Are American elections free and fair?

[historia]

According to Pew, the percentage of Americans expressing confidence that our elections will be run well has dropped from four years ago (2018), especially among voters who support Republican candidates (-30%).

Question for debate: Are elections in the United States free and fair?

[Purple Knight]

Why do you think the government has won all the cases brought by Trump's "election fraud" people?

Same reason as anyone wins any case: Because there wasn't good enough proof of wrongdoing.

What do you think they should do that hasn't already been done?

Well first, everyone should be able to see that their vote counted. I should be able to go look up that I personally voted for Jo Jorgensen.

Where? How?

Well if there was some conspiracy, all it would have to include is the people polling the votes. Is there some assurance that mail-in ballots get counted and not just thrown away? Huge potential for fraud here. The potential extends even to mailmen. Let's say a mailman is super conservative. He knows he works a very liberal area. What's to stop him from just dumping all the ballots? Bloody nothing.

[Jose Fly]

Same reason as anyone wins any case: Because there wasn't good enough proof of wrongdoing.

So if there's not proof of wrongdoing, why would you think wrongdoing has occurred?

Well first, everyone should be able to see that their vote counted. I should be able to go look up that I personally voted for Jo Jorgensen.

How would that work?

Well if there was some conspiracy, all it would have to include is the people polling the votes. Is there some assurance that mail-in ballots get counted and not just thrown away? Huge potential for fraud here. The potential extends even to mailmen. Let's say a mailman is super conservative. He knows he works a very liberal area. What's to stop him from just dumping all the ballots? Bloody nothing.

Again, all you're doing is imagining things. Not only that, your imaginary scenarios are trivially easy to disprove. For example, in my state I can log into the SoS site, enter my info, and see that my ballot was received, accepted, and counted.

And you completely avoided the fact that random audits, recounts, signature verifications, lawsuits, etc. have not uncovered any cases of voter fraud on a scale that would impact outcomes. So again, on what basis are you suspecting voter fraud in the first place?

Finally, you're forgetting the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Since the scenarios you imagine all involve people committing crimes, it falls on folks like you to show that they occurred; it does not fall on the accused to prove their innocence.

[Diogenes]

I hate to take the side of Trump supporters, but in the case of a process like an election, the fairness of which ought to be sacred, the burden of proof should be on the side claiming the process is fair.

This is exactly wrong, jus as is Daedalus X's similar claim.
In law, the burden is on the party that makes the allegation. If either of you were correct, every election would be in dispute every time and we would be in court continually with the State having to prove a negative, that they did not commit fraud.

I see your point, that it is important for elections to be fair and to appear fair. This is very important. That is why State legislatures (most are controlled by Republicans, just as Georgia's was) make rules and guard the system. Both parties have "poll watchers" overseeing as well. If a rule is violated, the person making that claim must prove it. And this should be easy since the process is open and has observers from both sides monitoring.

With a little reflection that the burden of proof should be on the one who alleges fraud should be obvious. D-X's and your proposal would be like claiming everyone should be considered a thief, liar, murderer, or sexual pervert unless they prove their innocence.
In any event, whether you or D-X agree, the person alleging fraud must prove the claim, not the other way 'round.

The irony is that as usual, Trump and his supporters are practicing projection, projecting their own attempts to cheat onto those who did not. This will likely be litigated since we hear Trump's own voice urging the Georgia Secretary of State to "just find" him 11,780 votes. THAT was a clear solicitation of fraud.

[historia]

One thing l like to ask Trumpists is, since they truly believe the 2020 election was clearly and obviously stolen, why can't a single one of Trump's lawyers prove it in court? That gives us two options...either the notion of a "stolen election" is truly a big lie, or Trump is too dumb and incompetent to hire decent lawyers.

Looking at this from the other end: There are several top-tier Republican election law firms out there, who normally would be chomping at the bit to represent a sitting Republican president in an election lawsuit. The fact that they all exited the scene early in Trump's lawsuits shows that they didn't think his claims had merit.

Neither, as it turns out, did the courts:

Again, why couldn't Trump's lawyers prove a single thing in court?

Mostly because they were not asked to prove anything, as they did not have standing.

Trump's lawyers were granted standing in several election lawsuits in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona in 2020.

I am no lawyer so don't take my word for it but, when someone goes to court they will file a complaint then the defendant will file a response and if they can't settle their differences, the Judge will calendar all the details and there will be discovery and motions and then a jury will be chosen and the trial will begin, and only then will the lawyers present the evidence. So it is not about "they didn't even bother presenting any evidence". It is about the procedure never got to that point.

No, that's mistaken. In election lawsuits, attorneys from both sides will typically present arguments and evidence before a judge, and the judge, rather than a jury, makes a ruling. This is similar to how a preliminary trial works in a criminal case, where the judge rules if the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to proceed.

In several cases in 2020, Trump's lawyers brought arguments and evidence before a judge and the judge ruled on the evidence presented, even if in some instances they also found procedural problems with the lawsuit. See, for example:

• Costantino v. City of Detroit (Michigan)
• King v. Whitmer (Michigan)
• Ward v. Jackson (Arizona)
• Bowyer v. Ducey (Arizona)

In all of these cases, judges found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently support the claims being made by Trump's lawyers, so their cases were dismissed.

