In the overwhelming majority of the developed world, and many countries in the developing world, there is high trust in the various electoral systems. Fraud is demonstrably low, and rarely considered to be an issue in determining close election outcomes.

From what is reported, a significant proportion of the US electorate believes that wide-scale election fraud in key states has resulted in an illegitimate outcome. At the same time, election authorities have reported a high level of election security.

What would it take for the USA to develop an electoral system like most other democracies, where the "results are the results"? Is the current system sufficiently valid that the main issue is a "big lie" campaign question voting security?

Thoughts?

Federalism makes a completely uniform system both unlikely and impractical.

The problem the US has is not that the electoral system is fundamentally broken, its that people don't like the outcome if its not what they want - they then use "distrust in the electoral system" as support for their dislike of the outcome, as a reason for that dislike.

There are a lot of improvements the US can make to its electoral system for sure - right now, too much power sits with the winners and political parties, so you end up with voter suppression, gerrymandering etc.

But ultimately, improvements don't matter when the actual underlying issue is that people dont accept the outcomes but rather than outright saying so, they blame the electoral system and insist it failed them.

moo wrote:

The problem the US has is not that the electoral system is fundamentally broken, its that people don't like the outcome if its not what they want - they then use "distrust in the electoral system" as support for their dislike of the outcome, as a reason for that dislike.

It all started 4+ years ago. First, any mainstream news was "fake". Once you get easily led people to believe that anything real is fake, you can start to brainwash them. Up is down and left is right.
My question is, what about Q Anon? The appearance of it seems to be the start of everything. Who is actually behind it? With all the hackers and internet experts, why has nobody been able to trace things back to the source? That leads me to believe that there's a LOT of money and brainpower behind it to keep it shielded from everyone.

johns624 wrote:

moo wrote:

The problem the US has is not that the electoral system is fundamentally broken, its that people don't like the outcome if its not what they want - they then use "distrust in the electoral system" as support for their dislike of the outcome, as a reason for that dislike.

It all started 4+ years ago. First, any mainstream news was "fake". Once you get easily led people to believe that anything real is fake, you can start to brainwash them. Up is down and left is right.
My question is, what about Q Anon? The appearance of it seems to be the start of everything. Who is actually behind it? With all the hackers and internet experts, why has nobody been able to trace things back to the source? That leads me to believe that there's a LOT of money and brainpower behind it to keep it shielded from everyone.

It started well before 2016 - birtherism etc etc etc. This has been brewing for a while.

You're right, but birtherism was pretty fringe...the new stuff is believed by a lot more people...that's the scary part. This being an aviation site, I remember when the only two widespread conspiracy plots were chemtrails and FEMA re-education camps. Now everything is a conspiracy...

johns624 wrote:

moo wrote:

The problem the US has is not that the electoral system is fundamentally broken, its that people don't like the outcome if its not what they want - they then use "distrust in the electoral system" as support for their dislike of the outcome, as a reason for that dislike.

It all started 4+ years ago. First, any mainstream news was "fake". Once you get easily led people to believe that anything real is fake, you can start to brainwash them. Up is down and left is right.
My question is, what about Q Anon? The appearance of it seems to be the start of everything. Who is actually behind it? With all the hackers and internet experts, why has nobody been able to trace things back to the source? That leads me to believe that there's a LOT of money and brainpower behind it to keep it shielded from everyone.

That’s how cults work - only the leader is to be trusted. Anything coming from outside that is a threat.

johns624 wrote:

You're right, but birtherism was pretty fringe...the new stuff is believed by a lot more people...that's the scary part. This being an aviation site, I remember when the only two widespread conspiracy plots were chemtrails and FEMA re-education camps. Now everything is a conspiracy...

Also remember that the Tea Party movement was supposed to be a grass roots thing, but in-fact was being bankrolled by the Koch brothers... The Tea Party is how the Republican party swung even more to the right than it already was.

Aaron747 wrote:

Federalism makes a completely uniform system both unlikely and impractical.

