or do I take Reason's word for it that this law would fix everything.

[A Cynical Asshole]

At this point I think the right call is to just assume the former - that this bill is complete shit and won't do anything they claim it will do. No need to even bother reading it, unless you want a good laugh. Or a cry, either way...

[Vernon Depner]

They have to pass it to find out what's in it.

[justme]

i'm unsure, but wouldn't these changes require a constitutional amendment given that the electoral college and it's operation are laid out in the constitution??

[Ted]

If they remove the electoral college without a constitutional amendment, it will be time to remove them. Period.

[Hank Ferrous]

I skimmed it. I couldn't tell if faithless electors were 'addressed,' but it was a very quick once-over. I am of the opinion that it is 60% shit, 40% possible solution. The only way to know will be when it's implemented, unfortunately.

[Jerry B.]

72% of Democrats believe that the Russians stile the 2016 election.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/rasmussen-poll-most-democrats-still-believe-russia-stole-2016-election-from-hillary/

[Briggs Cunningham]

But that is different because reasons or something.

[JasonAZ]

100% of Reason Editors believe that the Russians stole the 2016 election.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Look, when the right people question the right election, it is Resistance! When the wrong people question the wrong election, it is treason. Just do what any Reason libertarian does, and ask an authority figure--the right kind.

[Tony]

Are you suggesting there's hypocrisy here? Russia did interfere in 2016 with the goal of destabilizing the country. If you hadn't noticed, they succeeded.

This propaganda you fill your head with instead of facts comes from Russia in some large part. It's why you should read established American newspapers instead of Facebook feeds.

[NOYB2]

Russia did interfere in 2016 with the goal of destabilizing the country. If you hadn't noticed, they succeeded.

No, Russia didn't succeed. What they did was not the cause of the subsequent problems in the US.

The people who have destabilized the US and are threatening US democracy are Democrats and progressives.

[DesigNate]

Tony knows this because he’s part of the problem.

[Octavio Feltmann]

You should probably pick a different narrative than Facebook being a bastion of conservatives since they've banned anyone to the right of Lenin and nobody under 60 has used it in 10 years anyway. Are you aged faggots supposed to be pop-culture obsessed? How is it that I've never had a social media account in my life and I'm more with it than you?

[Ted]

Tony, when you’re offered the opportunity to leave America forever, will you be smart enough to take it?

[Ronbback]

Don't think I've read a libertarian article at Reason for a few years now. Sad

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Try today's piece by Stossel.

[A Cynical Asshole]

Stossel's usually pretty solid. Must be on account of the stache - all great libertarians have epic staches. I'm actually kind of surprised they still run his columns here.

[Vernon Depner]

Biden says Republicans are plotting a repeat of 2020 in 2024.

They're plotting to lose again?

[Zeb]

Heh, yeah. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, or what Republicans are supposed to have done in 2020 that means election reforms are necessary.

[JasonAZ]

They questions the legitimate irregularities, such as PA not using signature verification for their mail-in ballots, as their law requires.

[Vernon Depner]

to prevent a repeat of what nearly happened in January 2021.

What exactly "nearly happened"? Are you thinking that a few kooks from the Water Buffalo Lodge "nearly" defeated federal law enforcement forces and overthrew the government?

[Briggs Cunningham]

That is a good question. Suppose Congress had refused to certify the results. They are allowed to do that. That would be unusual but not unconstitutional. Boem seems terrified of anyone anywhere questioning an election of the electoral system doing anything but rubber stamping whatever voting results the various states come up with.

[Zeb]

I would like to know what people think should happen if an election actually is stolen through fraud.

[Briggs Cunningham]

So would I. Even if you believe that the people claiming that the election was stolen are wrong, that doesn't make it okay to deprive them and everyone else of the ability to make such claims. And that is what Boem is advocating here.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Guys, 2017-2020 shows what cultured people do after an election was stolen.

[A Cynical Asshole]

Something like this?

[DesigNate]

Is it riot and accuse them of being a Russian asset? I bet it’s riot and accuse them of being a Russian asset.

[Zeb]

People are so insane about this crap. There was never even the remotest chance that the activities of Jan 6 would lead to Trump staying in office.

