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?

[The Barbarian]

In the last few decades, there was actually one statewide election that was proven to be rigged enough to swing the vote. Not surprisingly...

Election re-run in North Carolina after voter fraud inquiry
North Carolina will hold a new election for a congressional seat following an investigation into alleged ballot-tampering for a Republican candidate.

A consultant for Mark Harris' campaign is accused of illegally posting absentee ballots during November's mid-term election campaign.

Mr Harris, who initially claimed victory over Democrat Dan McCready, has now bowed to calls for a new election.

But he maintains he was unaware of any alleged fraud in his campaign.

The three Democrats and two Republicans on the North Carolina Board of Elections ruled unanimously for a new vote on Thursday, wrapping up a week of hearings.

Political consultant Leslie McCrae Dowless allegedly manipulated the election in Mr Harris' favour by illegally collecting, falsely witnessing and otherwise tampering with absentee ballots.

On Thursday, Mr Harris took the stand and said: "The public's confidence in the ninth district seat general election has been undermined to an extent that a new election is warranted."

He also acknowledged that due to recent strokes and illness, his prior testimony before the board had included "incorrect" recollections.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47323556

In the 2020 election, Donald Trump had the "dead voter" bloc pretty much to himself. I can run down the details, if anyone wants them. The point is, we've only had one election in recent years that was rigged sufficiently to require a new election. It was a republican who rigged it.

[AgnosticBoy]

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

The first two responses to this question are representative of the views of Republicans and Democrats on this issue.

They are not free and fair.

vs.

Of course they are. None of this "election integrity" nonsense started until Trump became the GOP leader.

It is clear that plenty of Republicans wants us to accept that there is voter fraud going on and they'll highlight all of the instances that they can. It's also clear that plenty of Democrats want us to accept that elections are fair, and that voter fraud is minimal, and that there are safeguards in place to catch when it does happen.

I gotta say, as someone who is on the fence, I don't see this issue as black and white as these two sides see it. I'm not as confident as they are that elections are fair or unfair, and that's because I don't know how much cheating goes uncaught. I will say that there is nothing wrong with having more security just as long as it doesn't make it hard to vote. The amount of additional security needed is debatable.

Thankfully, I haven't been attacked as much for being on the fence as I was in previous threads with similar topics.

[AgnosticBoy]

Continuing from my last post...

Just to preempt anyone who might say that my conclusions are based boil down to an argument from ignorance (we don't know, therefore we should worry or act on those unknowns), I would counter and say that there is evidence of election fraud occurring that would have gone uncaught if we relied on the normal election process/officials. These cases involved private citizens and not election officials catching the fraud either by accident or by going undercover.

Another point i can bring up is that we're not in a position to claim that little to no fraud goes on when there's a lack of security and oversight to catch all types cheating in the first place. Sure, we have some security, but it's not enough, especially given the fact that the use of mail in ballots is increasing, which is different from past elections. If someone comes to collect my ballot, I want to make sure they're not going to change my vote or that they won't take advantage of some poor person who lacks education of the laws, and pressure them or bribe them into changing their vote.

[Jose Fly]

It is clear that plenty of Republicans wants us to accept that there is voter fraud going on and they'll highlight all of the instances that they can. It's also clear that plenty of Democrats want us to accept that elections are fair, and that voter fraud is minimal, and that there are safeguards in place to catch when it does happen.

You do realize that those two views are not mutually exclusive, right? We can have elections where the winners/losers do indeed reflect the actual vote, with small amounts of fraud still occurring.

I feel like I've been pushing back against black/white thinking this entire thread.

I'm not as confident as they are that elections are fair or unfair, and that's because I don't know how much cheating goes uncaught.

That's what post-election audits, recounts, and signature verifications are for.

I will say that there is nothing wrong with having more security just as long as it doesn't make it hard to vote. The amount of additional security needed is debatable.

What do you have in mind?

we're not in a position to claim that little to no fraud goes on when there's a lack of security and oversight to catch all types cheating in the first place.

Black/white thinking.

Sure, we have some security, but it's not enough, especially given the fact that the use of mail in ballots is increasing, which is different from past elections. If someone comes to collect my ballot, I want to make sure they're not going to change my vote or that they won't take advantage of some poor person who lacks education of the laws, and pressure them or bribe them into changing their vote.

Huh? That doesn't make much sense. For a person to change your ballot, they'd have to open two envelopes, change your ballot, and then reseal the envelopes in a way that's undetectable. Further, if that's truly your worry then just drop your ballot off in the mail, or if you're worried about rogue mail carriers, drop it off at a drop box, or if you're even worried about that, drop it off at the elections office.

As far as bribing people to change their votes, that's a possibility no matter how the vote is conducted. I could potentially go to people's homes a week before the election and pay them money to vote for my candidates, and have them vote that way in person on election day. How would you stop that?

[AgnosticBoy]

I feel like I've been pushing back against black/white thinking this entire thread.

I have as well, which is why I can only say that elections are fair to a degree instead boldly claiming that they are fair or unfair w/out considering the nuances.

I'm also willing to acknowledge the rationale of Republicans when they're right and stand with them to increase security. To the contrary, you've offered little to no security proposals until I raised questions about it. Before that, security concerns were dismissed as being part of Trump conspiracies.

