sho nuff
Footballguy
Too many people believing lies doesn’t mean we didn’t have a fair and secure election.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Approximately 70% of Republicans still don't believe Biden won legimately. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Captain Cranks
- Start date
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Seriously man, WGAF about what "too many people doubt"? Too many people doubt the moon landing happened. Too many people doubt the Earth is round.
People in general aren't the greatest judge of these things, now add in that most people get their info on SM, and we have even more people "doubting things".
Doubting things and asking questions is healthy. Clinging to ideas when there is no evidence of widespread fraud, and case after case being shot down in court is not healthy.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
You won't go down this path because you know it will end badly and you'll see that, if done correctly, mail-in voting isn't nearly the "problem" you've made up in your mind. I'm willing to bet my mail-in voting process is every bit as secure in my state as your walk up and vote is in yours. Want to compare? But of course I'm talking with someone who has offered a solution where it's ok to stop counting votes at some arbitrary moment....yeah, THAT will get people to trust the system
And I didn't insult you.....the ideas and "solutions" are what I have a problem with. They are completely wrong at their core and uninformed. It doesn't matter who they come from, I'd be saying the exact same thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Wait, what? I missed something here.You won't go down this path because you know it will end badly and you'll see that, if done correctly, mail-in voting isn't nearly the "problem" you've made up in your mind. But of course I'm talking with someone who has offered a solution where it's ok to stop counting votes at some arbitrary moment....yeah, THAT will get people to trust the system
Mile High
Footballguy
Agree. It's been awhile since I voted in person but I don't remember getting a email telling me my vote has been counted and here is the on-line site I can visit to verify.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
So if I am reading correctly, that proposal is asking for 100% in person voting, no machines used to speed up the process - it must be counted by hand, and for voting to end at midnight the next day?
The Commish
Footballguy
Yep.....apparently introducing MORE potential for human error and flat out knowingly ignoring uncounted votes will reinstill faith in the process for some. Just think of the chain of custody aspect...forget everything else.
Last edited by a moderator:
GoBirds
Footballguy
The excuses made by those courting illegal votes is comical, it’s truly as simple as this for one side. Sadly not the other.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I haven't even gotten there. I am still pondering the part about stopping at a designated time, no matter how many votes have gone uncounted.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
It works in nicely with limiting the number of voting places in heavily populated areas. Force a large number of voters into one place - side benefits: discourage some from waiting, make it illegal to give them water, etc. - and then impose an arbitrary deadline for counting the ballots. By hand.
ALL in the name of "security." It would be funny if it wasn't so undemocratic.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
*sarcasm alert*
Oh, so you mean there might be reason, that isn't about 100% fair elections, why some groups of people would want to slow down the votes of populated areas and cut off counting? I would guess in that proposed plan, where I live, the area that would negatively effected the most would be Madison, but I am guessing all the votes in my small town will be able to be counted in that time frame. Hmm I wonder what political party this system heavily favors around here.
All that aside, come on - that proposal is saying it's OK to not count all the votes that citizens of the US cast.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
It's also important to remember that a lot of the "red mirage" was deliberately manufactured by GOP legislators in swing states in order to cast doubt on the results. I can't remember exactly which states, but I believe that in PA, MI and WI, and perhaps others, the GOP-controlled legislatures refused to allow early/mail-in votes to be counted until after the polls had closed. There's really no argument for that policy unless you want to be able to spread conspiracies about "vote dumps". But the surge of votes that "flipped" the results in those states in the days after Election Day all came from legal votes cast in advance of ED. (There was a separate debate in PA about mail-in votes postmarked before Election Day that didn't arrive until after, but that ended up being a small number that wouldn't have impacted the result either way).
Meanwhile, in Florida, which for all its problems has a pretty good statewide voting system, there is early voting and early counting. That means that on Election Day, as soon as the polls close they immediately add in the EV totals. IIRC Florida was called before 10:00 (to be fair, it also wasn't as close as it had been in previous cycles).
Meanwhile, in Florida, which for all its problems has a pretty good statewide voting system, there is early voting and early counting. That means that on Election Day, as soon as the polls close they immediately add in the EV totals. IIRC Florida was called before 10:00 (to be fair, it also wasn't as close as it had been in previous cycles).
LawFitz
Footballguy
That was a starting point for ideas from another forum. I added my thought of extending the vote to multiple days. I'm also open to additional ideas to address the concerns you guys just brought up. That's the difference between my stance and yours, it seems. I'm not entrenched, but would like to see some of the concerns people on the right have addressed beyond simply insulting their intelligence.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I can't remember which states it was, but yes - I also remember states at least waiting until voting day to start counting.
