Trump's Coup d'état.

[gnome]

I think possibly the best we can do for the "choke points" is to ensure that the law is clear about what, if any, discretion the person has in certifying or counting the total, opening the way for litigation if they fail in that duty.

 

[cosmicaug]

I would prefer if some of that effort would be employed in improving the electoral counting methods so that cheating would be more difficult to do, which would also have the effect that allegations of fraud would be less likely (or more far-fetched). Like getting rid of the electronic voting machines that are used in some states. A well organised use of CCTV in manual counting would also make cheating near impossible. These kind of things. (things that Trump should have tried to do while he was the prez., in order for his allegations to have any merit)

If you are going to get into voting issues, getting rid of the electoral college is a start. To appeal to Republicans, point out that the electoral college exaggerated Biden's margin of victory.

That's just the start but it is necessary and it certainly does away with choke points involving manipulations related to the fact that the electoral results are technically decided by electors.

Local control also has to go (but that might be a hard sell... for reasons).

 

[Paul2]

I would prefer if some of that effort would be employed in improving the electoral counting methods so that cheating would be more difficult to do, which would also have the effect that allegations of fraud would be less likely (or more far-fetched). Like getting rid of the electronic voting machines that are used in some states. A well organised use of CCTV in manual counting would also make cheating near impossible. These kind of things. (things that Trump should have tried to do while he was the prez., in order for his allegations to have any merit)

What I mean is, shouldn´t the counting process be so transparent and tamper proof that allegations of fraud would be an almost unthinkable possibility? (something which can never happen with electronic voting, I insist)

That might be a rare case in which, even though something isn't broken, it should be fixed.

 

[Paul2]

I think possibly the best we can do for the "choke points" is to ensure that the law is clear about what, if any, discretion the person has in certifying or counting the total, opening the way for litigation if they fail in that duty.

Normally, that falls to the word "shall." Maybe put it in all caps? SHALL! In red? SHALL.

I guess we are doomed to get the democracy we deserve.

 

[dudalb]

Wow, that’s pretty sociopathic.

I
Or a very weak attempt at being "Daring and Edgy". It is amazing how people makes themsleves look bad in desperate attempts to be Edgelords.

 

[dudalb]

True, but this is the bit that gets tricky...



Of course, right now, Donald Trump is the president even with Biden winning the election. So until the time at which Biden takes over, theoretically they have to do what Donald Trump says.

That only applies to "Lawful orders". An order to stage a coup is not exactly lawful.
That is explained to you in basic training.

 

[Trebuchet]

Today's Gettysburg event cancelled because someone at the WH got Covid, which is just a flu and went away like a miracle in April.

 

[Darat]

I would prefer if some of that effort would be employed in improving the electoral counting methods so that cheating would be more difficult to do, which would also have the effect that allegations of fraud would be less likely (or more far-fetched). Like getting rid of the electronic voting machines that are used in some states. A well organised use of CCTV in manual counting would also make cheating near impossible. These kind of things. (things that Trump should have tried to do while he was the prez., in order for his allegations to have any merit)

What I mean is, shouldn´t the counting process be so transparent and tamper proof that allegations of fraud would be an almost unthinkable possibility? (something which can never happen with electronic voting, I insist)

But your elections have time and time again be proven to be very difficult to cheat, you've had a commission at federal level and individual states have ran their own investigations.

 

[Darat]

I think possibly the best we can do for the "choke points" is to ensure that the law is clear about what, if any, discretion the person has in certifying or counting the total, opening the way for litigation if they fail in that duty.

But in all the places where we've lawsuits attempted the laws have been shown to be pretty clear, why change what works and has worked in the past.?

This is an example of the insidious manner in which the big lie works, people may not think mass fraud has gone on but think there are areas of concerns.

Don't fall for it. Ask for evidence of significant problems or areas of weakness.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That only applies to "Lawful orders". An order to stage a coup is not exactly lawful.
That is explained to you in basic training.

