General Question

crazyguy's avatar

Have people suddenly become completely honest?

Asked by crazyguy (2761points) 1 month ago

Judging by some of the answers to my earlier question about election laws, it seems that many on the Left are convinced of that.

They assume that there has been no fraud in the elections because there is no evidence of that. What they don’t realize is that, given our privacy laws, even with no signature match or other verification required to vote, there would still be no evidence of fraud.

Therefore, here is my proposal:

Let us make our elections completely free of voter identification. And look for fraud.

If we still cannot find any, let us finally look at why.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

54 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

Here is an analogy.
A known quixotic, mentally ill person, with a well documented history of making up tall tales, claims there was a murder in a room.
There is no body, no blood anywhere, no signs of struggle, no one is missing, and security footage shows nothing.
Is it unreasonable to “assume” (conclude, really), that this is just another of his delusions, and that there was no murder?

Because this is what happened here:
A known compulsive liar claimed “fraud!”.
They then did the recounts, the hand recounts, the audits, the signature verifications, and found no evidence of the claimed fraud.
After 2016, where drumpf claimed that there was widespread fraud too, because he lost the popular vote, he started a commission tasked with digging up “the evidence”. That commission was later shut down, because they could not find any evidence either.
His own sycophantic DOJ, under his lapdog Bill Barr, said that there was no evidence of widespread fraud.
Saying then that “there was no fraud” is not an assumption. It is a conclusion drawn from thorough investigations.

zenvelo's avatar

Once again, you make a false premise and then try to start a shit show.

This isn’t a “left” vs “right” issue: it is a matter of rational vs irrational. People have checked for voter fraud repeatedly. And then it doesn’t pan out, not demonstrated, false fears.

Rational people move on. Irrational people keep being focused on it.

The very few demonstrated and verified voter fraud cases in the last ten years were people trying to add votes for Republican candidates. And even then it was only a couple votes.

Meanwhile, you want to make it harder for people to vote, because free and open elections mean your intolerant favorite candidates don;t win.

smudges's avatar

Is the beaten-to-death topic of voter fraud coming up again?! Can’t we discuss something positive and uplifting like the 6-legged puppy born in Oklahoma that lived? Or the Texas restaurant that was able to give away 500 spaghetti dinners during the cold snap because their stoves used gas? It just seems that with the multitude of thoughts our brains can come up with, choosing something positive is healthier and wiser.

Two quotes come to mind:

If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude.” – Maya Angelou

Loving people live in a loving world. Hostile people live in a hostile world. Same world.” – Wayne Dyer

kritiper's avatar

Only in a perfect world.

si3tech's avatar

Without biological voter ID you can never have an honest election! Graphic evidence in
2020 sham. Every legal vote deserves to be counted.Our vot is sacred. I pray
we, the people will demand the elections be honest!

KNOWITALL's avatar

I’m not on the left and also not convinced any fraud was committed.
He ran his mouth and did/said many things he shouldn’t have. I believe he self-sabotaged and lost fair and square.

crazyguy's avatar

@KNOWITALL I agreed that no evidence of mass fraud was discovered. I also tried to give a reason for that. If I were to tell you that you have to solve a murder case, but you cannot speak to any relevant witnesses or have access to lab data, I would be tying your hands. I am alleging that the same thing is being done to investigations of fraud in elections. You can recount all you want but there is no way to authenticate the votes. That, my friend, you have to take our word for!

Forget about our past President. It is time to move on and come up with a foolproof system that makes voting even easier, while at the same time making fraud impossible.

LostInParadise's avatar

How many voters are worth eliminating to absolutely guarantee there is no voter fraud? Suppose we required a fingerprints record, photo id and birth certificate. And suppose that these laws prevented the 10% poorest voters from being able to vote. Is that a fair tradeoff, eliminating possible fraud among 0.1% of voters and removing 10% of the vote?

crazyguy's avatar

@si3tech As a technologically advanced nation, our voting systems are so archaic as to be funny. All voting has to be paperless, yet verifiable; kinda like we do most of our banking. Will somebody explain to me why that is so hard?

crazyguy's avatar

@kritiper You will trust your savings to technology but not the elections?

crazyguy's avatar

@smudges I agree there are other things we could be discussing. And we will.

