I cannot verify or convince myself of the believability of an election. Therefore, it is reasonable for conservatives to not be able to convince themselves of the believability of an election. Therefore, while I believe that the conservative effort to deny elections is done in bad faith, there is a good faith argument to be made that there is a very serious problem with our elections.
The moral hazard is that because conservatives are bad faith, I can't imagine a good faith effort to improve election integrity.
> What has you concerned by the integrity of the elections?
What has me concerned is that our elections are complex beyond a layman's ability to communicate a meaningful story about how elections are conducted and why they are to be trusted. A layman is left with only one option: trust.
"Trust us" is not a good foundation to build a democracy upon. Especially if "us" is someone who has declared themselves an enemy, if not in words, definitely in action.
If that's not enough, the highest office in our land, literally called an election official on tape and asked for votes, and there has been no consequences. A system incapable of producing consequences for bad actors cannot maintain integrity.
The end result of that saga was a person making the ethical choice, but what prevented the secretary of state from finding those votes? I don't know what would have prevented it or what safeguards there were. Even if he "found" those votes, and even if it were caught, there would have been chaos, and that chaos would have been used as a ladder. History is always written by the winners as they say, so history will always report elections as legitimate, regardless of how chaos was used as a tool to shift outcomes.
Do you think Americans decided the outcome of the 2000 election, or do you think the judicial branch did?
What do you think happened to Raffensperger after he chose to do the right thing and deny trump his request to corrupt the election? The state voted to remove him (the secretary of state position itself) from the state election board chair.
As one last final note, there has been considerable effort to attack elections, the whole DeJoy thing alone should be worrying. "I trust our elections" liberals are going to look awfully silly when the conservative assault on election integrity starts showing fruit. Gerrymandering and limited polling locations alone are an assault on election integrity without being a "direct" attack on integrity. If that can be done consequence free, what makes you feel so secure?
The moral hazard is that because conservatives are bad faith, I can't imagine a good faith effort to improve election integrity.
> What has you concerned by the integrity of the elections?
What has me concerned is that our elections are complex beyond a layman's ability to communicate a meaningful story about how elections are conducted and why they are to be trusted. A layman is left with only one option: trust.
"Trust us" is not a good foundation to build a democracy upon. Especially if "us" is someone who has declared themselves an enemy, if not in words, definitely in action.
If that's not enough, the highest office in our land, literally called an election official on tape and asked for votes, and there has been no consequences. A system incapable of producing consequences for bad actors cannot maintain integrity.
The end result of that saga was a person making the ethical choice, but what prevented the secretary of state from finding those votes? I don't know what would have prevented it or what safeguards there were. Even if he "found" those votes, and even if it were caught, there would have been chaos, and that chaos would have been used as a ladder. History is always written by the winners as they say, so history will always report elections as legitimate, regardless of how chaos was used as a tool to shift outcomes.
Do you think Americans decided the outcome of the 2000 election, or do you think the judicial branch did?
What do you think happened to Raffensperger after he chose to do the right thing and deny trump his request to corrupt the election? The state voted to remove him (the secretary of state position itself) from the state election board chair.
As one last final note, there has been considerable effort to attack elections, the whole DeJoy thing alone should be worrying. "I trust our elections" liberals are going to look awfully silly when the conservative assault on election integrity starts showing fruit. Gerrymandering and limited polling locations alone are an assault on election integrity without being a "direct" attack on integrity. If that can be done consequence free, what makes you feel so secure?