Donald Trump Statement on Election 12-2-2020

[AZRedhawk44]

Disagreement is the cornerstone of war, so failing to agree is war.

Disagreement isn't war.

Assertion of one's will over another is war.

I sure hope we're not at war.  I don't think my "nonsensical" stance is causing you a degree of harm you feel you need to go to war over it.  We seem to disagree on it.  I'm not going to assert my will over you, you're free to think it's nonsensical.  Are you determined to force me to think it's nonsensical?

[zahc]

I hate Trump.  I hate democracy.

And I support a full 100% audit of this election.

I work in software development.  And I would never trust a conventional computer system to tally votes.  Even if it's open source code.  

About the only way I see electronic voting ever working with any sort of trust would be via a distributed blockchain environment, with public accountability for individual votes (you can take each integer vote on each ballot measure or candidate race and correlate it to a voter ID, and see that voter ID is of a valid person and not deceased).  Private/public key pairs won't work without some way to correlate each and every issued key to a valid voter (i.e. voter registration).

Even voter registration by itself, without a clear trail of aggregation operations, is quite vulnerable to abuse.  Many states destroy the primary evidence (the paper ballots and the scanned images of those ballots) after the election.

People need to be able to look up their own voter ID and see that their votes are safely tallied as they indicated, and that the sums are sane.  Distributing elections record-keeping through a blockchain and opening processing of those transactions to the public at large, as widely as possible, makes tampering impossible since the member servers will deny illegitimate transactions.

I think the day of anonymous voting, and lack of public accountability for your vote, needs to end.  The only way to eliminate this doubt of election sanity, once and for all, is for all of you to be able to know concretely that I didn't cast a single vote for anything in 2020, and for that to be public knowledge, for Ron's votes in 2020 to be public knowledge, and Charby's, and Mike Irwin's, and everyone's.  And to be able to examine the set of voters, and cross reference it against those who have standing/legitimacy as voters.  A "left join" of sorts, exposing non-franchised and deceased at a public scale.  And the issuing authority that allowed that key pair / wallet for votes to be created in the first place.

None of that is needed. It's easy to conduct a secure election. You just have to want to. Our elections are insecure because we want it that way. It's like how our tax code is complicated because we want it to be, not because we don't know how to fix it.

The UN has guidelines for running an election that is secure and has the appearance of security. All that is required is to do that. We just don't want to. Until we want to, there's no point in discussing anything more elaborate than the basics.

The UN guidelines specify paper ballots, a transparent ballot box (which I have never seen in America), photo ID check (rarely seen) and finger ink (never seen in America). If you can't even do something a simple as clear ballot boxes, there's no need to get complicated with solutions.

[Ben]

None of that is needed. It's easy to conduct a secure election. You just have to want to. Our elections are insecure because we want it that way. It's like how our tax code is complicated because we want it to be, not because we don't know how to fix it.

The UN has guidelines for running an election that is secure and has the appearance of security. All that is required is to do that. We just don't want to. Until we want to, there's no point in discussing anything more elaborate than the basics.

The UN guidelines specify paper ballots, a transparent ballot box (which I have never seen in America), photo ID check (rarely seen) and finger ink (never seen in America). If you can't even do something a simple as clear ballot boxes, there's no need to get complicated with solutions.

This makes me sad. The UN. THE UN has more stringent recommendations regarding stuff like voter ID than the US currently does. The above guidelines are actually news to me. Interesting that our UN loving left doesn't seem to agree with them.

[dogmush]

zahc,

Do you have a link to any UN documentation on those guidelines?  I remember similar requirements from the times I've been adjacent to third world elections, but I'd be really interested in reading the actual guidelines with context.

A casual google didn't find me anything like "UN Guidebook for Secure and Fair elections".

[cordex]

Disagreement isn't war.

Every bit as much as voting is war.  Voting is a tangible expression of political disagreement, but it is in no way war.

Assertion of one's will over another is war.

