If Trump wins the election thru fraud how can the democrats refute it and prove they won? Or will it just be like another Jan 6 and four years of whining like Trump?
If Trump wins the election thru fraud how can the democrats refute it and prove they won? Or will it just be like another Jan 6 and four years of whining like Trump?
Same as happened in 2000, we'll get 8 years of the guy who lost.
We already had four years so technically we would only get another four.
Until SCOTUS says the constitution isn't constitutional and gives him a literal crown.
And then Jared Kushner touring with Democrats in 2040.
The scary thing about elections is that, by design, nobody can ever "prove" they won.
Votes are designed to be anonymous. They have to be. If they're not, they're very vulnerable to manipulation. If someone can prove how they voted, then they can either be bribed to vote a certain way, or threatened to vote a certain way. If you can check that your vote was counted successfully for the candidate you chose, then someone else can check that you voted for the candidate they chose.
That means that, by design, the only security that elections can have is in the process. In a small election, like 1000ish votes or fewer, someone could supervise the whole thing. They could cast their vote, then stand there and watch. They could watch as other people voted, making sure that nobody voted twice, or dropped more than one sheet into the box. They could watch as the box was emptied. Then, they could watch as each vote was tallied. Barring some sleight-of-hand, in a small election like that, you could theoretically supervise the entire process, and convince yourself that the vote was fair.
But, that is impossible to scale. Even for 1000 votes, not every voter could supervise the entire process, and for more than 1000 votes, or votes involving more than one voting location, it's just not possible for one person to watch the entire thing. So, at some point you need to trust other people. If you're talking say 10,000 votes, maybe you have 10 people you trust beyond a shadow of a doubt, and each one of you could supervise one process. But, the bigger the election, the more impossible it is to have actual people you know and trust supervising everything.
In a huge country-wide election, there's simply no alternative to trust. You have to trust poll workers you've never met, and/or election monitors you've never met. And, since you're not likely to hear directly from poll workers or election monitors, you have to instead trust the news source you're using that reports on the election. In a big, complex election, a statistician may be able to spot fraud based on all the information available. But, if you're not that statistician, you have to trust them, and even if you are that statistician, you have to trust that your model is correct and that the data you're feeding it is correct.
Society is built on trust, and voting is no different. Unfortunately, in the US, trust is breaking down, and without trust, it's just a matter of which narrative seems the most "truthy" to you.
This makes me think we are on the same path as many countries who routinely have significant civil conflict every election cycle.
Not a great look for a country. Not a great group to join. Yet here we are.
They can tell who votes. Your entire premise is based on a belief that votes are anonymous. They aren't. They are pretected from the public. If you have ever worked in election, which I have, you would know that. You have to cross reference if someone voted twice, are alive, or even registered in the county they voted in. There are computers that verify electronic bullets and there are batch audits. No one is ever allowed to be alone even with one ballet. Everything is done in a team. If your partner calls in sick, you're the third wheel to another team.
Just because the public doesn't know doesn't mean the government doesn't know.
Votes are anonymous. You can tell who voted, but not what they voted for. It's crucial for the fairness of elections that a vote cannot be definitively connected to the individual who cast it; if you could, you could coerce or retaliate.
And all of the things you mention are the trust OP is talking about. You were a trusted person in that situation. The process increases and validates trust.
In France we get an anonymous code and we can plug it into a website and it tells us if our ballot was counted or not, and if it wasn’t counted why. (markings on ballott, multiple candidates selected for one spot, etc.)
Right, but no way to verify who you voted for.
And, you have to trust that the website is telling you the truth. You have no way of verifying that it always gives the same answer to everybody. I guess someone could test that there's some connection to their real ballot by intentionally screwing up their ballot. But, that doesn't mean that there's any way to prove that when it's counted that the actual tally for the person / people you voted for are going up not down.
If we're saying "Trump won" what do we mean? The election is certified and he gets to be sworn in? If that's the case then there is absolutely nothing that can be done. We'll have PBS and 60 minutes stories about what happened and we'll just have to suffer the reality that they got what they wanted.
If he claims to have won on Tuesday, but the results aren't in completely then there is room to argue. It would just be bluster, it wouldn't be officially recognized as a victory. When he does that it will be to ensure he can cry foul if the final results don't go his way. He 100000000% will be doing this.