[Briggs Cunningham]

And like I say above, Congress could have refused to certify the results and thrown the election into the House. They had the right and the power to do that. So, I don't see how January 6th is any different than the literally dozens of times Democrat protestors have unlawfully stormed into the Capitol demanding Congress refuse to confirm a Supreme Court Judge or pass a bill leftists want.

[JasonAZ]

^ This x1000

Calling J6 an insurrection or coup or the darkest day in our nations history is beyond retarded.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

We passed "retarded" years ago, and are now well into sado-masochistic psycopathy.

[R Mac]

We’re at…ludicrous retarded.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

They aren't even consistent.

When you talk about guns, the trope is that well Republicans want them in case they ever want to violently overthrow the US government.

And then a bunch of Republicans allegedly try to overthrow the US government with a flagpole and a fire extinguisher, notably not bringing any of the firearms they own solely for the purpose of revolution.

[R Mac]

My guess is all the insurrectionists unfortunately took all their guns fishing with them and then, you know.

[Tony]

They thought Trump would be there. They didn't think they necessarily had to murder anyone. Except Pence, with the noose. And the cops they murdered.

[DesigNate]

That’s impressive Tony, even for you.

[Octavio Feltmann]

The only people murdered on 1/6 were an unarmed woman shot in the face by a racist piece of shit black cop, and an unarmed woman bludgeoned to death by a non-racist piece of shit white cop. The only time Republicans kill is when they're a 17 year old kid being shot at, bludgeoned, chased, and beaten by a wife beater, a homeless drug addict in illegal possession of a firearm, and a fresh out of the psych ward child molesting manlet screaming SHOOT ME NIGGER! SHOOT ME NIGGER!

[Tony]

Yes, they failed at their stated goal. Does that mean it's so insignificant that we should pretend they never tried?

[Octavio Feltmann]

No, it means you should stop being a lying faggot about things that can easily be verified on fucking video you stupid child fucker.

[Ted]

Anyone who believes that has to be literally retarded.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Yeah, that line raised my eyebrows. A couple of grandmas and a guy in a bear costume waving 6" American flags nearly overthrew the country...

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

The same country that's impossible to overthrow without a bunch of F-15s at your disposal. Definitely can't do it with those AR-15s so you should be totally OK giving them up.

But a retard in a viking helmet? That's a credible threat.

[Vernon Depner]

the bill doesn't overhaul election rules in partisan ways or tell states how to conduct elections. But it does force states to abide by the results of the elections they conduct.

So, if the government of a state discovers that an election was dishonest or irregular to the point where the results cannot be trusted, they must abide by them anyway? As long as those who plot to steal an election don't get caught until after the votes are counted, they win, and the state government has no recourse?

[Briggs Cunningham]

So, if the government of a state discovers that an election was dishonest or irregular to the point where the results cannot be trusted, they must abide by them anyway? As long as those who plot to steal an election don't get caught until after the votes are counted, they win, and the state government has no recourse?

According to this Bill, it is just too bad. And that is both unconstitutional and complete tyrannical bullshit. Like I say above, Boem seems to think that there should be no remedy whatsoever for a fraudulent election.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So, if the government of a state discovers that an election was dishonest or irregular to the point where the results cannot be trusted, they must abide by them anyway?

The way elections are run in this country, it's up to the state to build an election system that can provide for correcting that fraud. If they can't or won't do that, then that's that. Yes they should have to abide by the results of the system that they created based on the rules that they established before the votes were counted. If they didn't have enough of the foresight required to see that their rules were shit, then they can fix that at the next election.

[damikesc]

It is vital we pervert democracy into oblivion to save it. --- chemjeff

[R Mac]

And what if, say hypothetically, a bunch of swing state’s had people from one party illegally change those established rules right before the election to benefit their candidate and the other party spoke up before the election but were told they had no standing by courts and then after the election it was rules those changes were illegal?

Should there be any consequences for the people that made the illegal changes? Like maybe they’re removed from office and should never be allowed to run for any office in the future?

[Tony]

Name the illegal change you're referring to.