As we have already established, you consider a conscripted soldier to be morally equivalent to a volunteer because if they aren't actively fighting against their conscriptors then they support the violence of the war.  Have you thought about how that applies to you and your position in society?  I'd argue that you can't possibly hold such an overbroad position without painting yourself into the corner of therefor supporting all institutional violence within our society simply because you do not actively separate yourself from it, or engage in violence to oppose it.

I sure hope we're not at war.  I don't think my "nonsensical" stance is causing you a degree of harm you feel you need to go to war over it.  We seem to disagree on it.  I'm not going to assert my will over you, you're free to think it's nonsensical.  Are you determined to force me to think it's nonsensical?

Of course we are not at war, because neither disagreement, nor voting fit any reasonable definition of war.  

[AZRedhawk44]

As we have already established, you consider a conscripted soldier to be morally equivalent to a volunteer because if they aren't actively fighting against their conscriptors then they support the violence of the war.  Have you thought about how that applies to you and your position in society?  I'd argue that you can't possibly hold such an overbroad position without painting yourself into the corner of therefor supporting all institutional violence within our society simply because you do not actively separate yourself from it, or engage in violence to oppose it.

I'd go so far as to say that in declared states of war between nations, that attacks on the civilian population are fully legitimate.  Especially if the civilian population supports the state of war via democratic election of the war-declarers, and by free market construction of war materials and delivery of those materials to the Armed Forces of said nation.

And so I, as a little pissant anarchist who hasn't found a way to avoid paying taxes or otherwise supporting the state of war, remain a valid target of the opposing party.

Right is right, even if I personally am caught on the wrong side of it.

[dogmush]

I'd go so far as to say that in declared states of war between nations, that attacks on the civilian population are fully legitimate.  Especially if the civilian population supports the state of war via democratic election of the war-declarers, and by free market construction of war materials and delivery of those materials to the Armed Forces of said nation.

And so I, as a little pissant anarchist who hasn't found a way to avoid paying taxes or otherwise supporting the state of war, remain a valid target of the opposing party.

Right is right, even if I personally am caught on the wrong side of it.

International and US law disagrees with you on that, by the way.

[Northwoods]

Me wanting to keep my vote secret from my employer, or potential future employers, and voting in a way they disapprove of is not initiating violence against them on any logical basis.  One could say that by keeping my vote secret is preventing them from harming me.  But even if they harm me (by firing or refusing to hire me) over my political opinions that still is not really violence, so long as I have the option to go elsewhere and obtain similar employment.  It only becomes violence if it reduces me to starvation due to having nowhere else I can possibly go within the country.

[RoadKingLarry]

We have plenty of evidence that there are significant numbers of leftists that are more than OK with harming those that disagree with them politically.

We've heard those on the left repeat things like:
Republicans/conservatives need to be eliminated.
Trump Supporters need to be rounded up and imprisoned.
Trump supporters should be killed.
And worse.


Now, tell me again why a secret ballot is a bad thing?

[cordex]

And so I, as a little pissant anarchist who hasn't found a way to avoid paying taxes or otherwise supporting the state of war, remain a valid target of the opposing party.

Right is right, even if I personally am caught on the wrong side of it.

So you'll condemn others for their complicity with social violence and for waging war through voting, but despite the ideological purity you demand of everyone else you ... just live a pretty successful life as a happy cog in the evil society you claim to be at war with, pay your taxes, and basically serve as a good little soldier?  Right on.

I do appreciate that you are at least consistent enough to eventually come around to admitting that not even you live up to your standards.

[cordex]

We have plenty of evidence that there are significant numbers of leftists that are more than OK with harming those that disagree with them politically.

We've heard those on the left repeat things like:
Republicans/conservatives need to be eliminated.
Trump Supporters need to be rounded up and imprisoned.
Trump supporters should be killed.
And worse.


Now, tell me again why a secret ballot is a bad thing?

There were recent calls to hold Trump supporters and employees "accountable" by denying them work opportunities in the future.

