There is fraud every election. It doesn't typically change any of the results, though, and can (and should) be ignored.
If Trump voters are really upset about it, states can audit the vote and show that fraud was a very small percentage, and didn't change any outcomes. (Both sides commit fraud, so they tend to cancel each other out.)
That‘s not the point (that fraud may happen in any election). Trump asserts that there was systematic fraud in large numbers, in a way that the outcome of the election was changed. And many of his 70mm voters may subscribe to his point of view. This will increase the hostility between the two parties in the US.
When I see Trump talk, I wonder if he really believes what he says or if he knowingly and willfully lies.
What this man has done in four years has put a great damage to the democratic culture in the US, and he badly harmed the reputation of the US around the world, especially when it comes to old allies in Europe.
Edit: If Trump was not a narcisstic egomanianc („I WON THIS ELECTION BY A LOT“?!? Wtf?!), he would have stepped up in dignity, conceded his loss, congratulated Biden and wished him well. The US is confronted with many challenges in the midst of a huge pandemic, the nation is divided, and all he has to say is he won by a lot (in big letters)?!? This is it?
The irony here is that of the "undocumented" immigrants that became "documented" I've talked to they are almost all conservative. The famous ones of course include Arnold Schwartzenegger. But before DJT, even the other, not famous, ones painting houses and mowing lawns are.
When they say why, it becomes understandable. "I came here with $7.23 in my pocket and didn't even speak the language. I'm making a living. Get off welfare and get a job."
The Dems are painted as the party of handouts and the handouts torque the immigrants off. The immigrants are working extremely hard,sending money home to their families and so on.
It would be ludicrous to think that, all other things being equal, they, or any other group of people, would switch their pick due to being victims of hyperbolic propaganda such as the one described.
Pretty sure Hispanics can think for themselves, with factual references at hand. I believe the linked article paints them in an unfairly gullible light, while it does nothing to discredit what it claims as being conspiracy theories. They point to current developments happening in their home countries, only becoming discreditable 'theories' because of the absurdity in which they are framed (in the article).
To name an example, The Open Foundation (associated with philanthropist Soros) has been funding parties and congresspeople all over S.A. who are looking to advance certain social causes. This is part of funding declarations by the recipients, and since it's not unlawful, and not a secret, it's not a conspiracy; and since it's not fiction, it's not a theory (in the sense of supposition). One of such causes is the decriminalization of abortion, an issue that's been traditionally (fiercely) opposed.
Considering Trump's aim to defund Planned Parenthood, and the appointment of a fitting (Catholic) judge to the Supreme Court, couldn't they not lean towards him in this aspect on the grounds of a proven track record, rather than just propaganda?
Isnt there pretty much constantly front page posts on here complaining about California's inept government? Hardly the Golden standard we should be shooting for
> Make the US a one-party state. That'll happen due to demographics as early as 2024
That sounds like you believe parties don't always adjust to the electorate. No major party can have a platform that doesn't allow them to get a majority of the vote. So if demographics means the country becomes liberal, then so do both parties. That doesn't mean the conservative party isn't the more conservative one. It might mean that they want single payer healthcare or, for example.
> No major party can have a platform that doesn't allow them to get a majority of the vote.
That’s patently false: one Republican president in 28 years has been elected with a majority of the vote.
On the local level, gerrymandering and vote suppression are both tactics to get around the need to appeal to a majority, and the GOP has embraced both.
The Electoral College system effectively subsidizes the Republican party by giving it presidential wins it doesn't deserve, by giving empty land a vote. It's a national election, and it should be one person one vote, not a case where a Wyoming vote counts 7x that of a California vote.
If it weren't winning the presidency, it would be compelled to be more competitive. No major party exists nationally without winning presidential elections.
Well, I can only tell you what happens in California (which has been for decades the path the US as a whole takes):
Republicans will become a minority party with no power at all. Democrats will get mad that there are Republicans on the ballot, so the rules will be changed to allow two Democrats on the ballot, a progressive one and a "liberal"/moderate one (and no Republican). This allows progressive policies to continue, and the legislature ends up being a supermajority mix of progressive Democrats and liberal Democrats, with some useless Republicans from a few low-population counties.
There's absolutely no reason the US won't follow this same pattern: it works.
(You can also see the Democratic Party's progressive/liberal split today with the DSA. That's just the CA dynamic going national.)
This sounds like a divisive unsubstantiated rant. Do you have anything to backup the claim that Californa D's want to have no republicans on the ticket? If not, please refrain from even mentioning it. Not even as a rant. Thanks.
Also why would that happen? There are tons of republicans in California. Obviously, California republicans running for state offices should have a platform that might resemble a D platform. Because as I said - you adjust to the elctorate. What parties stand for isn't written in stone. Parties that think it is will become irrelevant. Annd no, not because they are banned from running.
If they bothered to break democracy, why hold elections at all? There is no legitimacy coming from a one party election.
Multi party and ranked choice I hope will bring some sanity to the system.
The Democrats work very hard to keep other political parties’ candidates off the ballot (see: Green Party in Wisconsin this year for example). They don’t go after republicans (as a party) for the same reasons republicans don’t go after them. The other party has enough resources to defend themselves, and they need each other to play the foil in elections so as to maintain the facade that Americans are making a real choice.
Republicans work about as hard keeping more right-associated candidates off the ballot (e.g. libertarians).
> This sounds like a divisive unsubstantiated rant.
CA voters approved the change. Who's being divisive here? If voters want more relevant choices on the final ballot, and vote for the change, that should be fine in a Democracy.
I thought you were speculating about what a party would do which you disagree with. If this is indeed something that happened (despite your use of future tense) I apologize.
> If voters want more relevant choices on the final ballot, and vote for the change, that should be fine in a Democracy.
If they decided to simply not have elections, because people want all D so what's the point, would that be OK in a democracy? (Answer: No, because it's not a democracy any more then).
I feel this discussion has sidetracked a bit. I think the conclusion is this: in a 2 party system, if opinions shift (due to time/demographics/fashion/talk radio...) then if both parties don't adapt, you risk ending up with a de-facto one party rule. And that's not the fault of the party that didn't need to change, but the fault of the party that needed to but didn't.
I can give you the background on the change CA made.
Imagine a district with the following breakdown: 35% Progressive D, 35% Liberal/moderate D, 25% Republican, 5% Other. So overall, 70% D.
CA used to mandate that on the final ballot, you got one choice per party, e.g. one D, one R, and N "Other".
Here's what would happen: the D primary would have a Progressive and a Liberal/moderate. But because Progressives were a lot more "activist", they got out and voted in the primary and their candidate would win. So the final ballot would be: Progressive D, moderate R, N "Other".
In the election, enough Liberal/moderate Ds would NOT vote for the Progressive D, so the moderate Republican kept winning, despite only being 25% of the electorate and not voting with Democrats in the legislature, even though 70% of their district were Democrats.
The change was to have the top two candidates of any party on the ballot. This resulted in a Progressive D and a Liberal/moderate D (and no R). R's (of course) vote for the Liberal/moderate D in this scenario on the final ballot, and they win (and vote with the Democrats in the legislature). This, more or less, is why Democrats have a supermajority in CA, but it's really two wings of the same party, and they have to negotiate much the same way that Democrats and Republicans in the US Senate have to get along.
You think there are progressives with any power in California? Or that the “jungle primary” you describe “works”? It does work—to help the political parties maintain control, not to help get people an actual representative government.
I live in California. The state Republican Party has not "moderated" at all, despite being a permanent minority with no power at all. It ain't happening.
All voting in multi-cultural states is ultimately demographic. Republicans represent "Whites" (e.g. 92% of Trump voters in the 2016 election were White).