[R Mac]

I have posted it about a dozen times in response to you liars, and haven’t gotten a single response. Look it up.

[Ted]

Yeah, they all do that. Pretend that all of this is new and demand the same shit be posted over and over. Tony is bad about that, but Pedo Jeffy is the worst.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Well, Troll Mac, in your hypothetical situation, are we referring to the election procedures as they currently exist now, or are we referring to the hypothetical election procedures that I would like to see implemented?

For the election procedures that currently exist, elections are run by the states. So if a state legislature, following the state constitution, pass a law, signed by the state governor, establishing the rules for an election, and then the state's secretary of state says "hey guys I'm gonna change the rules at the last minute" with a plausible-enough rationale, and state citizens complain and take their complaints to state courts, and the state courts, in their judgment, accept the plausible-enough rationale from the secretary of state and approve of the rule changes, and the state governor and state legislature don't do anything to try to countermand those rule changes, then those are the rules for the election. And the federal courts typically give the benefit of the doubt to state officials to decide what is best for their state in how to run their election. So the federal judge might say "I'm a little iffy on this last-minute rule change thingie, but it's not really my place to be telling states how to run their elections, so I'm going to defer to the state courts, and if the state legislature/governor don't like it they have the power to enact the change they would like to see". And if the state courts later on, after the election, change their minds and say "well on second thought after more consideration and after more information we think the rule change thingie is a bad idea, let's not do that", then that is the new rule going forward according to the state's procedures for setting the rules for how they are governed. They can't nullify a federal election but they can set the new rules going forward for their own state.

Should there be any consequences for the people that made the illegal changes? Like maybe they’re removed from office and should never be allowed to run for any office in the future?

That's up to the states to decide because again states run the elections. If the legislature wants to impeach/disbar/disqualify/remove those people for whatever reasons that the state constitution establishes, then they are free to try to do so.

You live in Michigan right? So if you are upset about what some Michigan Democrat did (it's gotta be a Democrat, right?) then go do something about it and urge your state legislature to start impeaching that person or whatever. But I will give you a clue, don't look to Republicans to save you, because Republicans are very likely not going to impeach anyone, because they *want the same power* that the Democrats have. So they are not going to be keen on establishing a precedent that whatever that Michigan Democrat did was wrong and impeachable, because they want to do the same thing once they are in charge again. Which could be very soon.

Now. What do I want to see happen in a hypothetical universe? I would like to see a single broad national standard for elections. After all, "that's how Europe does it!!!!!" I don't think DC should be micromanaging every election rule, but I do think they should be setting some broad guidelines about how elections ought to be run. And, violating those guidelines should come with some hefty penalties, such as, for example, disqualification of an entire state's delegation to Congress. Elections should not be amateur hour, they should be run professionally according to professional standards and best practices, and violating those rules should come with serious penalties, just like if a doctor or lawyer or teacher or another professional violated some ethical code of conduct. At the same time, I think voting should be treated more seriously as a genuine civil right. I think electoral districts should bend over backwards to try to facilitate every voter to try to vote, while maintaining secure elections. I am fine with voter ID rules, but it should be so incredibly easy to get an ID that it takes virtually no effort at all for any voter to get an ID. Election officials should go door-to-door if necessary verifying identity papers and handing out ID cards. The expense and burden of satisfying the rules should lie overwhelmingly with the government, and not with the voter. The voter does have to do a few things, like have identity papers, or request a ballot on time, or show up to the voting location. But the process for requesting a ballot should be no-excuse and easy-peasy, the voting locations should be widespread and plentiful and easy to get to even for people who lack reliable transportation and the wait time for voting should be de minimis, 5 minutes tops (since this is a hypothetical universe after all). Oh and election day should be a national holiday, and there ought to be a law that if an employer requires an employee to work on election day, that employer must pay the employee 10x overtime rates. That will deter unscrupulous employers from ignoring the holiday.

So, there is my thorough and complete answer. But, because you are a troll and an asshole, I'm quite certain your response to this high-effort post will be nothing more than a one-liner and an insult. Because you're a horrible human being. Then again I didn't really write this whole thing for your benefit, I wrote it for the benefit of all.