[AZRedhawk44]

So you'll condemn others for their complicity with social violence and for waging war through voting, but despite the ideological purity you demand of everyone else you ... just live a pretty successful life as a happy cog in the evil society you claim to be at war with, pay your taxes, and basically serve as a good little soldier?  Right on.

I do appreciate that you are at least consistent enough to eventually come around to admitting that not even you live up to your standards.

I starve the State where I can.  Haven't found a means of livelihood where I can avoid income tax though.

I'm no true Scotsman.  And most people aren't.

But I am mechanically complicit in US actions I disapprove of (since I haven't deprived the US of my income tax revenue).  An enemy of the US will make of that what he will.  The US nuked Japanese cities twice.  The US firebombed several European cities to destroy German industry and support.  Some day, someone will do similar to the US.  The cold logic of it supports the notion of eliminating as much support or infrastructure that facilitates your enemy, as you can.  That's what it takes to win a war, if you want to go to war.  The current attitude towards war (don't hurt the civilians) hasn't worked since any engagement after WWII.

I'm not rooting for such an event.  I just consider that scope of ruthlessness as a means to win a war.

[MechAg94]

I starve the State where I can.  Haven't found a means of livelihood where I can avoid income tax though.

I'm no true Scotsman.  And most people aren't.

But I am mechanically complicit in US actions I disapprove of (since I haven't deprived the US of my income tax revenue).  An enemy of the US will make of that what he will.  The US nuked Japanese cities twice.  The US firebombed several European cities to destroy German industry and support.  Some day, someone will do similar to the US.  The cold logic of it supports the notion of eliminating as much support or infrastructure that facilitates your enemy, as you can.  That's what it takes to win a war, if you want to go to war.  The current attitude towards war (don't hurt the civilians) hasn't worked since any engagement after WWII.

I'm not rooting for such an event.  I just consider that scope of ruthlessness as a means to win a war.

You live in a representative republic just like most of us.  There is no candidate or elected office holder that you agree with 100%.  Even if you were dictator, you wouldn't agree with everything the govt did since you couldn't personally run every office.  But if you want to be the scapegoat for everything unpleasant the US Govt has ever done, go ahead.  I usually just criticize the decision makers at the time.  I think universal guilt for such things is foolish.

IMO, you are wrong on avoiding civilian casualties.  Avoiding civilian casualties has not impeded our military all that much.  I wouldn't know the details, but I think the level of stupidity in our rules of engagement have been far more screwed up at one time or another over the last 70 years.  Not targeting civilians doesn't even make the list.  

I haven't followed this whole argument.  Just thought I would comment on those couple of things.   

[MechAg94]

The only voting information I might want public is the registration lists and who cast a vote (not who/what they voted for).  It might be nice if that information could be looked up by people and/or audited.  I think people would be surprised at what is there.

[cordex]

The only voting information I might want public is the registration lists and who cast a vote (not who/what they voted for).  It might be nice if that information could be looked up by people and/or audited.  I think people would be surprised at what is there.

That information is available to certain groups in most states, I think. I did some work for some political groups in a former job and we had a list of voters, which elections they voted in, and for primaries which party they primaried with. I think the parties were given that data every year. Not sure who else had it.

[Nick1911]

zahc,

Do you have a link to any UN documentation on those guidelines?  I remember similar requirements from the times I've been adjacent to third world elections, but I'd be really interested in reading the actual guidelines with context.

A casual google didn't find me anything like "UN Guidebook for Secure and Fair elections".

I'm not zahc, but I found this: https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/ead_pd_preventing_mitigating_election-related_violence_20160601_e.pdf

Of interest:

Safeguarding against fraud. Widespread fraud poses a serious risk to the credibility of an election, but even isolated instances of fraud or the perception of fraud is at times sufficient to spark election-related violence. Technical elements aimed at detecting or guarding against irregularities are important and should be supported, including: ensuring an accurate and comprehensive voter register, measures to ensure only eligible voters cast ballots, measures ensuring persons cast only one ballot such as the use of indelible ink, maintenance of the secrecy of the ballot and the secure handling of polling materials, and preparations by the election complaints body to investigate and respond to possible allegations in a timely manner. It is important to bear in mind that measures taken to safeguard against fraud should not be so stringent that they lead to disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

I would support the use of indelible election ink.  As far as improving the integrity of the vote counting process?  Not sure.  Very strong chain of custody rules, requirements to keep original ballots for a period of time, perhaps two independent groups making counts which must agree?