I have just watched the Legal Eagle video about the various law-related things that happened around the 2020 election.
It served as a reminder that the plan had apparently been to claim to have won before all the votes were counted - something about doing so in the interim between two sets of votes being counted (I want to say mail-in versus in-person, but I might have misunderstood) and then act as if Trump had actually won at that point, thus giving legitimacy to any later cry of foul that was almost sure to be needed.
Which is precisely what Trump did.
... my point being that it would be foolish to assume it wasn't in the play book for this time around as well.
What I'm interested in seeing is if fox news will be willing to cast off any remaining semblance of fairness in favor of calling the election for him as well.
They won't.
It's like MLK said - the white liberal will always prefer "a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice."
That's the whole reason they didn't bat an eyelid when Neo-Nazis and KKK-boys were marching under open police protection back in 2016 but collectively lost their shit when antifa showed up to physically confront them.
This is a dumb question but how do people get in touch with people in Antifa or Qanon because I highly doubt they have like a dedicated website or email?
You don't get in touch with "people in Antifa", because there's no such thing as being "in" Antifa. It's the idea of being against fascism, not a group of people.
qanon is, as the name suggests, anonymous, so you don't contact qanon, qanon posts some dumb shit and you have no real way of identifying whether it was the real dipshit or a fake dipshit. there is no national qanon organization, only cult weirdos looking for secret codes on facebook, who you can talk to, I guess
generally the best way to contact antifa is to form your own group and then talk to them. second best is probably praying that you have a local group that isn't a scam and has a PR side that you can instagram. there is no national or world antifa org; if you're doing antifa shit then you're antifa now
You find antifa by being antifa. Thats its power. Suit up, show up, punch some Nazis, drop some sweet drugs, get laid.
Its a fun a group good people.
Pick one or the other. Antifa and QAnon are polar opposites
Remember Bush v Gore?
Just like that.
Nope, I was 3
First, don't panic. Harris and her staff, and Democrats around the country, they have planned for many shady actions on Trump's part. Details are scarce because they don't want Trump staff to have a heads up.
And then everything depends on the details.
But remember, anything that looks like a coup d'etat could easily get the military or spy agencies involved. And if they move, it doesn't matter what SCOTUS says. As a result, it's very hard to predict what would happen in various extra dramatic situations. There is no precedent; precedent wouldn't mean anything anyway.
Source? First I've heard of anything like this. I'd imagine a lot of things would have to be settled in court given the US's strange laws giving states so much leeway in how they conduct federal elections.
The premise here is that Trump loses but refuses to back down, attempting to forcibly claim victory. If Trump legitimately wins, there is a different path. Then...
Assuming multiple systematic failures occur simultaneously, including any of: actual voter fraud, fraudulent electors, congress refusing to certify, a captured supreme court acting in favour of Trump, or actual insurrection on or before Jan 6th.
I actually expect the US Military to step in. Every member is sworn to uphold the constitution. But if the constitution has been discarded, then I'd expect them to step in to restore it.
Failing that, the US likely fractures and we leave the Republic phase.
I actually expect the US Military to step in. Every member is sworn to uphold the constitution. But if the constitution has been discarded, then I'd expect them to step in to restore it.
Have you met the Oathkeepers?
If shit goes down, assume anyone with a uniform is going to throw in with the authoritarian despot.
See I wouldn't be to sure. There's plenty of left leaning people who would fight to help restore the US. In the armed forces and by in large they have higher positions. Not necessarily higher as in commander positions but just non grunt ones. At least from what I hear from the friends and family I have in the various branches of the armed forces.
If Trump wins through fraud Liberals will find a way to blame third party voters and continue to blame them for the next four years, other then that they might complain.
depends how close it is and which state acts like shit
If somehow there is fraud, then it won’t be like Jan 6.
If trump wins
He will simply have his detrackters.. Eliminated
Bruh you can't even spell detractors. Cease the political hottakes lol
Through fraud? Are u saying if he wins it will be through fraud?
You don't remember the alternative delegates they attempted to send last time? That's fraud, and there's no reason they won't try it again this time
Yes. Yes we are. On account of the massive amount of fraud that's been coming out of his corner for 8 years and counting.
That Trump is committing voter fraud is a given guarantee, whether it lets him win or not is what's up in question.