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?

[AgnosticBoy]

Well, yes, extra security could serve as a means to search for problems.

And since we do have means in place to see if such problems exist and since they've not revealed the existence of them, there's no reason to devote time, money, and other resources to extra security.

You've claimed that voter fraud doesn't exist and that's a stunning claim. The facts are that voter fraud does exist. For instance, there's the case involving Raquel Rodriguez who was caught "helping" people fill out their mail-in ballots. She offered gifts to people to get them to vote a certain way or even changed their vote. She has been prosecuted. Most importantly, do you know how she was caught? It wasn't by election officials but by a private group called Project Veritas.

That case alone not only proves that voter fraud exists, but also that election officials don't always catch everything (which leads me to wonder how much goes UNcaught). Can you imagine this happening to a lot of impressionable voters who may be desperate for money or who may lack knowledge of voting laws, like those in poor communities? Can we really say how many of that population are taken advantage of?

Sure, we can say that a lot of voter fraud gets caught, but what I wonder is how much is not caught.

The good thing is that there's nothing wrong with that if you have nothing to hide. Smart security should also be proactive, instead of just being reactive. The latter usually acts after the damage is done.

Then let's hire full time security monitors to watch every person in the country. After all, what do you have to hide?

The problem is not that it wouldn't work because it would lead to more crime being caught. The issue is it's practicality which is a different argument than what I'm offering here.

[Jose Fly]

You've claimed that voter fraud doesn't exist and that's a stunning claim.

No I haven't. Before we move one step further, either show where I said that or correct your statement.

[AgnosticBoy]

You've claimed that voter fraud doesn't exist and that's a stunning claim.

No I haven't. Before we move one step further, either show where I said that or correct your statement.

This statement of yours:

Well, yes, extra security could serve as a means to search for problems.

And since we do have means in place to see if such problems exist and since they've not revealed the existence of them

[emphasis added]

That was your response to my point about using security to look for election problems. You said that election problems don't exist.

[Jose Fly]

You've claimed that voter fraud doesn't exist and that's a stunning claim.

No I haven't. Before we move one step further, either show where I said that or correct your statement.

This statement of yours:

Well, yes, extra security could serve as a means to search for problems.

And since we do have means in place to see if such problems exist and since they've not revealed the existence of them

[emphasis added]

That was your response to my point about using security to look for election problems. You said that election problems don't exist.

Oh brother. So you can't find where I actually said there is zero voter fraud, and the best you have is a statement about "problems" that you took out of context (hint: when I said "such problems" it was in reference to the types of "problems" we were discussing, namely rouge mailmen throwing ballots in the trash).

Yes, there are examples of voter fraud in US elections. But were they to the extent that they affected the outcome? Or is this a case of "Let's use the fact that elections aren't 100% absolutely perfect as an excuse to implement draconian laws and regulations"?

[Purple Knight]

The fact that both election officials and voters are respectively tracking the outbound and inbound delivers of mail ballots means it wouldn't be "easy" for rogue mail carriers to just discard mail-in ballots and get away with it, as you asserted.

They'd get away with it because nobody can prove they tossed ballots. The absolute worst that could happen is that a lot of missing ballots would point to that carrier and he'd say whoopsie I dropped a mail sack. And then, he'd suffer a meaningless reprimand from his job and be free to keep tossing ballots. Because you could never prove - not to the extent conviction of a crime requires - that he didn't just make a mistake.

Then let's hire full time security monitors to watch every person in the country. After all, what do you have to hide?

I think when they're participating in the election process (such as handling ballots) that would be reasonable. We spend billions on the justice system to ensure that people get fair trials - to ensure fair enforcement of the laws. The only question is why we won't spend that much ensuring that people get the lawmakers they voted for. The former seems downstream from the latter, so, you know, if the poison is upstream...

The fact that in this thread all anyone can point to are completely imaginary, made-up, elaborate schemes that are already illegal is a very good indication that our voting systems work extremely well.

If there were any actual real problems, y'all would've pointed them out a while ago.

Or is this a case of "Let's use the fact that elections aren't 100% absolutely perfect as an excuse to implement draconian laws and regulations"?

They have draconian foolproofs against cheating in sports, because they need them and it doesn't hurt anyone to have to prove they're not cheating. If I compete in sports it will be assumed that I am on steroids until I prove I'm not. And it'll be paid for and nobody objects because in sports, fairness is important.

The extreme burden of proof that must make the cut to convict a criminal is something that would easily be described as draconian if you only look at the victim, and not the person on trial. Why these draconian requirements to put that murderer away, you might ask.