[Ron]

I'm not zahc, but I found this: https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/ead_pd_preventing_mitigating_election-related_violence_20160601_e.pdf

Of interest:
I would support the use of indelible election ink.  As far as improving the integrity of the vote counting process?  Not sure.  Very strong chain of custody rules, requirements to keep original ballots for a period of time, perhaps two independent groups making counts which must agree?

Some of the machines that count the votes being compromised needs to be addressed.

In most cases it is being dismissed with hand waving.

If the reports I'm reading are true it will soon be revealed that they are not and were not secure.

It is known the software was in some cases "updated" at the last minute before the election.

The most alarming report I've read is that it will be revealed that the machines were not counting one vote as one vote.

The rhetoric out there on both sides is over the top.

Previously I've said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

If those proofs are forthcoming it is going to get really interesting ...

[Hawkmoon]

Some of the machines that count the votes being compromised needs to be addressed.

In most cases it is being dismissed with hand waving.

If the reports I'm reading are true it will soon be revealed that they are not and were not secure.

It is known the software was in some cases "updated" at the last minute before the election.

The most alarming report I've read is that it will be revealed that the machines were not counting one vote as one vote.

The rhetoric out there on both sides is over the top.

Previously I've said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

If those proofs are forthcoming it is going to get really interesting ...

They need to do something. The bottom line, IMHO, is that if the vote counting mechanism isn't fixed such that it at least meets the minimum United Nations standards (whoever thought that we'd look to the U.N. for advice on improving out country/), no future administration will ever be regarded as legitimate by most of the population. The popular vote in this election was -- in very rough terms -- about 50/50. If Biden is officially decaled the winner, I don't know if all of those who voted for Trump will consider that the election was rigged and stolen, but I'm sure it will be a significant chunk of em. Likewise, if Trump does prevail in court and is declared the winner, I'm sure a very large chunk of those who voted for Biden will always believe that the election was stolen.

If we can't trust our election process, we don't have a nation.

[AZRedhawk44]

They need to do something. The bottom line, IMHO, is that if the vote counting mechanism isn't fixed such that it at least meets the minimum United Nations standards (whoever thought that we'd look to the U.N. for advice on improving out country/), no future administration will ever be regarded as legitimate by most of the population. The popular vote in this election was -- in very rough terms -- about 50/50. If Biden is officially decaled the winner, I don't know if all of those who voted for Trump will consider that the election was rigged and stolen, but I'm sure it will be a significant chunk of em. Likewise, if Trump does prevail in court and is declared the winner, I'm sure a very large chunk of those who voted for Biden will always believe that the election was stolen.

If we can't trust our election process, we don't have a nation.

I think it's a far bigger problem if you're legitimizing the notion that approximately 50% of the population can steal from, stomp all over, and desecrate the belief system of the other approximate 50%.  And then we swap so the downtrodden half gets to do the same to the other half, next election.

We already have a system where a mere plurality (sub-majority) rules.

We need a system where the rights of the individual and the minority are sacrosanct. 

[TommyGunn]

I think it's a far bigger problem if you're legitimizing the notion that approximately 50% of the population can steal from, stomp all over, and desecrate the belief system of the other approximate 50%.  And then we swap so the downtrodden half gets to do the same to the other half, next election.

We already have a system where a mere plurality (sub-majority) rules.

We need a system where the rights of the individual and the minority are sacrosanct. 

Don't we have that system?       Oh, wait ........ 

 


Geeesh.  A LOT can happen when you blink.