crazyguy's avatar

@zenvelo “Free and fair” have one requirement: Every eligible voter can vote easily, and every eligible vote is counted. Unlike the politicians whose only objective is to win, I want to use our technology to make elections rise above the shadow of a doubt. Fraud should be impossible. Before you say that is impossible, let me point out the trillions of financial transactions conducted every month that require positive identification of individuals and institutions. The fact is our politicians do not want that for some reason.

crazyguy's avatar

@ragingloli whenever fraud is alleged we do “the recounts, the hand recounts, the audits, the signature verifications”. WRONG! Yes we recount the same ballots that were judged by somebody to be eligible, but, in most cases, there is no signature verification. A good example is Georgia where the ballots are separated from the signed envelope in such a way as to make it impossible to tie them together again. Talk about raising suspicions!

I am truly surprised that we have not come up with a better foolproof system to make voting even easier and yet completely foolproof.

hello321's avatar

Here we go with signature verification shit again. How about astrology sign verification or weighing of one’s chi?

ragingloli's avatar

@crazyguy
Here is a great video explaining why electronic voting is a bad idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

Not to forget, Dominion and Smartmatic are currently suing drumpf allied lawyers and media companies because they accused the voting machine companies of being at the heart of the alleged fraud.
There is no possible “foolproof” system that will be trusted, because those who design and run that system will always be suspect.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Your position is flawed, and here is why. PAY ATTENTION!

You are doing EXACTLY what you sarcastically accuse the Democrats of being guilty. You are telling us to investigate the reasons there is insufficient evidence for crimes that don’t exist!

Yellowdog's avatar

Even Dominion voting machines have a ‘margin of error’ report per state that show a great deal of illegal votes (e.g. non-registered voters, deceased persons voted, persons who voted in multiple states, persons who were not citizens or residents of that particular state). This is Dominion’s own record.

There is also a record of votes that were ‘flipped’ from Trump to Biden.

Many Democrats raised concerns about these machines for years.

There is hard evidence—a real footprint of voter fraud. No one was willing to touch this hot potato—but if Dominion were to be so foolish as to file a lawsuit, all the Trump attorneys would have to do is show the evidence that they were telling the truth.

We saw and heard the fraud in real time in the wee hours of election night and the days that followed. Really, no ballots should have been counted after shutting down around 10 P.M. when Trump was ahead by hundreds of thousands, Nor should they need to have been,

Many know that they will be silenced, de-platformed, banned from social media which we depend on nowadays, if we discuss it online.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The fact of this is simply emphasized that in the current charged environment, there is no slipping any legitimate claim past intense scrutiny. Indeed for all the claimed opportunity for fraud by the right, conservatives cannot demonstrate a single example of successful schemes on the part of the left beyond efforts on the to maximize the numbers of LEGAL voters. It is both unfortunate and REVEALING that conservatives must engage in the one principle ESSENTIAL to the fulfillment of the democratic process.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Yellowdog As with the rest of Trump’s lawsuits, the one against Dominion is already flying along with him toward the toilet of tasteless vacuous jokes. Every court in the country has ruled your “footprints” on the same par as those of Sasquatch. The only thing of which your allies have been cheated is a reasonable dosage of common sense unless you include the deprivation of their ability to grasp it upon demonstration.

crazyguy's avatar

@ragingloli I watched the video you posted (thanks, it is excellent). For some reason the video distinguishes elections by two criteria:

1. Absolute secrecy.
2. Absolute trust.

It goes on to make the point that neither is guaranteed by electronic voting. Trust has the problems of software blackness and packability. While the need for secrecy is mentioned but it is not clear from the video why secrecy cannot be maintained.

Let me pose an electronic system to you and you take potshots at it, and I’ll respond to each of your potshots best as I can. Sound fair?

One disclaimer: I am not a computer geek. I am a retired engineer who used computers throughout his career. I still use computers for my financial transactions and Fluther.

Here is the system I propose.

1. ALL voting shall be electronic.
2. Voting can take place at a location of the voter’s choosing. Home, Office, Polling Station, Friend’s computer, local library, specially set up computers.
3. Only the voter may vote.
4. The voter shall be identified by the computer. Either by facial recognition, or a fingerprint/retina scan. Of course, this step requires the expensive database build up, starting at voter registration. The system may require phasing in over several decades.
5. A PDF of each voter’s choices shall be generated for review by the voter. If the voter wishes to edit his/her votes, s/he may.
6. The final PDF may be printed at the voter’s option.
7. The voter shall be required to certify the correctness of each vote and sign electronically.

