What did Democrats do wrong?

[johnny karate]

Of course they won't. Because as much as they bleat and squeal about stolen elections, they like the current ballot system exactly the way it is.

The one that works with no evidence of widespread fraud? Yes, it's hard to understand why more people don't have a problem with that.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, probably not. After all, Australia requires a person to prove citizenship when they enroll to vote. The US doesn't require that. I wish we were more like Australia, don't you?

Australians verify citizenship during enrollment through database cross-referencing, which is exactly how the U.S. system already works. But I am glad to hear that you wish the U.S. would not require ID at the polls, make voting mandatory, provide everyone easy access to the booths, and actually proactively register people to vote. It would end the GOP as we know them in positions of power if that happened.

 

[bruto]

Yeah, probably not. After all, Australia requires a person to prove citizenship when they enroll to vote. The US doesn't require that. I wish we were more like Australia, don't you?

What proof would be accepted, and what would it cost, and how would it be provided? And who judges what will be accepted? We have already seen how, in the ICE sweep, actual documentation is simply challenged and ignored when it is convenient to do so. How would a documentation barrier affect efforts to increase the registration of eligible voters? What might be the ratio of fraudulent voters excluded versus impoverished and poorly documented eligible voters excluded? All US states at least require an oath that one is a citizen, and violation of that oath is grounds for deportation. I've seen plenty of evidence of Russian hackers and partisan corrupters vitiating the vote, but very little of the kind of fraud addressed by documentation barriers. I have yet to see reliable evidence that the current system, however faulty it might be, is faulty because of this issue.

 

[Thermal]

Still waiting for our righty friends to tell us the actual real-world problem this would solve.

Less poor saps voting gives their betters a shot at building an America that's best for them." *nods earnestly*

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have yet to see a cogent explanation of why early voting and voting by mail need cause a problem, especially one of "bulk fraud." Mail inherently limits ballots to voters who are registered and whose addresses are on record and who have indicated their intention to vote. At least where I am, the ballot is doubly enveloped, signed, and doubly sealed. Drop boxes are available for those who don't trust the mail. It's no harder to check a returned ballot against registration rolls than it is to confirm the identity of a person you may never have met, and if ambiguity exists there's more time to resolve it, and less likelihood of throwing away valid votes. Persons who believe their mail in ballots have been tampered with or compromised, or who change their minds, are able up to poll closing to request that their mailed ballots be invalidated, and to vote in person instead.

If for no other reason that purely selfish desire to avoid crowds and lines, I'm a fan of early voting by mail. If there's a reasonable way to do secure electronic voting, I'm all for that too.

All I want is to close loopholes and restore some trust in our election systems. I'd really like both sides to STFU about it entirely, and just be able to trust the results without months of blathering on about it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Most democracies have early voting, and high integrity elections. Most democracies try to make it as easy to vote as they possibly can, and still have elections without massive fraud. It can be done. It seems to have worked in the US as well, thus far.

Meh. Given the structure of US presidential elections, I think it's important to understand that fraud need not be *massive*. A relatively small amount of fraud in key locations is all that's needed. It's entirely reasonable to adopt means to reduce the likelihood of that occurring. You know, by perhaps adopting some of the more robust approaches that other democracies use.

I end up very skeptical when people who purport to value democracy oppose taking very reasonable steps.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, probably not. After all, Australia requires a person to prove citizenship when they enroll to vote. The US doesn't require that. I wish we were more like Australia, don't you?

This gets so tricky. *Some* states require very well documented proof of citizenship when a person enrolls to vote. But some are pretty lax about it, or they have processes that end up being circular with no solid verification in place. It would be a lot less contentious if all states had the same requirements. Why so many people oppose being more like Australia on this baffles me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Australians verify citizenship during enrollment through database cross-referencing, which is exactly how SOME OF the U.S. system IN SOME STATES already works. But I am glad to hear that you wish the U.S. would not require ID at the polls, make voting mandatory, provide everyone easy access to the booths, and actually proactively register people to vote.

Please note inserted correction.

It would end the GOP as we know them in positions of power if that happened.

Funny since the evil red states tend to have tighter citizenship verification requirements already in place. I'm not clear how applying those same strict requirements in predominantly blue or swing states would hurt GOP.

Me, I just want it all to be secure, well verified, trustworthy, and the same everywhere.

 

[johnny karate]

If for no other reason that purely selfish desire to avoid crowds and lines, I'm a fan of early voting by mail. If there's a reasonable way to do secure electronic voting, I'm all for that too.

All I want is to close loopholes and restore some trust in our election systems. I'd really like both sides to STFU about it entirely, and just be able to trust the results without months of blathering on about it.

All the blathering is coming from the right about nonexistent problems. All the distrust was purposely sown my the right to push their agenda.

Also, this is how you described a violent MAGA mob who stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of the 2020 election:

Sure... one 'side' wandered through the Capitol and did no material property damage and caused no actual harm.

It's not remotely believable that you care about election integrity.

 

[johnny karate]

Meh. Given the structure of US presidential elections, I think it's important to understand that fraud need not be *massive*. A relatively small amount of fraud in key locations is all that's needed. It's entirely reasonable to adopt means to reduce the likelihood of that occurring. You know, by perhaps adopting some of the more robust approaches that other democracies use.

I end up very skeptical when people who purport to value democracy oppose taking very reasonable steps.

"Very reasonable sets" to solve a nonexistent problem are in fact not at all "reasonable".

Also, this is how you described a violent MAGA mob who stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of the 2020 election:

Sure... one 'side' wandered through the Capitol and did no material property damage and caused no actual harm.