The Commish
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I don't give a crap what side of the aisle it's coming from when your starting point contains the idea that you are OK with stopping counting before all the votes are counted, that's pretty much a non-starter for me.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Courting illegal votes? That is a baseless assertion.
The excuses made by those courting illegal votes is comical, it’s truly as simple as this for one side. Sadly not the other.
sho nuff
Footballguy
But you are entrenched…that there is doubt in the election and it meeds foxed. Despite no real evidence of anything being wrong with it.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I was wondering about that comment too, but not enough to engage.
When I first read it I thought he was talking about the idea that the left just wants the illegals in for votes.
matuski
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Well don't forget the election watchers hovering over everything recording it as they go. Since the votes are being counted by hand with a midnight deadline, I would think for efficiency that they would need to count with the cameras rolling your votes the second you hand in the piece of paper.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Yes, the one side that complains about illegal votes knows that there are illegal votes because we keep finding that one side actually cast illegal votes.
The excuses made by those courting illegal votes is comical, it’s truly as simple as this for one side. Sadly not the other.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
One of the more interesting ironies in the Trump accusations (there are so many) was that they consistently focused on fraud that might be occurring in black areas: Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc. it’s ironic because in almost everyone of these areas across the USA, Trump actually performed better in 2020 than he did in 2016.
But that doesn’t matter- the accusation HAD to be about those areas because, as I pointed out before, this entire debate is really about race, and white fears of becoming a minority. So the “fraud” must come from non-whites: primarily blacks and illegal Latinos.
But that doesn’t matter- the accusation HAD to be about those areas because, as I pointed out before, this entire debate is really about race, and white fears of becoming a minority. So the “fraud” must come from non-whites: primarily blacks and illegal Latinos.
GoBirds
Footballguy
Only when something makes me laugh, if you are sensitive to that let me know. Let’s not derail the thread, TIA.
dozer
Footballguy
Not sure I’m fully onboard with the “white fears” aspect, though that is part of it.
More Americans support Democrats.
When more Americans vote, it’s bad for Republicans.
Republicans are a minority in America.
Thats why Republicans are against democracy and a representative government…
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
It will be interesting to see if patterns and accusations change as the GOP gains votes with those groups of people. If it's like many people believe and it's just about gaming the system to suppress the votes of people who are likely to vote against you, not fair elections - does the strategy and position change on these things if more black and latino votes go their way? What if it's one or the other?
timschochet
Footballguy
True but the people who believe in this stuff most strongly aren’t typical Republicans. They are pro-Trump nativists. White fear is their #1 issue.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think this is true. IMO it is all about political parties wanting to win. As you point out, looking at popular voting in the last decade - that leans Democrat most of the time. So it makes sense for the losing side to try their best to figure out how to win. I don't think it matters 1 bit what color of skins, orientation, etc a group of people are, if they mostly vote D they are going to try to figure out ways to prevent that. It's not about the GOP hating blacks and not wanting them to vote, it's that they typically vote D and that needs to be part of the strategy. I think the strategy would be similar if it was any group and ways to slow their voting was there. If it was white hunters that voted heavily Democrat, they would probably try to move voting day closer to hunting season.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
If this is true, it will be interesting for them to reconcile the increasing number of immigrants who are voting the same as them.
dozer
Footballguy
Well, yeah. There’s no question about that.
Trumpism has crippled the Republican Party.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I get what you're saying, but the fact that there's a long history of voter suppression efforts that always seem to end up targeting Blacks and immigrants has a strong "Why do all these homosexuals keep ####ing my ####?" vibeI think this is true. IMO it is all about political parties wanting to win. As you point out, looking at popular voting in the last decade - that leans Democrat most of the time. So it makes sense for the losing side to try their best to figure out how to win. I don't think it matters 1 bit what color of skins, orientation, etc a group of people are, if they mostly vote D they are going to try to figure out ways to prevent that. It's not about the GOP hating blacks and not wanting them to vote, it's that they typically vote D and that needs to be part of the strategy. I think the strategy would be similar if it was any group and ways to slow their voting was there. If it was white hunters that voted heavily Democrat, they would probably try to move voting day closer to hunting season.