Doesn't exactly stick though, see all the torture and likewise being policy. No one actually stood up to that.

 

[Cavemonster]

I would prefer if some of that effort would be employed in improving the electoral counting methods so that cheating would be more difficult to do, which would also have the effect that allegations of fraud would be less likely (or more far-fetched). Like getting rid of the electronic voting machines that are used in some states. A well organised use of CCTV in manual counting would also make cheating near impossible. These kind of things. (things that Trump should have tried to do while he was the prez., in order for his allegations to have any merit)

What I mean is, shouldn´t the counting process be so transparent and tamper proof that allegations of fraud would be an almost unthinkable possibility? (something which can never happen with electronic voting, I insist)

I don't think it's possible to have a system SO perfect that no one could try to game it or question it.

I think trying to fix things beyond the point where disingenuous people can criticize them is a useless treadmill at BEST and playing right into their plans in reality.

Systems that decide elections are made up of humans and are complex. There is no way to create them that makes them free from made up conspiracy theories.

Heck, running a pizza restaurant isn't free from conspiracy theories. When they're promulgated by the poweholders in a party that speaks for almost half of the residents of a country, facts, real fairness and transparency can never stop that.

Letting disingenuous BS put you on the defensive or trying to placate them is a useless move.

 

[Meadmaker]

That might be a rare case in which, even though something isn't broken, it should be fixed.

I think it's more like a case of continuous improvement. After every election, things should be examined for ways to make things better. After a close election, more people will have concerns.

One thing that amplifies suspicion this year is the fact that it took so long to count the votes, and the nature of the votes this year practically guaranteed lead changes in the reported voted counts. In most states, the absentee ballot system was designed for a few thousand votes, and it had to handle millions this year. Even without Covid, I think there will be a big push to have more mail in voting in the future. So, states should look to make sure that they have a robust system that can count those votes quickly, so we don't have those dramatic lead changes that took four days to count.

But, to Darat's point, you don't want to fall into the trap of trying to make things better in order to address the big problems we saw this year. We didn't see big problems.

 

[eerok]

I think it's more like a case of continuous improvement. After every election, things should be examined for ways to make things better. After a close election, more people will have concerns.

I was impressed by how US elections were improved to mitigate election malfeasance. I thought it was a solid effort at a fair election, despite the forces working against it.

Frankly, I was concerned that more nonsense of the kind that appeared in 2016 would occur, or even more direct tampering, but it was handled well.

One thing that amplifies suspicion this year is the fact that it took so long to count the votes, and the nature of the votes this year practically guaranteed lead changes in the reported voted counts. In most states, the absentee ballot system was designed for a few thousand votes, and it had to handle millions this year. Even without Covid, I think there will be a big push to have more mail in voting in the future. So, states should look to make sure that they have a robust system that can count those votes quickly, so we don't have those dramatic lead changes that took four days to count.

I think that mail-in voting is the path to ensure fair elections in the US, largely because it undermines the voter suppression tactics promoted by anti-democratic factions.

 

[Paul2]

I think it's more like a case of continuous improvement. After every election, things should be examined for ways to make things better. After a close election, more people will have concerns.

One thing that amplifies suspicion this year is the fact that it took so long to count the votes, and the nature of the votes this year practically guaranteed lead changes in the reported voted counts. In most states, the absentee ballot system was designed for a few thousand votes, and it had to handle millions this year. Even without Covid, I think there will be a big push to have more mail in voting in the future. So, states should look to make sure that they have a robust system that can count those votes quickly, so we don't have those dramatic lead changes that took four days to count.

But, to Darat's point, you don't want to fall into the trap of trying to make things better in order to address the big problems we saw this year. We didn't see big problems.

To Darat's point: it definitely should NOT be in order to address the non-existent big problems. I meant it more as a tactical move that attempts to minimize any sort of purchase for conspiracy theories about the elections. Now, conspiracists can invent anything they want (looking at you, Ms. Powell), but the more outlandish they have to get because there is really nothing there, the better.

