Oregon has them every year.
They’ve been running their elections by mail for 22 years.
And absentee ballots are voting by mail.
We have had them forever.
And for 22 years or more liberals have been in charge. Oregon doesn’t need election fraud. It is already entirely owned by liberals. So there’s that.
1 Like
You do just believe things on faith and require no evidence, don’t you?
At least several top Republicans, including Trump, were honest about what this is all about.
More people voting is bad for Republicans.
They’re telling people exactly what they’re doing, and they know their supporters won’t complain in the slightest.
That’s a really stupid statement disguised as a question.Try again.
Not one instance of fraud in an election in these examples. Do you have any actual evidence of vote fraud – which is the issue at hand?
Your viewpoint is fair enough.
I see how problematic it is in most justices across American courts presiding without term limits once appointed.
For example, I am sure many people saw the day after Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wearing the dissent collar. The decision to wear it was interpreted as RBG’s way of objecting to Trump’s victory. Especially since she had, earlier that summer, criticized the idea of Trump becoming president.
I illustrate her as one example of inherit flaws in why it is not reasonable to believe it possible to expect mere mortals to act “politically” impartial when it comes to the rendering of their respective opinions from the bench.
1 Like
Textbook definitions of fraud, even in this isolated context, typically include the concept of wrongful deception still intended to result in (political) gain. Just because you wish in defining fraud to insist it so narrow a concept of where only outright and proven criminal deception counts, it still does not pass mustard with many of us others.
For example, finding diabolical ways to effectively circumvent prosecution for voter fraud capers does not equate to efforts still be intensive and ongoing nonetheless. I cited examples of how abuses in not attempting to removing registered voters head on in a timely manner led to abuses down the road. Many of us choose to not look the other way. Any political party is clever enough to proactively dance around or not get caught red handed. Escaping criminal association and thus notoriety is another game often played here. Last I looked it is still very much a legal principle of holding people accountable. No one can escape liability for violating that law merely because one says they were unaware.
With the understanding that perfection is obviously beyond reach, I believe it is possible to craft a merit selection system that, to the extent humanly possible, balances out political and legal biases.
What I would push for in a Merit Selection Panel:
-
Half to be appointed by the Governor, half to be appointed by the highest ranking minority party official in the State.
-
Of each half, a certain number would be from the civil plaintiffs bar, civil defendants bar, criminal prosecution bar and criminal defense bar, as well as a couple of lay people. But allocated in such a way so that there is never more than 25% civil plaintiffs attorneys on the commission.
-
Super-majority requirement for recommending candidates to the Governor, which would require a general consensus on candidates.
-
A requirement that candidates be chosen from a variety of interest bars and a limitation of 30% to 33% on candidates from the Civil Trial Bar.
-
The Governor would make his final selection for a Judicial post from the top 3 candidates recommended by the commission.
I pursue 3 goals with this:
-
Merit selection would ensure that candidates are of the highest caliber, in education, experience and temperament.
-
Since the commissions would be ideologically balanced and a super-majority required, candidates would reflect a broader consensus, rather than a narrow ideological viewpoint. It would seek to avoid the situation we see with the Federal Courts, where President’s of either party try to flood the courts with their preferred point of view.
-
The Civil Trial Bar’s influence would be curtailed, both on the commissions and ultimately on the bench. This would prevent the development of a Judicial Hellhole, a condition that exists when the Civil Trial Bar controls the State judiciary.
Obviously, it will not be perfect. No system can be. But I think it would be a helpful step. And it has worked well where it has been tried, some States better than others do to the nuances of each individual State in setting up merit selection.
One big thing that merit selection eliminates is judicial campaign money. When you have both parties spending millions trying to buy Supreme Court seats, there is going to be a problem sooner or later.
Florida learned the hard way in the 1970’s, when 5 of its 7 Justices were removed from office or resigned for various reasons.
1 Like
Basically you are citing that databases are messy. Find me any database in the real world that is not messy.
The evidence of actual voter fraud wouldn’t fill more than a page or two… no matter how much you try to spin it.
Your words messy and evidence, made me think of something I originally heard on Morning Edition in August 2012 with Frank Deford saying:
“Proof is in the Pudding”
A listener wrote in to say that keeping proof in a pudding would be messy (to your point).
The original proverb is:
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
And what it meant was that you had to try out food to know whether it was good.
Hence, many are concluding the data is the many samplings of voter fraud being found outright rotten.
No spin, but rather we spit it out in the sink…
Proverbs are all well and good, but they do not make up for the lack of evidence of actual voter fraud. Our President commissioned a group of his "best people"l to investigate this issue in 2017 and they came up completely empty-handed.
Or you could just take President Trump’s approach when he warned last week that if more citizens are able to vote then Republicans will struggle to win elections. I respect the President for his refreshing honesty.
Isn’t Trump’s explanation sufficient for you?
We can agree, yes, "they came up completely empty handed. "
Which from my way of thinking means to “cover your tracks.”
The Dems clearly hid and destroyed evidence.
Judicial Watch only found the dead bodies of voter registrants already buried and decomposed.
Excuse me, I could not resist with another one of my idioms…
1 Like
So your position is that failures to find evidence are of no value because the evidence has to exist. And if the evidence does not exist you are going to continue to insist the contrary.
This whole fraud argument is a scam intended to support President Trump’s clear statement that Republicans need to prevent citizens from voting so that Republicans can win.
Actually, my position is the system works well enough “as is.” The laws and oversight in place seem to be mitigating the # of new criminal cases for the type of voter fraud you seem to feel is kept in check fairly well. Thus, I would support a status quo in how the voting laws in effect are right now.
What?
There has been a substantial shift in law that is ongoing, with the pace accelerating after the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. So which status quo do you favor? Three years back, today, or where the Republicans would like us to be three years from now?
Today is fine. The November election results will dictate a lot about what happens next.
Wisconsin Republicans are trying to purge 200,000 registered voters. This is what the brouhaha around the vote in Wisconsin was about. You would have that stopped, I presume. As the five Republicans on the Supreme Court, sitting in their sheltered locations, voted to insist that people who wanted to vote in Wisconsin had to spend time in public to do so, that’s what hung in the balance.
We will get the Wisconsin vote results tomorrow or Tuesday, I don’t remember which.
Certainly the Dems having a governor and the convention in Wisconsin are prioritizing this state as one that can be won back. The flip flop by Evers confused me, before I answer, what’s your take on why did he not align early on with other primary states in delaying upfront shortly after a National Emergency was declared by the POTUS?
1 Like
I have no clue, but I find this line of discussion a distraction from decisions made by the Supreme Court to insist that Wisconsin voters place their lives at risk to exercise the right to vote. If we accept that this is a National Emergency why did the Roberts’ Court base their ruling on the view that these are “normal times.” If the court was right, Evans had no reason to react to the President. If Evans failure to react matters, then that exposes what partisan nonsense the Roberts Court ruling was.