[DesigNate]

You know exactly what he was referring to. And the state legislatures DIDN’T make those changes and the courts have ruled in multiple cases that those changes were made illegally.

Don’t be such such a smarmy sophist.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh, so it's you who decided to respond with the one-liner and the insult instead.

I answered directly the question that was asked. If I had tried to "interpret" his question, you would accuse me of trying to stuff words in his mouth.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

I couldn't digest all of your word salad, but you seem to be vacillating between the power of the state and the power of the State as it suits your arguments. As if unenumerated powers are not reserved to the People. Regardless,

1) It is well established that federal courts can intercede for state violations of voting laws. There are Constitutional amendments that give them the power to do so.

2) In many cases, before the election courts ruled that people had no standing to bring suit. Some of the more egregious rule changes (like accepting late ballots) came so close to the election (or even after!) that where the courts would have interceded they could not and the rulings were moot.

[Ted]

Self righteous lying punk.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So why don't you try to actually respond to what was actually written instead of insults and whining.

[Octavio Feltmann]

He did respond to what you actually wrote, and you should probably be careful about telling others they are insulting and whining when you've literally just written 5 paragraphs of whining terminated with a pile of insults in lieu of any discernible argument.

[Ted]

Being a little bitch pushy crybaby is so intrinsic to his nature that he probably doesn’t realize when he does it.

[Octavio Feltmann]

And the federal courts typically give the benefit of the doubt to state officials to decide what is best for their state in how to run their election.

Lol. Yeah that's why we have the Voting Rights Act and federal courts get veto power over state-drawn district maps.

Elections should not be amateur hour, they should be run professionally according to professional standards and best practices

Like counting ballots without signatures that were received a week after the voting deadline and then accidentally losing the envelopes so that no chain of custody can be established. We know cytotoxic, you're a huge stickler for best practices.

Now. What do I want to see happen in a hypothetical universe? I would like to see a single broad national standard for elections.

Lol. So you want federal control of elections, except when you want the feds to stay out of local elections and respect the democratic process. It's hilariously sad that this was a "high effort" post for you. You just told the same idiotic lies you've been telling for 6 and a half years.

You are stupid, cytotoxic. Not uneducated. Not ignorant. Not misguided or misinformed. Stupid. Abjectly, incurably, unremediably stupid. Which is good actually because you're also the most craven and disgusting liar I have encountered in my entire life. If you weren't so stupid that you were incapable of lying convincingly you might be dangerous. And "might" is doing a lot of work there because you're physically incapable of harming anyone because you're a fragile, sickly, morbidly obese fat ugly piece of shit. But if you learned to exercise some self control, lost a couple hundred pounds, and got your diabetes under management you're so deranged and irrational that you would absolutely without question go commit whatever acts of violence you thought you could get away with. Never on your own of course. You're a cowardly piece of shit who would soil his 6XL tighty whiteys if you got into a fistfight with a petite elderly woman. But you're the type of pathetic subhuman piece of shit who would goosestep along in a crowd of your fellow Marxist psychopaths and opportunistically beat somebody to death after somebody else did the hard work of isolating them and getting them down on the ground. Because that's how impotent faggots achieve the feelings of power they desperately crave yet are utterly incapable of manifesting on their own. It's gang psychology. It's how Muslim terrorists and street gangs recruit. Fortunately for everyone including yourself you're a bloated fat piece of shit who will never be able to exercise even that pathetic level of physical violence and will have to satisfy your impotent rage passive aggressively sniping on the internet.

[Dillinger]

>>In some regards, this worry is a legitimate one.

be sophisticated enough to know the (D) m.o. of accusing (R) of what (D) is doing.

[Vernon Depner]

Straight out of Alinsky.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Straight out of Biden's mouth.

[CindyF]

So is the left's position that the Electoral College laws do not allow for a State to send a different slate of electors BUT laws need to be passed to make SURE that the Electoral College procedures do not allow for a State to send a different slate of electors? Both can't be true.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

You are not thinking like a Progressive. Consider that pregnancy is slavery and lockdowns are freedom for a time and you will start to see the correct number of fingers.