 

[Paul2]

I was impressed by how US elections were improved to mitigate election malfeasance. I thought it was a solid effort at a fair election, despite the forces working against it.

Frankly, I was concerned that more nonsense of the kind that appeared in 2016 would occur, or even more direct tampering, but it was handled well.



I think that mail-in voting is the path to ensure fair elections in the US, largely because it undermines the voter suppression tactics promoted by anti-democratic factions.

Yeah, baby. The Repub Sec of State in Georgia said that the long lines in Georgia that we saw in 2018 disappeared, and the mail-ins have to be a big part of that. Eliminating polling stations in Dem neighborhoods isn't a thing when everyone can mail in their ballot.

That's one positive that might come out of this catastrophe and tragedy that Covid has been.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's my stance.

Think about the fact that Michigan's certification came down to one Republican vote. If that Republican had been more willing to ignore his duty because he bought into the conspiracy theory, the board would not have certified. ....

Which would mean he suspected his fellow Republicans.

 

[trustbutverify]

If you are going to get into voting issues, getting rid of the electoral college is a start. To appeal to Republicans, point out that the electoral college exaggerated Biden's margin of victory.

That's just the start but it is necessary and it certainly does away with choke points involving manipulations related to the fact that the electoral results are technically decided by electors.

Local control also has to go (but that might be a hard sell... for reasons).

Certainly. The arguments to maintain it would disappear overnight if it didn't over represent rightwing voters.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Today's Gettysburg event cancelled because someone at the WH got Covid, which is just a flu and went away like a miracle in April.

The event isn't cancelled, just Trump's visit. It's on live now. Maybe Trump he would be bored sitting there all day.

Right now some election worker is going on and on about her bad experience with someone yelling at her.

I probably won't watch much.

RCP - live coverage.

The committee members that I can see are all wearing masks.

The next whiner is upset about the mail-in ballots because it was so confusing to her as an election worker.

It was ballot harvesting because some one was emptying a ballot drop box????


Trump is now on the phone with the same allegations the courts threw out. Everyone clapped for their hero.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Continuing with the 'live' broadcast of the Gettysburg meeting:

Giuliani made a claim about the Dominion machines being connected online (they weren't) to Germany.

Thought I'd nip this outrageous CT in the bud.

Snopes: Claim: A voting systems server seized by the U.S. military in Germany proved Donald Trump won the 2020 election in an electoral landslide.

In mid-November 2020, while U.S. President Donald Trump was still contesting the outcome of a presidential election that every credible information source was projecting had been won by challenger Joe Biden, social media users began referencing a purported report from One America News Network (OANN) documenting that Trump had in fact scored a landslide 410-128 electoral vote win over Biden:

OANN, what a surprise.

I'm going to have to move this over to the CT subforum. Rudy's claims about a nationwide conspiracy are off the rails.

 

[Meadmaker]

I watched a couple of minutes of the conference, at what turned out to be the last speech before adjournment.

He quoted Saint Paul, so apparently God is on their side.

This thread has been dominated by coup or not coup discussion, and whoever it was that was talking demonstrated why that conversation is happening. He is encouraging the legislature and the courts to ignore the vote count, and declare Trump the Pennsylvania winner. That's not the same thing as ordering the tanks in and rounding up the opposition leaders at the point of a gun, but it's not hard to understand why the comparisons are made.

ETA: Fortunately, as several people note, it won't succeed. These people will be pointed at and laughed at. What upsets me is that they won't be pointed at and laughed at enough. These are elected officials who ought to be thrown out on their ear by voters just for saying what they are saying. This sort of rhetoric is both disconnected from reality and a sign that they don't get this whole democracy thing. Either one of those should be enough for voters to recognize they are dangerous in their positions, but it won't happen.