The following steps are taken after the voting has been done.

1. If voting takes place, offsite, the votes are electronically encrypted and sent to the precinct’s computer over the internet. The votes are not unencrypted until later in the process.
2. If voting takes place at the polling station, there is no need for the first step.
3. After voting ends in a state, the encrypted ballots are unencrypted, combined with the ballots cast at the precinct and counted.
4. The final counts are then transmitted over the internet to Headquarters. A PDF of the transmission is saved at the precinct.
5. Within 15 minutes of the end of polling, Headquarters should be in position to release final results, precinct by precinct. The public release of results can be delayed to allow precincts to confirm that their numbers were not altered during the transmission.

By 10:30 pm EST, the election can be declared COMPLETE!

Only in the event of an election challenge, individual ballots can be released to a court. Otherwise, voter anonymity is preserved.

hello321's avatar

@crazyguy: “Either by facial recognition, or a fingerprint/retina scan. Of course, this step requires the expensive database build up, starting at voter registration. The system may require phasing in over several decades.”

The right continues to be the true “big government” advocate – including dreams of a complete lack of privacy and a dystopian future.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

Ditto @Zevelo He said it all. PS Trump Lost get over it.

LostInParadise's avatar

Using the Internet to transfer data from a personal computer, encrypted or not, is risky business What you are proposing is a hacker’s paradise, so much data and so many points of entry..

Lightlyseared's avatar

So… let me get this straight. You are proposing a completely secure voting system that relies on all voting being electronic? That allows for the individual to use any computer they please? And relies on facial recognition or fingerprint to verify the identity of the voter? And send the votes over the internet unencrypted?!?!

And you think this is secure? Its laughable.

Also you do know that the only mail in vote fraud in the election was by republicans

Really?!?!!!

Are we completely forgetting that electronic voting in the US is the LEAST secure method of voting? That the avaerge computer user hasn’t the least clue how to secure their system from a competent hacker or that facial recognition systems built into the average consumer system can be spoofed with little skill if you want?

hello321's avatar

^ He’s not really trying to find the safest method of voting. He’s trying to convince us that Trump won. And in the process, it just keeps getting more embarrassing for him. His concept of voting integrity involves methods which allow for the most fraud. Anyway, he’s offering shit solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist.

crazyguy's avatar

@Nomore_lockout I did not mention the former President once. However, you guys keep on bringing up his name. Is that the best you can do?

@Lightlyseared If you do any financial transactions on your home computer, then you might be willing to trust computers for a lot more. Remember, the system I proposed has review mechanisms built in right to the ballot level. If some hacker or even sovereign nation wants to interfere with the election, they would be limited to hacking just a few computers.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog “Even Dominion voting machines have a ‘margin of error’ report per state that show a great deal of illegal votes” Sources please and Rudie Kazzootie is not ath answer !

Is this hat you are talking about the error was caused by a voting clerk not properly inserting a media disk, not the machine had an error? ? Oh it was caught and corrected .

crazyguy's avatar

Here are a few paragraphs about the new Iowa bill on election laws:

_An Iowa bill aimed at limiting voting and making it harder for voters to return absentee ballots is headed to Gov. Kim Reynolds’ desk this week after passing both Republican-controlled chambers of the state legislature.

The bill, introduced by a Republican state senator, specifically would reduce the number of early voting days from 29 days to 20 days. It would also close polling places an hour earlier on Election Day (at 8 p.m. instead of 9 p.m.).

The bill also places new restrictions on absentee voting including banning officials from sending applications without a voter first requesting one and requiring ballots be received by the county before polls close on Election Day.”

Please tell me what exactly about the bill would restrict a serious voter’s ability to cast a vote.

ragingloli's avatar

Counter question: How do any of these restrictions and further burdens on the voter increase election security?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Rather than us finding fault with these proposals, why not tell us which imaginary abuses these laws are supposedly going to remedy? The very admission that they are designed to restrict the vote should require a burden of proof that they be justified by verifiable evidence of abuse or fraud.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Technology will be advanced and adopted toward improving the efficiency and (hopefully) the accuracy and security of the election process. But this entire question is indicative of a more fundamental and troublesome trend in this country. And that is the corrosive effect of technology in enabling the abandonment of abstract thought as a requisite to the cohesion of the society. It is the downside of the internet which allows the rapid diffusion of ignorance and stupidity every bit as efficiently as brilliance and knowledge. And in this we are clearly doomed to pay a terrible price.