The correct assessment is that a potentially innocent person sits in that trial, and we have to do everything to protect his rights. Same for the voter. It doesn't have to affect the outcome, just like his right to vote doesn't give him the right to affect the outcome. But he does have that right and it should be protected. It's what he got in exchange for living under laws he might find abhorrent, so long as he got a voice. You can't reduce it to nothing by saying it didn't affect the outcome and thus it doesn't matter whether it was counted or not.

[Jose Fly]

I think when they're participating in the election process (such as handling ballots) that would be reasonable.

That's already in place. At this point I have to ask....do you live in the US?

The fact that in this thread all anyone can point to are completely imaginary, made-up, elaborate schemes that are already illegal is a very good indication that our voting systems work extremely well.

If there were any actual real problems, y'all would've pointed them out a while ago.

No one has said cheating is impossible. How about you actually address the points that have been raised, rather than ones that only exist in your imagination?

[Purple Knight]

No one has said cheating is impossible. How about you actually address the points that have been raised, rather than ones that only exist in your imagination?

The problem is that your argument that cheating is small enough that it doesn't matter is reducible to that graphic. Saying there might be cheating but still being dismissive of it is not different than defining it as logically impossible. If there might be cheating then the answer to the thread question is no. Even if 10,000 people compete, and only one of them is on steroids, the fairness to the other 9,999 is destroyed. Positive right to have your vote counted. Yes it's a high bar. Fairness is a high bar.

[Jose Fly]

The problem is that your argument that cheating is small enough that it doesn't matter is reducible to that graphic. Saying there might be cheating but still being dismissive of it is not different than defining it as logically impossible.

LOL....what? Of course there's a massive difference between "cheating exists, but it's insignificant to the outcome" and "cheating is impossible".

If there might be cheating then the answer to the thread question is no.

That's utterly ridiculous and a clear example of black/white, binary thinking. You do realize that it's possible for an election system to not be 100% absolutely perfect in every aspect, and the results to also be fairly decided and accurate, right? Or are you actually arguing that the mere possibility of voter fraud = US election results can't be trusted?

Even if 10,000 people compete, and only one of them is on steroids, the fairness to the other 9,999 is destroyed. Positive right to have your vote counted. Yes it's a high bar. Fairness is a high bar.

So it does look like you are employing black/white, binary thinking. So noted. Also, do you live in the US?

[AgnosticBoy]

Oh brother. So you can't find where I actually said there is zero voter fraud, and the best you have is a statement about "problems" that you took out of context (hint: when I said "such problems" it was in reference to the types of "problems" we were discussing, namely rouge mailmen throwing ballots in the trash).

Yes, there are examples of voter fraud in US elections. But were they to the extent that they affected the outcome? Or is this a case of "Let's use the fact that elections aren't 100% absolutely perfect as an excuse to implement draconian laws and regulations"?

The problem is that my point which you responded to covered all types of security problems. Either you misunderstood my point, or you offered a response that does not address it since your point doesn't cover all security cases. Just a suggestion, next time don't offer objections that don't cover my point, or if it only covers a weaker version of it or just some aspect of it, then make that known.

Either way, now we know what each other meant.

Yes, there are examples of voter fraud in US elections. But were they to the extent that they affected the outcome?

Likely not when it comes to races with large margins of victory. In close races, I'm not too sure.

Or is this a case of "Let's use the fact that elections aren't 100% absolutely perfect as an excuse to implement draconian laws and regulations"?

Is voter ID "draconian", Jose? What about more security to keep minorities from being pressured to vote for some party? I haven't seen you offer ANY (draconian or not) extra security proposal, why is that? I hope that it's not just about Trump, where some just want to go against him and his election views, and being against extra election security does just that. I'm sure, some on the right, want extra security based mostly on Trump's unsupported claims/suspicions. If this is the case then people are playing politics here.

I can assure you that those like Purple Knight and I are independent thinkers. I have my own logic and evidence (Trump is out of the equation) to show for why I want more election security.

[Jose Fly]

Is voter ID "draconian", Jose?

It depends. If the government also provides a free and readily available ID to every registered voter, then no.

What about more security to keep minorities from being pressured to vote for some party?

You'll have to be more specific. What types of "security"? Where (at polling places, homes, campaign events, social media)? What constitutes "pressure"?

I haven't seen you offer ANY (draconian or not) extra security proposal, why is that?

Because I don't see a need for it. Probably the main thing I think we need is to have national election standards, rather than the current patchwork of standards and processes for various aspects of our elections. I would also support increased post-election random audits, to both help identify potential issues and to reassure voters.

Further, if we're talking about elections being "fair", then the first thing on my list would be to eliminate gerrymandering. That's far more of a problem than actual voting and counting votes.