[AgnosticBoy]

I hate to take the side of Trump supporters, but in the case of a process like an election, the fairness of which ought to be sacred, the burden of proof should be on the side claiming the process is fair.

Good point. I would say that those who claim that elections are fair should have to prove their claim and those who claim it is unfair should do the same.

My position to the question in the OP is that the answer doesn't have to be all or nothing. I believe that the elections in the US are fair to an extent. In other cases, I don't know how fair it is. In cases involving a lack of good reasonable security, my confidence in fairness decreases. I wouldn't know if there's fraud or not when there's a lack of oversight and security to catch it.

[Purple Knight]

With a little reflection that the burden of proof should be on the one who alleges fraud should be obvious. D-X's and your proposal would be like claiming everyone should be considered a thief, liar, murderer, or sexual pervert unless they prove their innocence.
In any event, whether you or D-X agree, the person alleging fraud must prove the claim, not the other way 'round.

Well that sucks for the integrity of elections, because the side that wants to cheat could simply lobby to remove the poll watchers, and every other measure, then commit fraud, and laugh that nobody can prove it.

I also didn't say that guilty until proven innocent was a good idea for crimes. The fraud is not the issue and it's not relevant to whether elections are free and fair if anyone goes to jail for it. If you want innocent until proven guilty for crimes, fine, but crime is not the issue here, and I'm not suggesting anyone be punished without proof.

I said that the American people (but not necessarily Donald Trump or Al Gore specifically) have a right to have it proved to them that the elections are fair, because they have a right to that fairness. When the whole point of the game is fairness, "you can't prove it's not fair" isn't sufficient.

I wouldn't know if there's fraud or not when there's a lack of oversight and security to catch it.

And do you think that's good enough when you have a right to that fairness?

You have a right to vote, and implicit in that is a right to have your vote count, exactly the same as everyone else's. This makes a big difference. Your right to vote is derived from the same thing your right to control of your body is derived from, and a small compromise with that right, which is that the government's laws get to control you, but only so long as you get a voice in that government. If you don't it's just slavery.

This is a positive right, a legitimate one, an entitlement in the strictly contractual sense since what you gave up to get it, is already gone.

[The Barbarian]

It's a disturbing thing that pretty new. Basically, Donald Trump introduced the "Whaaaa! I was cheated!" tactic, which we now see a fair number of sore losers trying out. Because the courts tossed out Trump's false claims, it seems fewer than expected. Which is good.

It's encouraging to see that the Trump-appointed Dr. Oz was decent enough to send congratulations to his opponent, when he lost in Pennsylvania.

Maybe that's a sign that things will get better. I hope so.

[Jose Fly]

Well that sucks for the integrity of elections, because the side that wants to cheat could simply lobby to remove the poll watchers, and every other measure, then commit fraud, and laugh that nobody can prove it.

I also didn't say that guilty until proven innocent was a good idea for crimes. The fraud is not the issue and it's not relevant to whether elections are free and fair if anyone goes to jail for it. If you want innocent until proven guilty for crimes, fine, but crime is not the issue here, and I'm not suggesting anyone be punished without proof.

I said that the American people (but not necessarily Donald Trump or Al Gore specifically) have a right to have it proved to them that the elections are fair, because they have a right to that fairness. When the whole point of the game is fairness, "you can't prove it's not fair" isn't sufficient.

Poll watchers are there by law, so removing all of them would be illegal. So you imagine a scenario where someone would have to break a law, and then you say "crime is not the issue here"? That makes no sense.

And again, you're completely ignoring the existence of random post-election audits, recounts, and signature verifications.

[Purple Knight]

Poll watchers are there by law, so removing all of them would be illegal.

Someone could change the law. We're not talking about law, we're talking about whether elections are free and fair, which has nothing to do with the law. The law could make it easy to get away with tampering, or have legal restrictions designed to unfairly hurt one side.

So you imagine a scenario where someone would have to break a law, and then you say "crime is not the issue here"? That makes no sense.

Not everything fair is the only legal option, and not everything unfair is illegal. I'll give you an example: Jim Crow laws. There were laws on the books to make elections unfair. It was not fraud to have an unfair election. We're talking about the fairness of the election, not about the crime of voter fraud.

And again, you're completely ignoring the existence of random post-election audits, recounts, and signature verifications.

I'm not ignoring them. I named an instance where tampering would be easy, there is no oversight, and those measures wouldn't matter: If partisan mailmen decide to throw away ballots. I don't think this happened this time and I think Trump is just being pissy, but it easily could happen and no one would know. And that's a problem.

[Jose Fly]

Someone could change the law. We're not talking about law, we're talking about whether elections are free and fair, which has nothing to do with the law. The law could make it easy to get away with tampering, or have legal restrictions designed to unfairly hurt one side.

And if my dog could read, she could help with work.

Again, if all you have are elaborate imaginary scenarios to point to, that's a good indication that the elections are fine.

I named an instance where tampering would be easy, there is no oversight, and those measures wouldn't matter: If partisan mailmen decide to throw away ballots. I don't think this happened this time and I think Trump is just being pissy, but it easily could happen and no one would know. And that's a problem.

Again, that mailman would be committing multiple crimes, which means there are laws in place designed to prevent this imaginary scenario from occurring.