Message from @True
Discord ID: 777032681757081610
ah
well actually it's more complicated ...
the US Constitution allows for the state legislature to pick the method to determine the electors BUT the Constitution also sets the dates so there's no time for a runoff prior to certifying and selecting electors
but they can have their Sen runoff in Jan and still have Sen ready to be sworn in for the next Congress
okay it's federal election law as voted by US Congress for the dates as per the Constitution to be very picky but you get idea
okay back to the GA Sen race ... there's like 86k vote advantage for the Rep with 114k voting for the Libertarian candidate ... Dem candidate would have to take 3 out of 4 of every Libertarian voter just to even to total ... my belief is that a Libertarian voter will want gridlock in DC if they can't have their candidate and will break heavy Rep also there's at least 46k that voted in Pres race that didn't vote for Rep Sen but are all of those going to come out for the Sen race AND vote Dem?
and all the Rep have to do is get ONE GA Sen seat to ensure 51 seat majority ... Dems have to get BOTH to get a 50/50 tie with VP Harris being the tie-breaker
and then there is Manchin from West "by God" Virginia ... an old-time Democrat that ain't for "crazy socialist agenda" <insert AOC stare here>
This whole thing could have been avoided with ranked choice
How dare you try to use logic!!!
ready for a month long lockdown? aFULL lockdown they said, not the partial one we did.
of course, then there's Sweden that never had a lockdown, but then what do they know
You get what you vote for. 🤷♀️
> This whole thing could have been avoided with ranked choice
@DrSammyD I'm fine with it but neither of the two parties are because the rise of 3rd party in such a system could be very swift
Yup. In a ranked choice system the political parties lose power, giving more power to individual politicians who can now gain more nuanced support. So it will sadly never happen
if you want levity, try this: https://youtu.be/Cdd8QRi_OvI
A little too narrow. Would be better to listen to deep throat.
Follow the money.
There are many ways to interfer with elections. Nazi germany openly erected organisations for this purpose in the 30ies. They were dealt with.
One can not expect countries like south africa to deal with foreign influence effectively, but one would think America could have addressed this earlier. For some reason that has not happened.
On the other hand, can you really complain if you build a brothel in Gotham city and it fills up with saudi princes and chinese bankers?
That's scary
IMO in this entire discussion we need to reverse the standard of proof. Any election needs to prove it was a valid measure of the voter's will. All the election laws and standards are designed to supply the means of proving that. Thinks like registration, voter id, ballot integrity, vote anonymity, observation and challenge processes, document retention. If all these are followed, it provides the required standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When these standards are eroded, obstructed or applied unevenly, reasonable doubt in the results is introduced.
This is the philosophical basis of election validity; not sure how it stacks up legally--but the "nothing to see here" crowd deliberately ignore this reality.
After all, isn't an election certification also a government decision, just as a court finding or executive action? Shouldn't it be based on due process and a standard of proof that sides with the people against the government?
It's siding with the people as we speak with our judicial system as the arbitrating mechanism designed to do precisely that. Further, if you're suggesting that all these claims are operatively vaild until someone figures out a way to prove absence of existence, you're going to be disappointed.
A good way to engage the "'nothing to see here' crowd" should not have included every hysterical, ridiculous on it's face accusation which relies upon ignorance of controls which are, in fact, in place. That was self inflicted and I imagine many credibility ships have sailed. Moreover, only already credulous people are impressed by volume.
So you're all good with zero signature verification combined with unlimited ballot harvesting and thousands of extra ballots floating around the populace? Still nothing to see? Even if no more specific election fraud is ever proven, you have to concede that election design is hopelessly flawed. The trendline of such a configuration can only benefit those already in power.
I'm speaking philosophically. This has no legal impact. The question is, was this a good election? Is this how we should do this? What do we want to change for next time? That's the role of philosophy
I suggest that the established, unidirectional burden of proof is appropriate in both senses of the discussion. I would philosophically argue that controls are very much the proof you're suggesting and that's not by accident. All you're really saying is that we need more controls...and I would agree that there is no such thing as too much regulation. I have no idea the scope of what is in place (I don't think you do either) but would endorse introducing more controls, yes.
No. Were saying that the controls that are there weren't applied. That's what the statistical evidence shows when looking at ballot rejection rates and extremely high # of single vote ballots specifically in swing states that went for one candidate, but not in the states that went for the other
Perfect. That will be proven out in courts of law. We're good.
No it won't. Statistical evidence doesn't work to prove voter fraud.
Maybe there is a reason for that?
Sure. Doesn't mean we actually had a fair election