It's not remotely believable that you care about election integrity.

 

[johnny karate]

Please note inserted correction.

Funny since the evil red states tend to have tighter citizenship verification requirements already in place. I'm not clear how applying those same strict requirements in predominantly blue or swing states would hurt GOP.

Me, I just want it all to be secure, well verified, trustworthy, and the same everywhere.

Elections are already secure, well verified and trustworthy. It remains unclear what problem you're trying to solve.

Also, this is how you described a violent MAGA mob who stormed the Capitol to overturn the results of the 2020 election:

Sure... one 'side' wandered through the Capitol and did no material property damage and caused no actual harm.

It's not remotely believable that you care abut election integrity.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think the fact that you don't believe right wing lies about massive fraud, and also think our voting system is messed up seem contradictory.

They're not. Your voting system can be messed up, and still there can be a lack of massive voter fraud. It's just that the messed-up-ness leads to other undesirable outcomes - ones that would not be solved by voter ID.

Disenfranchise the disabled (including many elderly people) and their carers, and anyone who can't arrange to be in the place they're registered to vote on a working day?

Disenfranchise anyone who can't spare what might be several hours to stand and wait in line to vote on a working day?

These are examples of ways in which the voting system is messed up, which don't lead to massive voting fraud.

Yeah, probably not. After all, Australia requires a person to prove citizenship when they enroll to vote. The US doesn't require that. I wish we were more like Australia, don't you?

Australia doesn't require ID at the polling booth. That's what we're talking about. And yeah, if you required ID to enrol, it would help, but that's not what we're talking about.

 

[arthwollipot]

Both sides seem to think the other side keeps trying to steal elections. Lack of trust in the voting system is more than reason enough to make it more trustworthy.

You want to stop worrying about the right trying to steal elections? Push for strong ballot controls and strict enforcement.

You want to stop worrying about the right trying to steal elections? Push for a strong, independent, nonpartisan body to fairly set electoral boundaries and oversee elections. Take the elections out of the hands of the political parties. Hold elections on weekends. Do not penalise people for taking time off work to vote. Make polling places more available and accessible. Actively encourage people to take part in the electoral process and start framing voting as an honourable civic duty and not an onerous burden.

But you gotta know our righty friends would never go for that, because as much as they bleat and squeal about stolen elections, they like the current ballot system exactly the way it is.

 

[bruto]

If for no other reason that purely selfish desire to avoid crowds and lines, I'm a fan of early voting by mail. If there's a reasonable way to do secure electronic voting, I'm all for that too.

All I want is to close loopholes and restore some trust in our election systems. I'd really like both sides to STFU about it entirely, and just be able to trust the results without months of blathering on about it.

Well, in this somewhat rare instance I agree with you, almost. I don't really think, though, that this is a "both sides" issue. One side rather more than the other is attacking the system and eroding trust with dubious regard for truth. The only way for "both sides" to stop blathering would be either for the attackers to relent or the defenders to give in. One of those alternatives seems a better one than the other.

 

[bruto]

Both sides seem to think the other side keeps trying to steal elections. Lack of trust in the voting system is more than reason enough to make it more trustworthy.

You want to stop worrying about the right trying to steal elections? Push for strong ballot controls and strict enforcement.

I don't think it's as "both sides" an issue as you'd like it to be. The current administration and its supporters, to start with, simply allege that all elections they lose are stolen. Tightening the process won't change that. Both sides did not attempt to front fake electors to invalidate the vote. Tightening the process won't change that. Both sides are not trying, through reduction of polling places, additional barriers to registration, laws preventing assistance to voters, the outlawing of absentee ballots, etc., to steal elections.

I'd be all for added safeguards and actual penalties for those who violate them, if it promotes eligible voters getting to vote, and their votes fairly registered. But those now in power have demonstrated flagrantly and openly that they do not want this to happen.

 

[bruto]

They're not. Your voting system can be messed up, and still there can be a lack of massive voter fraud. It's just that the messed-up-ness leads to other undesirable outcomes - ones that would not be solved by voter ID.


These are examples of ways in which the voting system is messed up, which don't lead to massive voting fraud.


Australia doesn't require ID at the polling booth. That's what we're talking about. And yeah, if you required ID to enrol, it would help, but that's not what we're talking about.

I hope you got, from the rest of my post quoted above, that I do not think those things are contradictory, but that they seem so to certain others. I was trying at least to agree with you.

 

[arthwollipot]

Only one "side" has tried to steal elections. The other side won an election legitimately, and the one side squealed and raged and raised dozens of lawsuits, all of which absolutely failed to turn up any evidence whatsoever that any election had been "stolen".

 

[Brainster]

The Liberal Patriot (Ruy Texiera) says the Democrats are not learning their lesson on cultural matters. I particularly liked this passage:

That’s certainly what most Democrats appear to want to believe. The idea has penetrated deeply into the Democrats’ DNA that cultural issues are not real issues. They are artifacts of the Republican attack machine, preying on bigoted impulses, rather than real concerns of voters. Real issues concern tangible things like the economy, health care, government programs, and the like. How else to explain the remarkable quiescence throughout the party as it moved sharply and consistently left for a decade across all cultural/values issues from crime and immigration to race and gender? These issues were treated as a costless playground for social justice commitments.

He also points out Gavin Newsom's inability to come up with a coherent answer to the question, "Can a boy become a girl?" Newsom's response (on his own podcast, note): "Yeah, I just, well, I think, uh, for the grace of God." Which is not only non-responsive, it's arguably insulting, since people usually use that expression when talking about some unfortunate individual.