[Octavio Feltmann]

You must dissonate your cognate.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"According to an analysis by data-nerds at FiveThirtyEight, 195 of the 529 GOP candidates running for House, Senate, governor, secretary of state, or attorney general this November have claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump or have taken actions (including filing lawsuits or refusing to certify elections results) that attempted to block Biden's win."

Have these cunts compiled the same seditious numbers from Democratic candidates in the 2018 elections?

[Marshal]

"They're working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election-deniers to undermine democracy itself," Biden warned

So a mere 16 years and the Soros Funded "Secretary of State Project" did exactly this Dems think it might be a bad idea. Remember though, it's only a problem when other people do it.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

There are only three reasons to hold democratic-style elections:

1. You think that getting input from all the citizens will contribute to better decisions and outcomes.
2. You think that citizens will accept the mandates granted to government if they feel they had a fair say in choosing that government.
3. You don't give a fuck what the citizens think, and want to institute your own government but want a fig leaf.

Where are we?

[A Cynical Asshole]

Pretty sure most politicians, and almost all Congress-critters are at 3. Some at the state and local level might be at 2. Only gullible morons think number 1 is the slightest bit true.

[NOYB2]

There are only three reasons to hold democratic-style elections. 1. You think that getting input from all the citizens will contribute to better decisions and outcomes.

Those aren't the only possibilities. In fact, it's probably more accurate to say that democracy reduces the variance, but decreases the mean, in the quality of decisions. That is, democratically elected leaders tend to be worse than good monarchs, but they also tend to be a lot better than bad monarchs.

[CLM1227]

Yes. It also gives some veto power to the people and should ameliorate explosive rebellions and revolts that are common under bad, tyrannical, monarchs.

[A Cynical Asshole]

It's kind of cute that you think Democrats actually care about "fixing" elections (not that I have any faith that this bill would do anything the sponsors claim it will).

[NOYB2]

Democrats like to "fix" [the outcome of] elections.

[Marshal]

Biden says Republicans aim to use their attempted subversion of the 2020 election "as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections" in ways that "threatens the very foundations of our republic."

Dems have claimed every election they've lost since 2000 was illegitimate. This is much like the BLM riots leading to the Jan 6th riot. Reps watched Dems engage in riots with the support and protection of elected leaders for so long some percentage accepted riots and street thuggery as the new normal. Likewise Dems have been undermining elections for so long now some see it as just another campaign tactic.

Reasoners who refuse to address the Dems long history of these tactics will never convince anyone they are right since they are in fact applying this standard only against Reps.

[Tony]

Only trump and his minions have ever claimed an election was "illegitimate." The losers conceded in all those elections you're referring to.

That's not to say there is no problem whatsoever with a 5-4 Supreme Court intervening to appoint a guy to the presidency.

What the fuck does BLM have to do with anything? Has FOX News turned your brain into desiccated cheesecloth? BLM didn't lead to shit. You're just using them as a whataboutism to pretend that your treason has been excused.

[DesigNate]

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Did you really just say that?

Hahahahahahahahahaha

[Dariush]

Only trump and his minions have ever claimed an election was "illegitimate." The losers conceded in all those elections you're referring to.

Stacey Abrams: Hold my beer

[Get To Da Chippah]

Only trump and his minions have ever claimed an election was "illegitimate." The losers conceded in all those elections you're referring to.

Hillary was calling Trump an illegitimate president in 2019.

[Marshal]

Only trump and his minions have ever claimed an election was "illegitimate."

This is a lie. Mary Dems are on tape claiming various elections were illegitimate, including Congressional Dems objecting to the EV counting process in 2004. A video routinely posted at Reason shows dozens of high level Democrats claiming various elections are illegitimate. Note how left wingers just pretend reality doesn't exist when an alternate reality fits their political preferences better.

What the fuck does BLM have to do with anything?

It's revealing I actually explain this in the comment but Tony either ignores it or pretends it doesn't exist. When you normalize something you get more of it. Apparently this very basic point remains beyond Tony's comprehension, again demonstrating that leftists are idiots.

your treason has been excused.

He must be frothing by this point. I hope someone nearby has shots.