Bootsiebaby's avatar

We’ve always been like that where I live. We tell it as it is and we call a spade a spade. The only time we hide behind masks is when we have to because of coronavirus.

hello321's avatar

@crazyguy – Name one country in which your proposed ideas have actually worked,

LostInParadise's avatar

The best way of eliminating any damage that may be caused by voter in presidential elections is to eliminate the Electoral College. Last election there was a 7 million vote difference. Whatever tiny amount of voter fraud there may be does not come close to affecting that kind of margin.

crazyguy's avatar

@ragingloli One thing the laws may do is look a result to be announced on Election Night like the good old days.

crazyguy's avatar

@Bootsiebaby I do find that most of us are honest – to a point. If you are poor wondering where the next meal will come from, the point may be $20. If you are independently wealthy, the point may be something other than money.

However, I have found in my 73 years on this planet, that most people do give up their morals for something that is of value to them.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

@crazyguy Well I didn’t accuse Trump of selling teen sex slaves or baby body parts from a pizza parlor. For people who thrive on slinging (whackadoodle) mud, you don’t take it too well when the shoe is on the other foot.

crazyguy's avatar

@Nomore_lockout I did not sling any mud. The discussion has been extremely cordial (by Fluther standards). Can you be specific?

Nomore_lockout's avatar

Specifically, you keep harping about election fraud, as do most of you guys. There is / was no fraud committed in this last election. But talk about the previous election, in which Hillary took in over 3 million more votes than Trump, or mention the “P” word, and you guys go ape shit.

crazyguy's avatar

@Nomore_lockout I have no idea which “P” word you are referring to. This thread is not about election fraud; it is about how much procrastination is reasonable.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

P for Putin. And who is procrastinating? And in regards to what? This thread is the usual “We do no wrong, its all the Dems fault”. Color it any way you want.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

“They assume that there has been no fraud in the elections because there is no evidence of that. What they don’t realize is that, given our privacy laws, even with no signature match or other verification required to vote, there would still be no evidence of fraud”. So this thread is NOT about election fraud? Uh, now run that by me again?

crazyguy's avatar

@Nomore_lockout The thread is about a specific bill that was recently passed by the Iowa legislature. If responders keep bringing up the lack of need for the bill because there is no evidence suggesting massive election fraud, that point needs to be addressed. That does not change what the thread is about.

zenvelo's avatar

@crazyguy So you endorse making it harder to vote? Shortening voting hours, so that people who work have a harder time getting to the polls on time? Having less number of days to vote early, and then forcing absentee voters to mail their ballots earlier to avoid delays by the Post Office?

Why are you afraid of letting people vote? Is it because you don’t trust the citizens to make a good choice?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Only the Democratic citizens.

crazyguy's avatar

@zenvelo In the interest of having more people vote, let us eliminate all deadlines, shall we? The election shall be called when the margin exceeds the number of outstanding ballots. Which could be never.

zenvelo's avatar

@crazyguy So you switch from making it difficult to making it ridiculous?

What are you scared of? Democracy?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Someone is TROLLING you @zenvelo !

crazyguy's avatar

@zenvelo Not at all. I am just trying to point out that more is never an end in itself. It is just a precursor to even more.

hello321's avatar

^ How much democracy is too much ?

Nomore_lockout's avatar

“The discussion has been extremely cordial (by Fluther standards). Can you be specific?” @crazyguy What’s that all about? In my experience Fluther has always been cordial. These are really nice people for the most part. Sure we disagree at times, but that’s life on a social site. But this place is laid back and mild, compared to Y!A Answers. Drop by that thing some time, and start talking politics or religion, if you want to see some whacked out and hot headed people. Or one of those You Tube blogs, where they believe in a Flat Earth etc. Yeah, show those guys you’re not on the same page, and then duck. And I’m not trashing you, I just don’t get what you’re driving at. I’ve never had any issues here.

crazyguy's avatar

@Nomore_lockout This thread is a good example of what I am talking about. I asked what I thought was a reasonable question, and just look at the answers I got. I do not believe for a second that Biden stole the election; however, I want to eliminate any possible suspicion that he could have. What exactly is wrong with that?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther