Pennies make dollars, baby. Instead of saying, we see no evidence of widespread fraud - where we have no idea in what context you’re using the word - let’s turn the conversation to making solid attestations about the integrity of the processes, which we certainly don’t hear. Instead we hear “don’t worry about it”.
I think the accounting analogy is the best suited. You won’t say, with whistleblower reports in hand, that there’s no evidence of _widespread_ problems and leave it at that. The presence of recurring whistleblower reports about financial irregularities demands a different conversation: these are the preventative and detective controls we will put in place, and here’s the evidence that they worked, such that we can be assured a high degree of integrity in what we’re reporting.
Right now, the evidence doesn’t even exist to be challenged. Party A puts the onus on Party B to prove that ballots without postmarks weren’t submitted on time and then say there’s no evidence of a problem. No, the problem in that example is the lack of postmarks to even begin to evaluate the suitability of the ballots.
It’s hard to interpret the willful reticence to have this kind of conversation as a nation, especially because the shoe can absolutely be on the other foot some day.
When the integrity of the institution is in question, the right response isn’t to tell people to look the other way. What I’m trying to convey is that nobody believes that a talking head on the news has any authority or personal expertise to tell people “everything’s fine” when the anecdotes just keep coming, particularly in places run by people with a conflict of interest in the outcome.
You ask what authority would have credibility to be taken on their word that everything’s fine. The right question is how do we demonstrate that the processes have integrity. How do we increase the integrity of the processes such that we’re not relying on me accepting integrity on faith.
You used the word “certify”. That’s a good word and we should dig into the strength behind those attestations. Right now they’re based on very weak control structures.
> Instead of saying, we see no evidence of widespread fraud - where we have no idea in what context you’re using the word - let’s turn the conversation to making solid attestations about the integrity of the processes, which we certainly don’t hear.
If that was the case then why has the Trump campaign failed to present any evidence whatsoever to substantiate it's baseless accusations of electoral fraud?
I mean, the Trump campaign complains that the election was stolen from them as a result of this hypothetical electoral fraud campaign that no one sees or has any tangible proof of existing. Heck, the Trump campaign is even accusing elections organized by Republicans of having been compromised. If there is indeed a problem then how come no one is able to see it anywhere, no matter how may times everyone asks?
If no one is able to find any problem anywhere, is there really a problem to begin with?
Well, again - videos of poll watchers being denied access to polling places; videos of political material posted at the entrance to multiple polling places; videos of official party observers being denied access to the ballot counting process; ballots with no postmarks being accepted after Election Day; software glitches in MI that alter the vote count; States abandoning witness requirements for absentee ballots - these are all real events and people don’t know whether or how these samples should be extrapolated.
Further, when the body of material lacks metadata to support chain of custody investigations, or observers can’t witness counting processes, it’s pretty disingenuous to say no evidence can be found. The control failures are the evidence.
There are very real bad examples, and we don’t know how representative they are. There are critical control failures (missing information) that make investigation difficult.
If you want to convince people everything is fine, take away these distractions by shoring up the process - transparency and authentication controls would go a long way towards fending off the accusations of fraud.
> Well, again - videos of poll watchers being denied access to polling places
Are you referring to the cases where the place was packed above capacity (and packed with both dem and good observers) and those wanting to enter had to wait for their turn to enter?
> videos of political material posted at the entrance to multiple polling places;
Are you talking about the Trump supporters getting arrested after picketing a polling place with pro Trump propaganda while brandishing a firearm?
I'm going to make it very simple for you: show any evidence. A primary source describing anything will do. Don't fabricate accounts or go with the "he said she said" approach. Each and every single case you vaguely referred to has been debunked and corrected, but apparently either you prefer to ignore facts or preferred to turn yourself off from the world. Show the evidence. Can you do it?
I think the accounting analogy is the best suited. You won’t say, with whistleblower reports in hand, that there’s no evidence of _widespread_ problems and leave it at that. The presence of recurring whistleblower reports about financial irregularities demands a different conversation: these are the preventative and detective controls we will put in place, and here’s the evidence that they worked, such that we can be assured a high degree of integrity in what we’re reporting.
Right now, the evidence doesn’t even exist to be challenged. Party A puts the onus on Party B to prove that ballots without postmarks weren’t submitted on time and then say there’s no evidence of a problem. No, the problem in that example is the lack of postmarks to even begin to evaluate the suitability of the ballots.
It’s hard to interpret the willful reticence to have this kind of conversation as a nation, especially because the shoe can absolutely be on the other foot some day.
When the integrity of the institution is in question, the right response isn’t to tell people to look the other way. What I’m trying to convey is that nobody believes that a talking head on the news has any authority or personal expertise to tell people “everything’s fine” when the anecdotes just keep coming, particularly in places run by people with a conflict of interest in the outcome.
You ask what authority would have credibility to be taken on their word that everything’s fine. The right question is how do we demonstrate that the processes have integrity. How do we increase the integrity of the processes such that we’re not relying on me accepting integrity on faith.
You used the word “certify”. That’s a good word and we should dig into the strength behind those attestations. Right now they’re based on very weak control structures.