[Michael Ejercito]

Have any in the Democratic leadership apologized for the whole "Trump Colluded with Russia®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign?

[TJJ2000]

Of course not; because advertising in Russia is FAR more important election fraud than mystery ballots trampling actual in-person ballots. /s

[Libertarians are dickless losers]

Democracy is for pussies and losers.

Hereditary strongmen are the most freedom-friendly form of government.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

#1. "We just want a full audit to know that the election is secure!"
Problem is, the way the elections are configured now, a "full audit" is incompatible with the secret ballot. If you are demanding to know that your vote was counted in the correct way after the fact, it would require the state knowing or tracking how individual voters voted, so that the info could be audited later on. Now, MAYBE there is some technological solution to this problem using blockchains or somesuch, but that is not the voting system we have now. If you want to advocate that the US transition to a system like this, then let's have that discussion. But that is a different argument than the argument that somehow the ballots from the 2020 election can be "audited", rather than simply recounted, to know that they were counted "correctly".

#2. "Let's do elections like they do it in Europe!"
Sure, that can potentially sound good. But you know what else they have in European countries? A national standard for election procedures. We don't have that in this country, we have elections run by the states, and the federal government only has a limited role. Now if you want more of a national standard, then that's fine, but that will put you in the company of people like Nancy Pelosi who also wants more of a national standard (albeit a very different one), and against the company of people like most Team Red politicians who tend to defend the traditional way elections have been done, at the state level. And frankly I don't think most commenters here are ready to do that. They might say they want European-style election procedures, but only if Team Red endorses it first.

[damikesc]

Not too much to expect states to know how many ballots are out there BEFORE the count is done.

[Agammamon]

1. No. None of that is true.
2. So we don't have a national standard - isn't it *more* important then to be able to verify identities?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

1. First, describe the audit that you wish to see happen. Second, determine if this audit has not yet occurred in the state that you want to see it happen in, and discover why. Third, explain how the audit that you wish to see happen is possible to do without compromising the secrecy of the ballot.

2. If Congress were to pass a law mandating that states require voter ID, I would be in favor of that. You would get pushback not only from Team Blue, of course, but also from the traditionalists on Team Red who want to maintain the ability of states to run their own elections.

[NOYB2]

Problem is, the way the elections are configured now, a "full audit" is incompatible with the secret ballot.

No, it's not. Most European democracies are capable of performing full audits while still preserving the secrecy of the ballot. It doesn't take anything high tech, just pen, paper, seals, and good procedures.

If you are demanding to know that your vote was counted in the correct way after the fact, it would require the state knowing or tracking how individual voters voted, so that the info could be audited later on.

That is also incorrect: it is easy to let voters verify that their vote was counted correctly while not allowing the state to correlate votes with voters. This can be done with both paper ballots and electronically. It is also independent of how elections are audited.

Now if you want more of a national standard, then that's fine, but that will put you in the company of people like Nancy Pelosi who also wants more of a national standard

Pelosi and the Democrats are semi-fascists, trying to destroy democracy by passing corrupt national voting laws, after corrupting elections at the state level in many states.

OF COURSE, the antidote to that is to pass national voting laws that prevent that corruption from happening, laws that mandate voter ID, paper ballots, chain of custody, and an audit trail.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Most European democracies are capable of performing full audits while still preserving the secrecy of the ballot.

How? Provide a link to how this system works.

[Brett Bellmore]

It all depends on what you mean by "audit"; If all you mean is "recount", it's dirt simple.

Mind you, simple recounts are much more reliable if you ban electronic voting, and impose very strict chain of custody for the paper ballots. IIRC, most European countries have banned electronic voting as too insecure.

[NOYB2]

There are different approaches. The most common one is that they always retain the complete contents of each ballot box together and with complete chain of custody, under seal, and archive it; they only separate ballots from envelopes within each ballot box.

That allows the voters in each ballot box to be verified, as well as the vote totals for that group of voters. That, together with the consistent use of paper ballots, voter ID, and in person voting, makes most forms of organized voting fraud impossible.

[Tony]

Why the fuck would we pass an election reform law written by a Republican? Susan Collins thought Bert McRapeington was going to uphold Roe. She's obviously barely sentient.