dkp993
Footballguy
To your point. The point that has been conveniently ignored that I made earlier when discussing the envelope and if someone could see the vote. Even if they could (they couldn’t) you can easily track your ballot. This is the definition of transparency, yet despite this we have smart people like Lawfitz injecting doubt and conspiracy where this is none. This then speaks to the point I was making last night about how, regardless of the voting laws, baseless claims will continue. And where there’s baseless claims there are people sure to follow.You won't go down this path because you know it will end badly and you'll see that, if done correctly, mail-in voting isn't nearly the "problem" you've made up in your mind. I'm willing to bet my mail-in voting process is every bit as secure in my state as your walk up and vote is in yours. Want to compare? But of course I'm talking with someone who has offered a solution where it's ok to stop counting votes at some arbitrary moment....yeah, THAT will get people to trust the system
https://www.calvoter.org/content/online-voter-tools-check-your-status
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I look at a little like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I consider myself a pro-Israel moderate. If you said I had to sit down in a room with a pro-Palestinian moderate and come up with a compromise peace plan that would be universally binding, I bet we could come up with a framework that was mutually beneficial to both sides. But in the real world, we would have to take into account that there are fringe elements who are actively opposed to any kind of deal, and game theory tells us that making concessions to people who are negotiating in bad faith actually makes a deal less likely.
When it comes to voting rights/election security, it does seem like you're approaching the issue from a practical point of view, even in areas where we disagree. But we can't ignore the (literal) elephant in the room. Trump has made it very clear he will seek to delegitimize any election he loses, and even some of the ones he wins. This is a dude who's still complaining he was robbed of an Emmy for The Apprentice. Meanwhile, his efforts have stoked up the MAGA base, which is why we have stats like the one in the title of this thread. And the rest of the GOP has demonstrated they're more than willing to go along with all of it, either because they're scared of the base or because they cynically see it as a means of partisan gain. (See my previous post about GOP legislatures and the "red mirage").
There's also the fact that most of what we're actually debating is irrelevant even on the terms that the restrictionists claim to care about. I don't really have a huge problem with reasonable voter ID laws (ie, not the ones with ridiculous partisan carveouts like saying hunting licenses are OK but student IDs are not). But what problem is that actually solving? Is the theory that people will go around from polling place to polling place, with a stack of fake IDs made out in the names of voters at that precinct (or dead people or whoever), and cast votes in their names? Does anyone seriously think that could be done at a scale that would actually impact the result?
So yeah, I think election security is a concern (I'm particularly worried about foreign governments and other bad actors hacking into computer systems and screwing with results, which I don't believe has happened yet but very well could in the near future). And I think it's possible to come to agreements on mutually beneficial compromises that address the problems.
But I don't see that as the biggest problem we're facing right now. IMO, the biggest problem is that a substantial chunk of the electorate is willing to embrace increasingly bat####-crazy conspiracy theories rather than accept the legitimacy of an election their side lost. Some on the left fall into that category, but the problem is much more pervasive on the right, especially after 2020. And I don't see "reasonable compromises" as sufficient to address that problem
LawFitz
Footballguy
1. You could see through the ballot. I saw it first hand.
2. All I could confirm when I went online was that my ballot was received. Didn't tell me whether or not I'd voted to boot Newsom.
LawFitz
Footballguy
So let's come up with a system that is a lot less fallible and subject to concern. At least you are willing to concede that some things could be done better without resorting to mud slings out of frustration. This forum is a sad place sometimes, mainly because it seems to reveal how a lot of people feel in real life but are too civil (or cowardly, or both) to display.
dkp993
Footballguy
1. you couldn’t. I saw first hand. But let’s move in front this as it’s a dead end
2.So now the issue isn’t that the mail in ballot reached the center it was that someone changed (could change) your vote. That’s the implication here?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
So, I've asked probably a dozen times for him to outline his state's "in person" voting process. Are you guys in the same place and if you are, would you mind describing how it works from registration to casting the vote? Just curious what other states are doing.
dkp993
Footballguy
We are both in California I believe correct. But where in California he is I don’t know, so I don’t think it’s different county to county. I also may not be the best person to ask because I can’t remember how long ago I registered and what the process was. For in person voting, I show up to the area my street and ZIP Code is dedicated to, Walk-in show ID and vote. For mail in I receive a ballot with my name to my home address, I fill it out and then take it to a dropbox. Pretty simple.
The Commish
Footballguy
Is there a website for looking up your vote regardless of if you vote in person or by mail?dkp993 said:
dkp993
Footballguy
HomerSimpson
Footballguy
I live in Alameda County CA and we get a ballot with a original bar code that matches a bar code on the return envelope that you stuff into a blank envelope. You must then write your name, address and sign the back of the return envelope.
Last election my girlfriend got a letter after mailing in her ballot saying her signature on her ballot did not match the signature they had on file and she needed to call a number to verify. Sure enough, she forgot to sign the back, her dad took the whole families to the drop box, saw she had forgot and signed it for her. So of course they didn’t match. She told them she did fill out her own ballot and that she did sign it after they verified it was her. So there is a system in place to check the signature of mail in ballots before they are counted. I don’t know if it’s all, a random sample or a certain %. But if somebody wanted to steal someone else’s ballot and cast it, they better have a pretty good idea of this persons signature too.