The US federalist system perhaps. It's not the only Federalist nation - Australia (where I am) and Germany come to mind immediately.

Aaron747 wrote:

Federalism makes a completely uniform system both unlikely and impractical.

There are a few ways the federal government can inject itself to ensure elections with virtually no fraud while still allowing states to handle the election their way.

1. If certain authorities are SO concerned about people voting twice, enact what PR (and other countries) have adopted: the ink on the finger. In PR, you enter the precinct you're assigned and your hands are placed under a UV light. After checking in, you dip your right index finger into a UV-reactive ink. You cast your vote, and before you leave the precinct, your finger is scanned one more time to ensure the ink is there. It's impossible to wash it off. You can only vote in your designated precinct (so there is no such thing as casting a provisional ballot unless your electoral ID shows you're in the right area and the list wasn't updated). Yes...electoral ID. A driver's license, a passport, a student ID...those are worthless. That electoral ID is THE mark to show that you're registered to vote. This won't help that much in the mail-in vote, but given that there's no evidence of wide-scale fraud with mail-in ballots, it's not a priority.

2. The federal government could require states to share their database so that registration is immediately transferred from one state and canceled in the other (similar to how the DMVs transfer driving credentials). It can also create a special ID, similar to a passport card, but accepted everywhere for voting purposes. A passport (book or card) has no address so it doesn't show proof of residency. This card CAN be attached to an address, given a unique serial number, and other authentication factors such that only electoral authorities can check it. The card can prove the person's registration with the state and correct polling place.

3. The federal government can require states to harmonize ballot collection procedures. Rather than have a one person collect ballots from people, have them paired up with an opposition party official. When opening ballot drop boxes, those people will NOT be involved in the counting of votes. They must count the number of ballots collected from the box and deliver them to the authorities who will certify that no ballot was lost in transit or added. Two officials (one from each party) must take part in this process.

4. Just like a Real ID, the federal government can require states to have unique identifiers for mail-in ballots. WA already does it, with their barcode. I'd find it hard to believe that there are states without this, but you never know.

5. In order to dissuade from the "ballot dump" conspiracies, why not have each ballot drop box under video surveillance? A box in a street corner? Video camera nearby. A slot at the local election office? Camera nearby. This would identify any foul play with someone bringing a boatload of ballots. Of course, video surveillance of the counters showed no evidence of fraud, but the Q-Anon crowd still thought it did so...

Notice that none of these suggestions makes the election a federalized one; a driver's license has a unique driver ID and that's true in all jurisdictions, but the federal government doesn't dictate what exactly that ID should look like or include. A few minimum standards should be enacted though.

The issue is that the fraud allegations are not made in good faith. Decreasing voter turnout has always been the objective of these claims, not more secure elections.

Newark727 wrote:

The issue is that the fraud allegations are not made in good faith. Decreasing voter turnout has always been the objective of these claims, not more secure elections.

Exactly. And this is the insidious effect of this relentless assault by the GOP against the American voting system.

After years of bogus claims and allegation, they have now managed to get everyone (from across the political spectrum) discussing how the system can be fixed as if there was something wrong with it...
Sure, nothing is perfect and everything can be improved, but until actual issues have been identified, there are better things to do than fix something that works.

In fact, given it survived the greatest attack it's ever endured in its history, I'd say the US voting system is probably among the strongest institutions in the nation.

Step 1: Abolish electronic voting system

A fraud free voting system isn't really the issue. At least its not one that is anywhere near the top on the "Fix This" list.

Any place where this:



is considered a good idea, even if legal, has other issues that should be addressed first.

A reliable register of the population (e.g. a duty to notify authorities of someone's death or birth, a duty to notify authorities when moving to another address) would solve a lot of problems in that department. Couple it with automatic voter registration.

99% of fraud allegations would make POOF.

Don't you have birth and death certificates in the US.

Kent350787 wrote:

What would it take for the USA to develop an electoral system like most other democracies, where the "results are the results"?

Wrong question given the elections are fair.