The proposal gives election-denying governors the power to appoint electors against the will of their state. It would be an ironic tragedy if Congress applying this bandaid on a gaping head wound convinced voters that democracy was saved.

[Agammamon]

Let me get this straight, Boehm. Biden is saying that the 2024 election is in the process of being stolen - something we were told is impossible in 2020 - but HE'S NOT A FUCKING ELECTION DENIER?

Are you fucking kidding me.

And the Democrats aren't going for the election reform bill because they know their position is extremely precarious and they can't afford to ramp the insanity up any more right now. Which is why they'll leave off the power grab whereby they federalize all elections for a few more years.

The ratchet only turns one way.

[Minadin]

Hey, why AREN'T the Democrats working harder to make sure all the future elections are rigged in their favor? Guys?

[Brett Bellmore]

How complicated is this, anyway? They're not actually concerned about Republicans stealing the 2024 election by challenging electors. They know that's not happening, not enough Republican members of Congress would support doing that.

Rather, they're planning on stealing the 2024 election themselves, if by any chance a Republican wins the EC. Probably by claiming that Trump is disqualified on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th amendment; On that basis they'll object to every one of his electors.

Sure, they'd probably have been willing to give up that power if they had been able to thoroughly rig the system in other ways. But they didn't have the votes to pull that off, so they're hanging onto this option.

[sowell_man]

Because if they fix it they can't stand up there and cry wolf to rile people up.

[Sheldonius Rex]

The President is accusing his opposition of putting in partisan election officials to steal elections when it is the President's party which for decades has made sure to staff election offices with partisans who steal elections. Sure is rich coming from a Democrat.

[ragebot]

The real question is why so many peeps don't trust election results. For most of my life till 2000 it was clear the day after the election who won; in fact often you did not need to stay up till twelve o'clock the next day you knew who won on the day of the election. Whatever side you come down on the Florida vote, the Florida recount, and multiple law suits did little to inspire confidence. Not to say the 1960 election did not have it's own questions about both the Texas vote being influenced by the Johnson machine and Mayor Daley's machine in Cook County; but thankfully Nixon accepted the results in many speeches and also quashed attempts by some of his supporters to overturn the election.

One of the biggest changes in my lifetime has been what I will call vote harvesting and mail in ballots; something that has increased the suspicion of unfair elections. In several elections in Florida (and other places) campaign workers have gone to areas with traditional low voter turnout and encouraged voters to register and vote by mail; going so far as to basically do all the leg work necessary to get a mail in ballot in a voter's hands. In Florida in particular some voters in retirement homes who were bed ridden were subject to this type of vote harvesting. While nothing about this seems to be illegal it does raise questions in some peoples' minds.

But the bigger issue in confidence about elections is how mail in ballots are counted. In the last election Trump was comfortably ahead when most folks went to bed on election night but when they woke up the next day after the mail in ballots were counted Biden was the winner. As other posters have noted the changes by state governments about how mail in ballots were mailed out (with no request for one by voters), how they were collected (in drop boxes that did not always have security), and how those mail in ballots were counted (in the dead of night with sometimes limited access for poll watchers) all contributed to questions in some people's minds about who really won.

More to the point the US has seen a massive increase in the use of mail in ballots and early voting; both of which are not common in other first world countries. In fact in many counties (say what you want about state control of voting rules but often the county supervisor of elections controls who gets a mail in ballot) in the same state the rules on mail in ballots and early voting are different. Both mail in ballots and early voting contribute to the delay in determining the winner; and this delay does little to inspire confidence in election integrity.

Truth be told the US is alone among first world countries in dragging out the election process with early voting and mail in ballots resulting in delays in determining the winner. I can not recall any election in the EU or other first world countries where the winner was not quickly determined or an election being contested. I have little doubt Trump would have defeated Biden if there was no early voting or mail balloting. On the other hand I understand the appeal of both early voting and mail in ballots to increase the number of voters. One thing I would note is in most first world countries all voting is done on a single day which is sometimes a national holiday so there is no need for early voting or mail in ballots.