As long as there are conservative Whites living in California in sufficient numbers, there will be a Republican Party to represent their interests—that's how a "representative democracy" is supposed to work. Republicans lose when there aren't enough Whites with conservative beliefs to elect them, and win when there are enough.
Republicans today remind me of the Confederacy in a lot of ways, and I expect them to fade away over time in a similar manner. The US can no longer support an effectively White-only national party.
> All voting in multi-cultural states is ultimately demographic
I think this is a gross oversimplification (and demonstrably false if you look at some other countries), but OK, for the sake of argument let's say that one party represents one core demographic. Then one of these is true: 1) their core demographic is a majority or 2) they can attract enough share from other demographics without alienating their core demographic. or 3) they are, and should be a minority party.
I think a big part of the problem is that the US is a big and diverse place politically, so having parties with a huge national identity like the donkey and elephant is always problematic at the edges. R's simply have to attract more minority voters, more women voters, more young voters etc.
> I expect them to fade away over time in a similar manner. The US can no longer support an effectively White-only national party.
Well they will adapt or fade away. That of course goes for any political party, anywhere. A party can't please everyone. But it also can't perfectly please only a tiny core base. They need to broaden their support. But are they capable of that? It's like they think that "Attract voters from demographic X" means "Tell people in demographic X how good Republican policy is".
What it should mean is actually change policy to attract that demographic.
Now: this state discussion misses a big point with the US political climate and it's that the divide isn't really between states, nor mostly between demographics like age or ethnicity, but between city and rural. I honestly don't quite understand why that divide is so pronounced.
> I wonder if he really believes what he says or if he knowingly and willfully lies.
He will literally say anything it takes, truthful or not, to win the current argument.
Anybody familiar with the church has encountered this sort of "playing both sides of the fence" before.
In both cases, the Holy Man has all the answers, and it sounds like they know what they are talking about-- even if their answers are contradictory.
Questioning that leads to circular logic you can't unravel, and in the end you give up and accept that they know better than you. Institutionalized gaslighting, in both cases.
Maybe they should. Something needs to restore faith in the process. If we lose that, we lose everything. And a not-small minority believe that the election was fradulent. There's always a fringe that feels that way, but it seems to be growing.
They're complaining about votes being counted in states run by Republicans when both Republicans and Democrats are watching the count.
Trump formed a committee to find voter fraud and for years it failed. It silently disbanded. The heritage foundation has researched voter fraud too, and it has found little to no evidence.
If that doesn't satisfy them, what will? You're basically saying we have to convince a group of people that fucking unicorns and dragons don't exist.
> Philadelphia successfully removed GOP observers from the tabulations rooms
Don't repeat disinformation. This never happened.
Poll watchers were required to stand 10 feet away to protect workers from COVID-19. The court ruling required that they be allowed to stand 6 feet away.
I've seen conflicting reports about this but I'm not going to argue the point. I can certainly see why 20ft would be a problem.
It seems to me the counting authority should have set up some 4K CCTV gear, and/or 4K webcams on an internal network, for the duration. The pandemic gave them ample warning that physical distancing measures would be required.
The earlier post's premise--as pushed by Trump over Twitter--that Republican poll watchers were specifically targeted for exclusion, however, is factually wrong.
There was a lawsuit filed by the Trump with regards to the distance requirements for safe viewing of vote counting. The judge overturned a lower court decision on what safe distances would be, and enabled observers to observe from 6 feet instead of 10.
The first source listed corroborates this story (although I haven't found any primary sources or what the exact contents of the complaint were, abcnews seems to be the source that most outlets are referencing https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pennsylvania-judge-permits-c...).
There doesn't seem to be any truth to observers being removed from any tabulation rooms (or at least I can't find any trustworthy sources). The second source, while claiming this in the headline, is also just referencing the complaint discussed earlier and has twisted that into the headline.