Last election my girlfriend got a letter after mailing in her ballot saying her signature on her ballot did not match the signature they had on file and she needed to call a number to verify. Sure enough, she forgot to sign the back, her dad took the whole families to the drop box, saw she had forgot and signed it for her. So of course they didn’t match. She told them she did fill out her own ballot and that she did sign it after they verified it was her. So there is a system in place to check the signature of mail in ballots before they are counted. I don’t know if it’s all, a random sample or a certain %. But if somebody wanted to steal someone else’s ballot and cast it, they better have a pretty good idea of this persons signature too.
The Commish
Footballguy
I saw the link, but I wasn't sure if it was just for mail in or if it validated both. Many places don't do that at all and a lot of them that do, only do it for mail-in. Obviously, if one can get to a website to verify that their vote was recorded and recorded correctly, there is little concern for an individual either way when expressing concern whether the vote is recorded correctly or not.
The Commish
Footballguy
In our state (Florida) when you come into the state, they ask you if you want to register to vote. At that point they get you to fill out the voter registration card and you have to sign. Once an election rolls around you get a ballot requet form in the mail (everyone registered does). On it, you are asked if you are going to vote by mail or vote in person. It also asks you to verify your personal information and your registration affiliation. You sign it and send it back. That signature is compared to the one you gave when you registered. If there's a problem, they send you a communication and you can get it fixed. Then if you sign up to vote by mail, you'll get your primary ballot AND your election day ballot sent to you X amount of time before voting date...it's usually several weeks. You get your primary ballot, fill it out put it in an envelope, sign the envelope then put it in another envelope postage paid and send it back. On that internal envelope there is a bar code unique to you that they use for tracking. Once they get the ballot, it's opened, signatures validated against the signature you provided on your ballot request and if they don't match, you can remedy. If everything is good, you get an email with a link to the site so you can validate that they received your vote and recorded your elections correctly.
This is the only way I've ever voted in this state. My wife, however, voted in person in 2018. They asked her for an ID when she walked in the door. They looked at it and made sure it was her and passed her to the next person after giving her ID back to her. They told her to sign on line X and then went to the person who was escorting people to the different kiosks. They put this little gray box in the machine and verified the name that came up was correct and she voted. She too could look on the site to make sure her votes were counted correctly. Signatures for her were never compared which I thought was odd.
This is the only way I've ever voted in this state. My wife, however, voted in person in 2018. They asked her for an ID when she walked in the door. They looked at it and made sure it was her and passed her to the next person after giving her ID back to her. They told her to sign on line X and then went to the person who was escorting people to the different kiosks. They put this little gray box in the machine and verified the name that came up was correct and she voted. She too could look on the site to make sure her votes were counted correctly. Signatures for her were never compared which I thought was odd.
rustycolts
Footballguy
Republicans are not a minority in Florida. They have been increasing the percentage of Republicans for years. This year they have overtaken Democrats % wise. It's very close % wise but about a 100000 more Republicans than Dems. I don't know if this is just a Florida thing or not but I bet Republicans are gaining in a fair amount of places.dozer said:
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/486696-republicans-end-2021-with-43k-voter-registration-advantage-over-democrats/
LawFitz
Footballguy
I'd bet this forum alone has converted a lot of people into Republicans. Or at least, made them rethink their stance on Democrats.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
OK, what do you mean by "let's come up with a system"? As in you and I should do it as an intellectual exercise? Or do you mean we as a society should push for our political leadership to do it? And if the latter, who are the Democrats negotiating with? Trump? Mitch McConnell? I see very little evidence that either of them (for different reasons) has any interest in solving the problem.LawFitz said:
Which gets to the bigger issue: What exactly are we trying to solve here? Restoring people's faith in the electoral system so that they can go back to accepting results that don't go their way? I don't see any sort of policy change achieving that goal, because it's in the interest of Trump and a growing number of Republicans not to solve it. If they did, they wouldn't have any excuses for the elections they did lose.
And that goes back to what I said in my previous post about how negotiations can be counter-productive in certain situations. For the sake of argument, suppose for a minute that Republican claims about electoral integrity are entirely insincere, and also that they have no interest in actually coming to an agreement. In that scenario, by entering into negotiations, Democrats are actually lowering people's trust in the system by conceding that there are reasons to distrust it, while not actually getting anything done that addresses those reasons.
The biggest problem facing our electoral system right now is that there are growing numbers of people in positions of influence who are either cynical or delusional enough to sow distrust. That's the issue I'm more interested in coming up with solutions for
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
