It's not that we don't look under the rug. The rug has been looked under, many times, and we keep not finding the monsters claimed to be under the rug.
It is entirely possible that voter fraud occurred AND there is no evidence that it occurred.
Again, I’m not saying that happened, but I think there are some common sense improvements that could be made to the voting process that remove any doubts.
There isn't much doubt from people that care about evidence.
I care about evidence, I believe it is absolutely possible to commit voter fraud and not leave any evidence of it, and I also do not believe that Trump lost due to voter fraud. All of these things can simultaneously be true.
I fail to see the harm in making our elections more secure, so long as we do not disenfranchise any legal voters.
Then why don't you have any?
I fail to see the harm in making our elections more secure, so long as we do not disenfranchise any legal voters.
It isn't necessary and it does statistically disenfranchise legal voters.
If there is virtually no voter fraud why are you so set on 'making our elections more secure'? These pushes are always started by people who know the truth - they aren't solving an election security problem, they are solving the problem of making people who vote against them have statistically more difficulty to vote.
Also they aren't free in the US and they aren't always easy. Sometime you have to make appointments at DMVs and you have to get there as well. There are different fees and different durations per state.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/drivers-lic...
If you think about someone living in a city where they can take the bus and they don't own a car, they might not have a license. Then they might not get one just to vote in an election every four years that will just go the same way the state always votes (of course they end up not voting for everything else on the ballot).
Then maybe you shut down some polling places, split some up, move some around. Maybe you expire people's registrations early.
This is how you bend statistics to your side. It isn't about one person technically being able to navigate every obstacle. Every time the bus goes around a corner some people fall off and that's the point.
You are falling into the exact type of thinking that the people who create these situations want.
44 states have laws to run post-election audits, sampling the ballot pool and checking for statistical anomalies in the result [0]. This is one thing, and it's certainly not a complete solution to voter fraud...but I didn't know about these regular, legally mandated audits til I searched for election audit information. I do know about other things that help reinforce election security, like poll observers. From past jobs that occasionally provided IT support to local governments, I also have exposure to the physical security controls around ballots and polling equipment.
If you're well informed about election security, it might be more effective for you to bring up the specific challenges you feel need to be solved or gaps that need to be filled. Otherwise it's chasing shadows of threats and vulnerabilities that may or may not exist.
If you're not that informed, get involved with your local election office. They probably want volunteer pool workers and you'll learn a lot about the behind the scenes parts.
[0] https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/bestpractices/Electi...
So I would say its more along the lines that they tried to look under the rug many times but everytime they tried they got denied.
How is standing assessed? That there has been damages to the party. The party is claiming that there was voter fraud however most of the evidence they need to prove their damages require a subpeona which they need a court case to start gathering proof. Do you see the catch 22 there?
I am not a lawyer but presenting all your evidence before a trial seems poor form.
You don't have to present all your evidence before a trial, but your filings at the start of the process do need to create a picture of the standing you have, the harm you've suffered, and the evidence you intend to present.
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” [0]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-lawsuit-penn...
United States Supreme Court Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. - Dismissed on standing.
Arizona Aguilera v. Fontes - Voluntarily Dismissed Aguilera v. Fontes - Dismissed Donald J. Trump for President v. Hobbs - Voluntarily Dismissed Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes - Dismissed Ward v. Jackson - Dismissed Bowyer v. Ducey - Dismissed on standing Stevenson v. Ducey - Dismissed
The case was dropped because by the plaintiff because even if the plaintiff won, they would still be short a few hundred votes.
Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial.
Georgia
In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00pm on November 3, 2020 - Dismissed Brooks v. Mahoney - Voluntarily Dropped Wood v. Raffensperger - Dismissed on Standing Pearson v. Kemp - Dismissed on standing Boland v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Trump v. Raffensperger - Dismissed Favorito et al. v. Fulton County et al. - Dismissed Trump v. Kemp et al. - Dismissed
Again , not one case was actually allowed to go to trial.
Im not going to list every single state but its very similar elsewhere. Dismissed for standing, jurisdiction, or trumps team dropped the suit voluntarily.
The statue of limitations is VERY short for elections.
Going back to the Catch 22, many of the personal testimonies the trump legal trump had saying they witnessed fraud were thrown out or could not be used until a trial. So, he cannot use a subpoena , and his witnesses were not allowed to testify. What would you recommend he do?
So now you get crazy schemes like Mr Pillow to collect data during the election so they have something to bring to court. At least that sounds like their plan no matter how wacky it is.
Now, I dont believe that Trump won. But I do believe they should've gave the guy his day in court. To deny someone that on the basis that they will just keep coming back looking elsewhere is not right.
By denying his day in court you have emboldened their supporters and disenfranchised independent voters who want secure elections, like myself.
I'm sure he's just part of the conspiracy, or something...
I read and analyzed a sampling of two cases, and saw the same pattern where there were a whole bunch of straightforward banal claims plus a whole bunch of grandiose conclusions, without any logical linking of the two. The grandiose claims were widely quoted in the press though, despite being completely unsubstantiated. That was enough to satisfy my own opinion.
True and I think that's a good observation.
My takeaway from it was they were looking to get a trial and up against a fast approaching statue of limitations. I also think the fraud they claimed was very novel for a case. What evidence would a person need to bring forward to meet the criteria for standing in a federal election> I still don't know even though most of these cases were dropped for it.
A lot of the sound bites in the press focused on what I thought was frivolous political points on both sides so I think the answer is like many of the issues we are facing these days, in the middle.
However, I do believe giving Trump a day in court and having faith in the system would be overall the best to move the country forward. Maybe he is allowed to bring forward some evidence in his criminal trials for why he believed there was fraud? We shall see.