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?

[Jose Fly]

....

It's really difficult to discuss these things with you when you are so incredibly misinformed.

First, the suit that the Supreme Court declined to hear due to lack of standing was filed by the Texas Attorney General (with a handful of red state AGs signing on). The AG did not make any claims of election fraud in that suit and instead tried to challenge the election results in other states. The Supreme Court ruled that "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections", which you agreed with in your last post, when you said "Yes, the states appoint electors according to the states rules, and other states have no say in how that is done".

However, if you were just being sarcastic then I have to wonder if you would be ok with a Democrat state suing a Republican state over how they run their elections (e.g., gerrymandering, lack of polling stations).

Further, Trump's lawyers did file suits that included claims of fraud, and all of those were rejected by the courts (some even with Trump-appointed judges). You can read through a summary of these cases here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elec ... l_election

If there's one you think was decided incorrectly, then point it out and we'll discuss it.

Finally, regarding Sidney Powell, here are some items for you to read....

Sidney Powell Sanctioned By Judge Over False Election Claims

Judge Orders Pro-Trump Election Lawyers To Pay

Here's her filing in which she argues (regarding her election fraud claims) "Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact."

[Daedalus X]

Here's her filing in which she argues (regarding her election fraud claims) "Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact."

That is her filling as defendant, what I asked you for was her filling as plaintiff where she made false allegations against Dominion. Have you ever seen her allegations?

[Jose Fly]

Here's her filing in which she argues (regarding her election fraud claims) "Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact."

That is her filling as defendant, what I asked you for was her filling as plaintiff where she made false allegations against Dominion. Have you ever seen her allegations?

Oh brother....

I asked you why Powell said in a court filing that no reasonable person would take her claims of voter fraud as fact. You asked to see where she said that, so I showed you where she did. Please try and keep up.

You still haven't answered the question....why would she say that if her claims were true?

[Daedalus X]

Oh brother....

I asked you why Powell said in a court filing that no reasonable person would take her claims of voter fraud as fact. You asked to see where she said that, so I showed you where she did. Please try and keep up.

You still haven't answered the question....why would she say that if her claims were true?

You misunderstood my question, you wanted to know why she said "no reasonable person would take her claims of voter fraud as fact"? And I asked you what was the wording of her claims of voter fraud? Your answer may be something like she said that the Dominion machines were made by Hugo Chaves or the Dominion machines were manipulated by satellites controlled from Italy or Germany. Her exact words are important, it is just easy to smear a person with sloppy quotes. We need to look at exactly what she said. Again, have you ever seen her allegations?

[Jose Fly]

Oh brother....

I asked you why Powell said in a court filing that no reasonable person would take her claims of voter fraud as fact. You asked to see where she said that, so I showed you where she did. Please try and keep up.

You still haven't answered the question....why would she say that if her claims were true?

You misunderstood my question, you wanted to know why she said "no reasonable person would take her claims of voter fraud as fact"? And I asked you what was the wording of her claims of voter fraud? Your answer may be something like she said that the Dominion machines were made by Hugo Chaves or the Dominion machines were manipulated by satellites controlled from Italy or Germany. Her exact words are important, it is just easy to smear a person with sloppy quotes. We need to look at exactly what she said. Again, have you ever seen her allegations?

So wait....you don't even know what Powell's election fraud arguments were? Given that, plus your additional ignorance documented in this thread, I have to conclude that this is a rather pointless discussion.

Take the time to bring yourself up to speed on all this and then if you want to discuss something, bring it up.

[Diogenes]

62 court cases raised by the radical right nut jobs like Sidney Powell and alcoholic Rudy, and all 62 ruled as having no merit, no factual support, no legal arguments. Most of those rulings made by judges appointed by Republicans, including Trump.

That most Republicans THINK elections are not free and fair only reflects on their departure from reality and their frustration that the country is turning more Democratic despite years of republican gerrymandering and attempts to cheat, like Trump did in Georgia. Trump and some Republicans, but especially Trump, are champions at projection - at accusing others of exactly what they themselves are doing.

Christian Nationalists are trying to subvert the Constitution of the United States and coming close to succeeding by stacking the Supreme Court with partisans instead of independent jurists. 6 of 9 justices are practicing Roman Catholics which fueled the unprincipled decision of Alito overturning a 50+ year precedent in the Dobbs case. And the Republicans are the ones whining about unfair process?! Absurd!

[Daedalus X]

So wait....you don't even know what Powell's election fraud arguments were? Given that, plus your additional ignorance documented in this thread, I have to conclude that this is a rather pointless discussion.

Take the time to bring yourself up to speed on all this and then if you want to discuss something, bring it up.

I don't know what Powell's election fraud arguments were, and I am beginning to suspect that you don't either. You never even answered my question, "have you ever seen what her actual election fraud claims were?". If she gave a laundry list of election fraud claims and half of them were shown to be false, are we to assume that the other half are also false without investigating them. That is why we need to see her exact wording, and if you have never seen her words then you would be just as guilty of going of half-cocked as she was.

The fact that Sidney Powell said in a court filing that "no reasonable person" would take her election fraud claims as fact very clearly shows that the former is true...

Right from your first post, your reasoning was flawed.

Consider this exaggerated example, "no reasonable person would take her claim, that little green men from Mars tampered with the voting machines, as fact", shows that the former is true, that all of Trumps evidence was just a big lie or his lawyers are incompetent".

[AgnosticBoy]

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

My answer mostly speaks to the fairness part when it comes to security. The answer to your question for me would vary based on the rules of each state. Generally-speaking, I'm less confident about the results of elections in states that have minimal security and oversight. The more security an election process has than the more confidence I would have in such elections.

Some here have brought up Trump's election fraud claims, but I don't think the issue should be reduced to him or his claims. The decision for more or less security should not be based on who brings it up (whether it be Trump or someone else) but rather on what the security measures are (their effectiveness? Do they suppress voting? etc). For instance, I'd want all 50 states to require voter ID to vote. Some have argued that as being voter suppression and therefore elections aren't "fair". But if I accept that standard, then I could say any voting process in place (too much paperwork to fill out?) that dissuades any person from voting is voter suppression. We gotta figure out what's fair to most responsible/reasonable citizens. "At the same time, fully 4 in 5 Americans (80%) support requiring voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot. Just 18% oppose this." (source) If you need ID to drive, to buy alcohol, then why not for voting?!

[AgnosticBoy]

Christian Nationalists are trying to subvert the Constitution of the United States and coming close to succeeding by stacking the Supreme Court with partisans instead of independent jurists. 6 of 9 justices are practicing Roman Catholics which fueled the unprincipled decision of Alito overturning a 50+ year precedent in the Dobbs case. And the Republicans are the ones whining about unfair process?! Absurd!

As an independent, I think the problem is on both sides. If a Democrat president was in control, and was given the chance to choose 3 supreme court justices, I'd have a hard time believing that he or she would elect non-partisan jurists. My reason for believing that is that both parties have become partisan so they'll do whatever to benefit their party.

[Jose Fly]

I don't know what Powell's election fraud arguments were

Then you have no business attempting to discuss them or the related court cases.

and I am beginning to suspect that you don't either. You never even answered my question, "have you ever seen what her actual election fraud claims were?".

Yes, I do. I followed it all quite closely.

If she gave a laundry list of election fraud claims and half of them were shown to be false, are we to assume that the other half are also false without investigating them. That is why we need to see her exact wording, and if you have never seen her words then you would be just as guilty of going of half-cocked as she was.

Not a single one of them have been shown to be true.

Again, take the time to educate yourself on these things before trying to debate them.