Kent350787 wrote:

Is the current system sufficiently valid that the main issue is a "big lie" campaign question voting security?

Yes.

So that said, my two cents,
* the electoral college should be abollished. There is no good reason for its existence and verified by Congress on the 6th of January, why? Again no reason for it. The results should be without politics.
* the popular vote should count, every vote should count the same (now Presidential races are actually won in 1/3 of the states, the vast majority of the race has been won by one party before it begins, e.g. a Republican in California why bother to vote?)
* same with Congress, two Congressmen for each state, no matter the size? Highly unfair towards highly populated states
* statehood for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico to start with: no taxation without representation
* districts should be made up by independent committees, as much as possible. The people should choose their candidate and not the candidates choosing their electorate
* or abolish districts, thus abolishing first past the post system, it leads to a two-party system which will fight and not cooperate and the extremes are not involved/heard because the majority of votes will be won in the middle.
* strict financing laws. You cannot have Presidential races casting a billion dollars without expecting something in return, so that puts the interests of multinationals and the 1% first and the rest of America a distant second.

I know, it is totally unachievable, who would change the system which got them elected, but those are my thoughts.

flyingturtle wrote:

A reliable register of the population (e.g. a duty to notify authorities of someone's death or birth, a duty to notify authorities when moving to another address) would solve a lot of problems in that department. Couple it with automatic voter registration.

99% of fraud allegations would make POOF.

Good one, a good basic registration system for your people. No need to register to vote, I don't and yet I only missed one election in the perhaps 20 elections I could participate in. Four in the Netherlands and one for Europe. One of the good things that came from the Napoleon occupation.

bennett123 wrote:

Don't you have birth and death certificates in the US.

Of course. But the problem is sharing the data. A lot of grievances stem from the voter roll, which isn't kept up-to-date in a reliable manner.

Many countries had until recent an obligation as citizen to vote. I actually like that because it makes the population feel that they was part of the current regime not just someone else.

That would also force USA as example to find ways to make people actually vote.What I read and understand there is forces in USA trying to make it more difficult for groups of citizens to vote. That is a dangerous direction.

Of course, they are held centrally in the UK.

Swiss guy here. If I wanted an ID, I only have to walk to the municipal office - ta-dah! And with that ID, I can travel in all the EU. But for voting, I only need the temporary voter ID which I have to sign. It carries my address and a random number. If in doubt, they can ask me for my ID (which I have to carry anyway). Or they can look up if my address on the temporary ID is really tied to this random number.

The only voting fraud we have involves pushing people to fill out and sign mail-in ballots, e.g. in nursing homes.

Kent350787 wrote:

What would it take for the USA to develop an electoral system like most other democracies, where the "results are the results"?

Its like asking someone "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Kent350787 wrote:

Is the current system sufficiently valid that the main issue is a "big lie" campaign question voting security?

Thoughts?

The system is secure (the merits of the design of the college system aside), the issue is grown ups acting like children and having mantrums because their team didn't win.

Fred

May be if we shut down all modern communication of media.

Social Media and MSM are the weakest links for domestic and foreign meddling, you can fix what you know, but their sloppiness and greed for money will spring new holes delegitimizing elections.

The USA has a long and disturbing history of the integrity of its elections. Our 2-party structure. The in fact bribery based campaign funding. 'Gerrymandering' of voting districts by the controlling party. Continuing racial and economic group discrimination in access to vote. That we don't have a National ID (something few want). Electronic voting systems that can be hacked or programed for one candidate or another. The poor quality of candidates. Preventing full access to all adults, especially if Black, to be able to vote in many areas of the USA until the 1960's. This past year due to the Pandemic, new and untested systems like massive increases of the use of mail or in person early voting allowed more to vote. The slowness of counting votes in urban areas in key states. The demand to have the results of elections hours after closing time of in-person voting when they are not complete and may change after mail ballots counted days later. The Electoral College structure that gives too few states too much control as to who is President even if unlike any other US Election, the candidate who gets the most overall votes may lose.