Faith is eroding in the American electoral process because the Republican party has been working very hard both to undermine the process and to spread propaganda to the effect that the process is untrustworthy.
People could have more faith in the process without more legal cases like Florida 2000 (which kept Gore out of the White House despite him winning the vote in Florida), the Brooks Brothers Riot[0] and its 2020 replicas, the 2019 Georgia governors race (where the Republican candidate was also the secretary of state responsible for counting the votes; needless to say, there were 'irregularities.'), pervasive efforts to prevent demographics that historically do not vote Republican from voting[1], manipulation of the postal service to disenfranchise likely Biden voters[2], the continuing myth of 'voter fraud' that the GOP spreads[3] to justify disenfranchisement, and the constant drumbeat of 'it's rigged if I don't win' emerging from Trump's Twitter account and replicated by Facebook and other right-wing media outlets.
There's no clear way to restore faith in the electoral process without removing disdain for democracy from the Republican Party's DNA.
The Republican party was under a consent decree to prohibit it from attempting to prevent minorities from voting, but once enough Republican justices were installed on the supreme court the consent decree was terminated. The court also voided the most effective parts of the voting rights act, which further allowed the GOP to suppress voter turnout among demographics likely to vote Democratic.
The preponderance of partisan, Republican, judges on the supreme court is very much part of the problem.
Faith is eroding in the American electoral process because the Democratic party has been working very hard both to undermine the process and to spread propaganda to the effect that the process is untrustworthy. [See the Russia hoax that was propagated and still believed to this day].
Take a step back, take a deep breath, and remember that issues are more complicated than "my team good, your team bad."
Co-ordinated Russian election interference was investigated by Trump's own Justice Department. They didn't find any. That sounds like democracy working to me.
Or perhaps we shouldn't investigate foreign election interference?
At least read the Wikpiedia summary of the Mueller Report[0] if you don't have the time to read the whole document.
The 'Russia hoax' produced multiple criminal charges, both of Russians for interfering in the 2016 election, and of several Americans for obstructing the DoJ's attempts to investigate the possibility of people in the Trump orbit conspiring with the Russian government.
It has been factually established that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. The only question -- which cannot be answered because people in the Trump orbit lied to investigators and concealed evidence -- is whether the Trump campaign actively conspired with Russian entities beyond Trump openly asking for their help to access H. Clinton's 'emails.'
Take a step back, take a deep breath, and remember that some issues are a lot clearer than intentionally obfuscatory Republican narratives make them out to be.
This election is about as far from a clear mandate as you can get, with Democrats (barely) winning a presidency but not the senate and losing ground in the house.
They're just believing what their information-circle is saying. They're not looking at things themselves. For instance, in the discussions I've seen of the Right talking about fraud, they've not mentioned the shenanigans of the USPS not delivering mail that arrived on time (WaPo yesterday had a story IIRC).
They need to believe. So they follow those that help them do so.
The reverse of that is likely just as true; people that are happy Biden won, have no concern if there was fraud, just like those that wanted Trump to win would not question him winning.
You're probably right. I'm not a fan of Trump, and I'm not sure how I'd feel if I found out that there was truly fraud and the election belonged to Trump.
But I am in favor of investigating all (legitimate) allegations of fraud, not just the ones that DJT wants to investigate. And counting all ballots.
This is probably the new normal. Republicans have learned a thing or two of after four years of claims about Russia stealing the election. Both sides will work overtime now to delegitimize winners whenever possible.
It shouldn't be ignored, it should be prosecuted when found. We just shouldn't waste tens of thousands of dollars searching for the handful of people in the country who are going to bother doing it. But if we find it, they should go to prison.
Contrarian take: Republicans should be allowed to waste as much of their own money as possible searching for irrelevant "fraud." Might be a useful lesson.
If Trump voters are really upset about it, states can audit the vote and show that fraud was a very small percentage, and didn't change any outcomes. (Both sides commit fraud, so they tend to cancel each other out.)