USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[David Barrett]

Voter ID laws are interesting for how divisive they are. People on both
sides argue that the other side is motivated exclusively to dismantle
democracy.  And this all seems to derive from there being no agreement upon
the basic fact as to whether or not fraud is significant or non-existent.

If you believe that fraud is basically non-existent, then it makes sense to
be opposed to requiring an ID to vote because the problem it aims to solve
doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way and thus there is negligible
real world benefit to checking IDs. But despite the lack of benefit, there
are tangible real world problems, because voting is supposed to be free,
but IDs are not free (nor are they equally easy to get for people of
different backgrounds), and thus voter IDs are the equivalent of a poll tax
which marginalizes poor voters, along with other legal voters for whom
getting an ID is problematic for other reasons.

On the other hand, if you believe that fraud is widespread and common, then
it makes it ton of sense to support voter IDs because you would believe
that they are solving a real existent problem threatening the very core of
democracy. And even if you acknowledge that requiring an ID does block some
legitimate voters, you would believe it blocks far more fraud and thus that
is a valid trade-off.

So your support of voter ID laws really derives from whether or not you
believe fraud exists in the first place.

If you believe fraud exists, then voter IDs seem obvious, and anyone
pushing back on them must be part of the fraud.  If you believe the fraud
does not exist, then voter IDs clearly solve no actual problem, and anyone
supporting them clearly just wants to disenfranchise poor voters.

It's scary how something as huge as "were millions of votes fraudulent, and
was virtually everyone involved in the election in on the conspiracy to
cover it up?" can be up for debate, with each side convinced in the
righteousness of their perspective and incredulous that anyone could
possibly disagree.

Both sides think the controversy is as idiotic as a flat Earth conspiracy.
But it's unclear which side believes the Earth is round.

David

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 8:55 AM grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ink_used_in_India_Elections.jpg
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machine
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_counting
>
> Here we see Democrats electioneering more avenues
> to support their own fraudulent entrenchment, just like Biden-Dems
> importing million of "migrants / false-asylums" over US South border
> for sole purpose of buying their vote for Dems by giving citizenship.
>
> Recall that cypherpunks already created many fully transparent auditable
> noncorruptible nonfraudable digital and paper voting systems.
> And that with even old India system of biomarking ink, not even any stupid
> Govt ID databases power or registering is needed to prevent multiple
> voting.
> And that democracy and voting is a fraud because voting your will of
> force over other free peoples who did nothing to you... is a crime.
>
>
>
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/17/why_hr1_threatens_election_integrity_145416.html
>
> Why HR1 Threatens Election Integrity
>
> Much ink has been spilled warning of the ramifications should
> Democrats pass their election “reform” package, HR1 -- and for good
> reason, given how the bill would upend our nation’s electoral system.
>
> Democrats claim HR1 is aimed at maximizing voter participation and
> ending corruption in our election systems, but the truth is that the
> legislation would do neither. Instead, it will only serve to open up
> our states’ elections to fraud and public mistrust at a time when we
> need to bolster voter confidence.
>
> Let’s look at just a few of the many areas where HR1 would nationalize
> elections and cancel out state integrity and confidence-building
> measures.
>
> First, the measure voids dozens of longstanding state voting
> procedures, many of which are relatively non-controversial and serve
> to give voters confidence in the accuracy and integrity of our
> elections process. HR1 would invalidate photo ID requirements -- such
> as those in Indiana -- that the Supreme Court have found
> constitutional and important confidence builders. These laws are
> popular with large majorities of Americans, and despite critics’
> fearmongering they have not negatively impacted voter participation.
>
> HR1 would also force states to allow ballot harvesting, a practice
> where third parties, usually political operatives, collect and return
> marked mail ballots. Laws restricting harvesting, which are also
> popular, deter fraud because they preserve a marked-ballot chain of
> custody and prevent coercion and undue influence on the elderly and
> other voters. Yet Democrats want to override these laws and normalize
> harvesting.
>
> Just last week we saw additional criminal charges against candidates
> in an all-mail city council election in Paterson, N.J., for vote fraud
> related to harvesting and tampering with ballots. The fraud was so
> pervasive that a local judge voided the election and ordered a new
> one. There was also the infamous congressional race in North Carolina
> in 2018, when the election had to be thrown out because of fraud
> initiated through ballot harvesting. The good news is that ballot
> harvesting bans help prevent and detect these exact types of crimes.
> But if Congress nationalizes ballot harvesting through HR1, these
> stories may go from being cautionary tales to the new norm.
>
> To date, the Republican National Committee has been successful in
> beating the Democrats in court challenges to harvesting bans and has
> been vocal about the need for bans. And they are not inherently
> partisan since many states, both blue and red, either prohibit
> harvesting or severely restrict it. Now, after losing in the courts,
> Democrats seek to impose the practice from Washington, D.C., with the
> arrogant belief that they know better than state legislatures about
> the election integrity measures their states require.
>
> HR1 will also further restrict states from cleaning up their voter
> rolls. Under current federal law, a state must stop programs that
> remove ineligible voters from the rolls within 90 days before a
> federal election. This blackout period already significantly limits a
> state’s ability to remove voters who may have moved away,  died, or
> are otherwise ineligible to vote because it applies to periods before
> both primaries and general elections. The Democrats propose expanding
> that blackout period for many programs to six months before any
> federal election. Not only will this prevent states from cleaning up
> their rolls in a federal election year, it will expand that period for
> many states into the off years.
>
> Voter roll maintenance not only enhances election integrity by
> ensuring only eligible voters can cast ballots, it also promotes
> access by ensuring voters are properly registered when they do go to
> vote, thus preventing lines and provisional ballots that may not
> count. No wonder both parties have historically agreed on the
> importance of voter registration list upkeep. HR1’s restrictions make
> Democrats’ intentions clear: They have abandoned any pretense that
> they still care about this issue that was once welcomed as reasonable
> and routine.
>
> Cynics say that Republicans oppose this legislation because we want to
> restrict people from voting. This could not be further from the truth.
> The reality is that we want all eligible voters to be able to vote and
> vote easily — but voters must also have confidence that our elections
> systems have safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure accuracy. Previous
> federal election legislation such as the NVRA and HAVA made some
> attempt to balance the interests of voter integrity and access. But
> HR1 eliminates any pretense altogether by invaliding states’
> reasonable ID requirements, mandating ballot harvesting, and enacting
> obstacles to critical voter roll maintenance.
>
> The American people do not want a Washington takeover of their
> elections at the hands of congressional Democrats. They want election
> transparency and confidence in their future elections restored. These
> motives are exactly what the RNC will continue to fight for, both in
> the lead-up to the critical midterms and ahead of all elections to
> come.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 9881 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210320/c53c7e58/attachment.txt>