Many reforms are needed. I support a new Federal Voting Rights Act with reforms to assure the right to vote and improve its integrity no matter where you live. We also need to end the money = speech aspect of our elections. Improve voting methods like all votes on paper with strict standards of how ballots are secured and counted. Improve voting registration and integrity of records. Failing to attempt reforms will lead to anarchy like we saw in DC at the Capital on January 6th.

flyingturtle wrote:

A reliable register of the population (e.g. a duty to notify authorities of someone's death or birth, a duty to notify authorities when moving to another address) would solve a lot of problems in that department. Couple it with automatic voter registration.

99% of fraud allegations would make POOF.

We have that Sweden and have had national one since 1749 and local ones for even longer. Nowadays we have "folkbokföringen" and personal identification numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populatio ... _in_Sweden
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkbokf% ... _i_Sverige

Dutchy wrote:

Good one, a good basic registration system for your people. No need to register to vote, I don't and yet I only missed one election in the perhaps 20 elections I could participate in. Four in the Netherlands and one for Europe. One of the good things that came from the Napoleon occupation.

The same here. Anyone who eligible will get voting papers sent out far in advance with info about date, polling station name and location. Valid photo-ID is also required though,

johns624 wrote:

My question is, what about Q Anon? The appearance of it seems to be the start of everything. Who is actually behind it? With all the hackers and internet experts, why has nobody been able to trace things back to the source? That leads me to believe that there's a LOT of money and brainpower behind it to keep it shielded from everyone.

Look into Cambridge Analytica / SCL Group.
Everybody was lambasting Facebook for "losing" customer data.
Nigh nobody looked into what SCL Group used that information for.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

The same here. Anyone who eligible will get voting papers sent out far in advance with info about date, polling station name and location. Valid photo-ID is also required though,

Get rid of publicly registering for party affiliation.
Info is perfect leverage for working voter manipulations.

Voter fraud is not really as big an issue as people think. There was one guy who voted twice in Pennsylvania. There was a link in another thread about "voter fraud" which was mostly people filling out voter registration forms illegally and not casting actual ballots. Those totaled about 1300 cases, IIRC.

We need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and demand critical thinking again, as well as pulling money from politics. Just because a group does not like the outcome of an election is no excuse for a violent overthrow of the government.

Kent350787 wrote:

In the overwhelming majority of the developed world, and many countries in the developing world, there is high trust in the various electoral systems. Fraud is demonstrably low, and rarely considered to be an issue in determining close election outcomes.

From what is reported, a significant proportion of the US electorate believes that wide-scale election fraud in key states has resulted in an illegitimate outcome. At the same time, election authorities have reported a high level of election security.

What would it take for the USA to develop an electoral system like most other democracies, where the "results are the results"? Is the current system sufficiently valid that the main issue is a "big lie" campaign question voting security?

Thoughts?

You have started with the assumption there is fraud in Federal elections. There is none.

This is a rhetorical trick - claim over and over again that fraud has occurred, then as the populace begins to believe the repeated lie, claim that there is no confidence in elections.

We have a big issue with truth in media and how sophisticated media entities literally change people's perceptions and attitudes by circulating lies.

I suppose my title suggests an assumption of fraud. But “fraud free” was in quotes.

What concerns me most is the millions of people that polling suggests believe that there was wide-scale election fraud. When there is no evidence of wide scale fraud.

Can the US recover from the Trump attack on its electoral system and move back to a “results are results” systems?

There is a lot of talk about voting not being done in person being somehow not trustworthy or safe. This is the explanation of how it happens in my country, in a simple to read document:

https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Public ... sy-eng.pdf

It's also possible that someone can become a general postal voter too, who will be sent ballot papers at each election. These can be people who aren't able to get to a polling place, etc. You can even be a silent elector, that means your address will not be shown on future editions of the publicly available roll.

https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vot ... ectors.htm

You can also vote ahead of the election day at a polling place. Our AEC generally works quite well and our elections run without issue.

I'm sure it's possible to prevent the allegations of fraud.