Sad to say I see little reason to think people will view elections as being fair until there are changes in how the US holds elections. Maybe the best solution is a national holiday for election day with no mail in ballots and no early voting like the rest of the world.

[One-Punch_Man]

Well written. You also left off stories of Democrats not letting Republicans in to watch counts or mystery bags of votes found at 3 am or how counties can be at 109% for voting.

Not that the Republican's haven't caused issue in the past but for the Dems it's win at all cost because it's feelings and we are right etc.

[tlapp]

Trump didn't start the election denial issue. He simply returned serve for democrats repeated election denials from dangling chads to Russian collusion. Fix it? Hell no it gives them fodder to claim whoever won is illegitimate. That's the point of elections isn't it?

[Alanatswbell]

This bill would stop in large part the democrats from sowing discord and dissension. And they benefit from said discord and dissension,
Secondly some parts of the bill would make it harder for them to cheat!

[awildseaking]

Can't gaslight any harder than this. Don't want election disputes and lawsuits? Create a process to remedy the issues we saw in 2020, like Governor's offices violating their State constitutions to modify election laws. We need chain of custody laws that allow for forensic auditing at any step of the process. Mail in ballots missing folds? Didn't save the envelopes? No idea where the ballots came from? "I don't know" cannot be an acceptable answer.

I think we should have a built-in lag on election rule changes. Any rule change should be delayed for the next 2 election cycles to prevent any malfeasance. Biden wants to federalize elections and writes an EO? Doesn't take effect until 2026 midterms. Eliminates the incentive to game elections.

[CLM1227]

It’s funny.

First, Biden claims that the democrats have put together the most inclusive fraud organization ever seen and… crickets. How many times was Trump hung by words he never actually said but Biden gets to skate on this?

Then, pretty recently, Biden says they need to prevent the another stolen election. Which election was stolen? 2020 and an admission? Or 2016 and he no longer has a leg to stand on in calling Rs “election deniers”?

[CLM1227]

Don’t forget… Trump “literally” told people to drink bleach and called neo-Nazis “good people”.

[TJJ2000]

Until the POWER of the 'feds' gets limited (bound by the U.S. Constitution)....
This UN-rest will just keep getting worse...

You can't have a Power-Mad government without either UN-rest or genocide.

And excuse me for blaming leftards and the Power-Mad Nazi(National Socialist)-Regime for taking over the USA with some of the MOST RETARDED excuses ever heard --- "the weather changes", "poor people deserved to STEAL with Gov-Guns", "Only Gov-Guns printing money can save the USA" (very definition of a communist nation).... Heck they've had a proud congressman and presidential elect (Bernie Sanders) who just as well be the past leader of the USSR proudly pitching for a USA take-over. And another 10% party-politicians openly doing the same...

Remember when Iraq's Al-Qaeda said they would destroy the USA from within................ Enter the Democrats.

[One-Punch_Man]

+1000

Remember it's ok to riot and burn Federal burns if it's for social justice. But it's not ok to go into the Capital and just take pictures because it scares our betters.

Remember it's bad to question results too unless you are Gore, Clinton, Abrams, etc..

[One-Punch_Man]

We are one of the only, if not the only, Western country that doesn't require ID to vote in some places. How is it racist? No-one has ever explained it to my dumb mind.

You need to show ID if you are driving.
You need to show ID to buy tobaccy
You need to show ID to buy liquor
There are a ton more.

Yeah the most important one - oooo racist. Makes minorities not vote. Bull.

[Tony]

It's just that I believe in freedom and that government should have to justify any imposition on it. There was no problem with in-person voter fraud to fix. There just wasn't any evidence, and you can't provide any, and neither can Republicans when they're asked.

Everyone in the fucking world knows Republicans like voter ID because it makes it that much harder for poor black people to vote. They'll admit it if you ask them.

[Vernon Depner]

Everyone in the fucking world know that it's blatantly racist to assert that Black people are not competent to obtain ID cards.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Libertarians for a curated society.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

And mostly libertarians against those dirty MAGA types and any kind of uncouth representation in government.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

So, whores?

[jimc5499]

That's kind of disrespectful of "whores". At least there both parties get something that they consider of value during the transaction.