- Ban mail-in voting and early voting
- Mandatory photo ID's
- Universal paper ballots
- Voting counting done in public in front of cameras and observers
- Mandatory recounts for any margin under 5%
- Deadlines for when ballots must be delivered (i.e. poll workers have 30 minutes after poll closing time to deliver the ballots to the tabulator offices; otherwise the votes don't count

mjba257 wrote:

- Ban mail-in voting and early voting
- Mandatory photo ID's
- Universal paper ballots
- Voting counting done in public in front of cameras and observers
- Mandatory recounts for any margin under 5%
- Deadlines for when ballots must be delivered (i.e. poll workers have 30 minutes after poll closing time to deliver the ballots to the tabulator offices; otherwise the votes don't count

This is a laughably terrible idea.

Fraud free but it all hinges on poll workers delivering ballots on time as if they were delivering a pizza. How many cases of “oops I guess there was traffic coming from that majority (D) or (R) district! Guess we just have to throw all these votes away!" would it take? Great idea.

The only way any of these ideas even remotely works is if you set a limit on voters per polling site. No more of this nonsense where a county with a population of 100 gets 3 polling sites, while a major metropolitan area gets 1.

It's also extremely telling how insecure certain politicians are. If more people participating in the democratic process concerns you, then guess what...you don't represent the people.

FGITD wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

- Ban mail-in voting and early voting
- Mandatory photo ID's
- Universal paper ballots
- Voting counting done in public in front of cameras and observers
- Mandatory recounts for any margin under 5%
- Deadlines for when ballots must be delivered (i.e. poll workers have 30 minutes after poll closing time to deliver the ballots to the tabulator offices; otherwise the votes don't count

This is a laughably terrible idea.

Fraud free but it all hinges on poll workers delivering ballots on time as if they were delivering a pizza. How many cases of “oops I guess there was traffic coming from that majority (D) or (R) district! Guess we just have to throw all these votes away!" would it take? Great idea.

The only way any of these ideas even remotely works is if you set a limit on voters per polling site. No more of this nonsense where a county with a population of 100 gets 3 polling sites, while a major metropolitan area gets 1.

It's also extremely telling how insecure certain politicians are. If more people participating in the democratic process concerns you, then guess what...you don't represent the people.

Ok, 30 minutes is too short, I'll give you that. How about an hour?

mjba257 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

- Ban mail-in voting and early voting
- Mandatory photo ID's
- Universal paper ballots
- Voting counting done in public in front of cameras and observers
- Mandatory recounts for any margin under 5%
- Deadlines for when ballots must be delivered (i.e. poll workers have 30 minutes after poll closing time to deliver the ballots to the tabulator offices; otherwise the votes don't count

This is a laughably terrible idea.

Fraud free but it all hinges on poll workers delivering ballots on time as if they were delivering a pizza. How many cases of “oops I guess there was traffic coming from that majority (D) or (R) district! Guess we just have to throw all these votes away!" would it take? Great idea.

The only way any of these ideas even remotely works is if you set a limit on voters per polling site. No more of this nonsense where a county with a population of 100 gets 3 polling sites, while a major metropolitan area gets 1.

It's also extremely telling how insecure certain politicians are. If more people participating in the democratic process concerns you, then guess what...you don't represent the people.

Ok, 30 minutes is too short, I'll give you that. How about an hour?

Again, how you gonna do that with ‘universal paper ballots’? Small towns, no problem. Harris County - 4.7 million pop?? LA County - 10+ million pop??? Never gonna work.

mjba257 wrote:

- Ban mail-in voting and early voting
- Mandatory photo ID's
- Universal paper ballots
- Voting counting done in public in front of cameras and observers
- Mandatory recounts for any margin under 5%
- Deadlines for when ballots must be delivered (i.e. poll workers have 30 minutes after poll closing time to deliver the ballots to the tabulator offices; otherwise the votes don't count

I guess I know that in Republican stronghold areas I should get all my friends to create an enormous massive traffic jam lasting hours and hours (peak hour traffic in my city is exactly that). So sorry you arrived late, all of your Republican votes don't count.

That idea won't work at all. And it's just open to abuse.

My country doesn't require photo IDs for voting, yet our elections run quite smoothly.

Absentee means absentee. As in not in the area, not I’m too lazy to get off my rear and go vote.
Mail in ballot eligibility means I actually can’t get out an vote because I actually can’t get up and about to go vote.
Don’t want to go to the poll? You’re just lazy.
Ballot in the mail means you can get a ballot at home, fill it out, then get your butt to a poll to cast it.
Voter ID means I am who I say I am. I’m not dead, and I don’t live somewhere else. Scan on arrival at the polling location. Require renewal every 4 years. ID cards should be free.
On Federal Elections, only Federal Candidates. You can vote for dog catcher some other day. In alternate, two ballots. One Federal and one State/Local.
All states should be using a scan form by now. Make sure there is a paper trail. Use multiple systems in different States as we do today to prevent a single point of failure.
Give people a receipt of their ballot choices after the scan to make sure it registered correctly.
Mandatory double counts. Release preliminary numbers, then recount everything during the week.

WIederling wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

The same here. Anyone who eligible will get voting papers sent out far in advance with info about date, polling station name and location. Valid photo-ID is also required though,

Get rid of publicly registering for party affiliation.
Info is perfect leverage for working voter manipulations.

Never understood the party affiliation thing. Why is it there? Why do I need to register with a party? What I vote for is nobody's business and certainly not the government. If I want to be a party member, then I just join the political party of my choosing.

Why do I need to register in the US with a party affiliation.

Dutchy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

The same here. Anyone who eligible will get voting papers sent out far in advance with info about date, polling station name and location. Valid photo-ID is also required though,

Get rid of publicly registering for party affiliation.
Info is perfect leverage for working voter manipulations.

Never understood the party affiliation thing. Why is it there? Why do I need to register with a party? What I vote for is nobody's business and certainly not the government. If I want to be a party member, then I just join the political party of my choosing.

Why do I need to register in the US with a party affiliation.

You don’t need to register with a party, you can mark yourself as independent. Only consequence would be that you may not be able to vote in party primaries unless the state has open primary election laws.

Mandatory recounts if the margin is under 5%.

Apart from the number of areas where the margin is under 5%, if the recount shows a margin of under 5% what then.

Really this all assumes that election fraud is rampant. Is either party claiming this, or only for the elections that they lost?.

[threeid][/threeid]

bennett123 wrote:

Mandatory recounts if the margin is under 5%.

Apart from the number of areas where the margin is under 5%, if the recount shows a margin of under 5% what then.

Really this all assumes that election fraud is rampant. Is either party claiming this, or only for the elections that they lost?.

The other part of my question was, if the system is actually acceptably secure already, how does the USA move away from a significant minority doubting the veracity of the outcome?

flyguy89 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Get rid of publicly registering for party affiliation.
Info is perfect leverage for working voter manipulations.

Never understood the party affiliation thing. Why is it there? Why do I need to register with a party? What I vote for is nobody's business and certainly not the government. If I want to be a party member, then I just join the political party of my choosing.

Why do I need to register in the US with a party affiliation.

You don’t need to register with a party, you can mark yourself as independent. Only consequence would be that you may not be able to vote in party primaries unless the state has open primary election laws.

Why are the primaries a state affair and not an affair of the political party?

mjba257 wrote:

- Ban mail-in voting and early voting
- Mandatory photo ID's
- Universal paper ballots
- Voting counting done in public in front of cameras and observers
- Mandatory recounts for any margin under 5%
- Deadlines for when ballots must be delivered (i.e. poll workers have 30 minutes after poll closing time to deliver the ballots to the tabulator offices; otherwise the votes don't count

Your measures are far too draconian.

Why can’t someone vote just because they happen to be out of state on the day of the election?

5% is a pretty big margin for a mandatory recount. What happens when the recount is also under 5% margin?

30 minutes to get ballot boxes to tabulators is too tight in more rural areas and even in more densely populated areas 30 minutes could be gone with a blown tyre or a traffic accident.

A vote with 0% fraud is likely impossible. Certainly not practical. The biggest hurdle is... how do you actually measure if? Without that you can't even guarantee to reduce fraud let alone eradicate it. Without measuring, how do you even know there is an issue that needs addressing?

People are talking about massive fraud almost solely because a single man with an orange face says there is massive fraud. This same man said quite openly, before the election, that if he did not win then it must be fraudulent. Is that the level of proof that we need to even begin to discuss it, let alone look for ways to lower it?

Not one of his court cases alleged fraud (as far as I'm aware at the moment) yet most of his supporters still claim fraud. Why is that?
What proof has he actually produced that isn't totally circumstantial, an opinion without conclusion on an image or video, contained in a bundle of papers that he's not published or is not purely in his head? How many of his "hundreds and thousands" of his affidavits have been seen? Why is the word of a man that is 100% self centered and known to tell lie about pretty much anything trusted over and above the election officials that were employed by his own party, pretty much all of which says there was absolutely no widespread fraud. If I was a US citizen then I'd be demanding to see all this proof because I'd want to make sure someone was doing something about it.

Trump is VERY good at much of what he does (the leader of a flock). Unfortunately none of what he did was actually being a president.

scbriml wrote:

30 minutes to get ballot boxes to tabulators is too tight in more rural areas and even in more densely populated areas 30 minutes could be gone with a blown tyre or a traffic accident.

I don't get this.

Here ( Germany ) people (volunteers or assigned )
get tasked with supervising the polling and the polling station.
They also manage the individual "Wahlscheine" and run them against the voter register.

After closing the same people count the ballots. ( 30min .. 90min )
preliminary info is faxed/phoned in.
ballots are packed and delivered "upstream" together with the vote accounting.
( all are archived centrally for recounts ( short and longterm )

anybody can watch the voting and counting afterwards.

WIederling wrote:

After closing the same people count the ballots. ( 30min .. 90min )
preliminary info is faxed/phoned in.
ballots are packed and delivered "upstream" together with the vote accounting.
( all are archived centrally for recounts ( short and longterm )

anybody can watch the voting and counting afterwards.

It's almost like rocket science.

In the US they would have to decide whether "open carry" was allowed first, then who gets the franchise for the hamburger stands, whether it's all you can eat or single portions and then several other things before you could actually get to the voting procedures.

Their hamburger stand was bigger than ours!

As several times proven, there was no fraud.

Ok, to get it "fraud free" (discussion); bring all trump fans together at one place for a nice picture with their greatest "Führer"...and use a B83 with 1.2 Mt yield as flashlight.

johns624 wrote:

moo wrote:

The problem the US has is not that the electoral system is fundamentally broken, its that people don't like the outcome if its not what they want - they then use "distrust in the electoral system" as support for their dislike of the outcome, as a reason for that dislike.

It all started 4+ years ago. First, any mainstream news was "fake". Once you get easily led people to believe that anything real is fake, you can start to brainwash them. Up is down and left is right.
My question is, what about Q Anon? The appearance of it seems to be the start of everything. Who is actually behind it? With all the hackers and internet experts, why has nobody been able to trace things back to the source? That leads me to believe that there's a LOT of money and brainpower behind it to keep it shielded from everyone.

Probably nothing more than a 40 year old, overweight nerd, with Cheeto stained fingers in his mothers basement.

Dutchy wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Never understood the party affiliation thing. Why is it there? Why do I need to register with a party? What I vote for is nobody's business and certainly not the government. If I want to be a party member, then I just join the political party of my choosing.

Why do I need to register in the US with a party affiliation.

You don’t need to register with a party, you can mark yourself as independent. Only consequence would be that you may not be able to vote in party primaries unless the state has open primary election laws.

Why are the primaries a state affair and not an affair of the political party?

They’re supposed to largely be party affairs...but of course with there only being two major parties it can get a bit muddied.