It is clear that plenty of Republicans wants us to accept that there is voter fraud going on and they'll highlight all of the instances that they can. It's also clear that plenty of Democrats want us to accept that elections are fair, and that voter fraud is minimal, and that there are safeguards in place to catch when it does happen.

You do realize that those two views are not mutually exclusive, right? We can have elections where the winners/losers do indeed reflect the actual vote, with small amounts of fraud still occurring.

Well, if we're just looking at the conclusions of Republicans and Democrats (e.g. elections are fair vs. unfair), then they are definitely mutually exclusive. If we're looking at individual reasons behind the conclusion, like "small amounts of fraud", then I agree that that specific reason is compatible with the Democrat view. But of course, a Republican may not agree that the amount of voter fraud is "small".

I also don't agree with your standard of fairness. Your standard is based on just the ultimate result, i.e. the amount of cheating would not change the result. But even if the overall result is accurate, but there is still unfairness when it comes to the voter whose vote did not count. I also think even small amounts of fraud might have an impact in close elections, especially the ones that are decided by just a few hundred votes.

I'm not as confident as they are that elections are fair or unfair, and that's because I don't know how much cheating goes uncaught.

That's what post-election audits, recounts, and signature verifications are for.

Those are not always enacted, and even when they are, they are limited to a certain county or state. I'd want post-election audits to be part of every state when there is reasonable suspicion of voter fraud. Of course, we'd have to define reasonable suspicion. Finding a trash bag stuffed with completed ballots should count.

I will say that there is nothing wrong with having more security just as long as it doesn't make it hard to vote. The amount of additional security needed is debatable.

What do you have in mind?

No ballot harvesting. Voter Id. Etc.

we're not in a position to claim that little to no fraud goes on when there's a lack of security and oversight to catch all types cheating in the first place.

Black/white thinking.

What are your reasons?

Sure, we have some security, but it's not enough, especially given the fact that the use of mail in ballots is increasing, which is different from past elections. If someone comes to collect my ballot, I want to make sure they're not going to change my vote or that they won't take advantage of some poor person who lacks education of the laws, and pressure them or bribe them into changing their vote.

Huh? That doesn't make much sense. For a person to change your ballot, they'd have to open two envelopes, change your ballot, and then reseal the envelopes in a way that's undetectable. Further, if that's truly your worry then just drop your ballot off in the mail, or if you're worried about rogue mail carriers, drop it off at a drop box, or if you're even worried about that, drop it off at the elections office.

I presented a case of fraud where a campaign worker was going door to door collecting ballots - i.e. ballot harvesting. The worker was caught "helping" someone fill out their ballot.

As far as bribing people to change their votes, that's a possibility no matter how the vote is conducted. I could potentially go to people's homes a week before the election and pay them money to vote for my candidates, and have them vote that way in person on election day. How would you stop that?

[emphasis added]

It depends on how you would have them vote that way on election day. I'm assuming the briber would want confirmation that you won't change your vote after you take the bribe. If they are there at your same voting booth watching you, then that would raise suspicions which is where the poll workers come in. I would also stop ballot harvesting to prevent this from happening in people's homes.

I would set up undercover operations, as well, where this is suspected of occurring. Have people posing as voters, etc. That would send a message. Doing nothing is certainly not a solution.

[Jose Fly]

I feel like I've been pushing back against black/white thinking this entire thread.

I have as well, which is why I can only say that elections are fair to a degree instead boldly claiming that they are fair or unfair w/out considering the nuances.

I'm also willing to acknowledge the rationale of Republicans when they're right and stand with them to increase security. To the contrary, you've offered little to no security proposals until I raised questions about it. Before that, security concerns were dismissed as being part of Trump conspiracies.

It is clear that plenty of Republicans wants us to accept that there is voter fraud going on and they'll highlight all of the instances that they can. It's also clear that plenty of Democrats want us to accept that elections are fair, and that voter fraud is minimal, and that there are safeguards in place to catch when it does happen.

You do realize that those two views are not mutually exclusive, right? We can have elections where the winners/losers do indeed reflect the actual vote, with small amounts of fraud still occurring.

Well, if we're just looking at the conclusions of Republicans and Democrats (e.g. elections are fair vs. unfair), then they are definitely mutually exclusive. If we're looking at individual reasons behind the conclusion, like "small amounts of fraud", then I agree that that specific reason is compatible with the Democrat view. But of course, a Republican may not agree that the amount of voter fraud is "small".

I also don't agree with your standard of fairness. Your standard is based on just the ultimate result, i.e. the amount of cheating would not change the result. But even if the overall result is accurate, but there is still unfairness when it comes to the voter whose vote did not count. I also think even small amounts of fraud might have an impact in close elections, especially the ones that are decided by just a few hundred votes.

I'm not as confident as they are that elections are fair or unfair, and that's because I don't know how much cheating goes uncaught.

That's what post-election audits, recounts, and signature verifications are for.

Those are not always enacted, and even when they are, they are limited to a certain county or state. I'd want post-election audits to be part of every state when there is reasonable suspicion of voter fraud. Of course, we'd have to define reasonable suspicion. Finding a trash bag stuffed with completed ballots should count.

I will say that there is nothing wrong with having more security just as long as it doesn't make it hard to vote. The amount of additional security needed is debatable.

What do you have in mind?

No ballot harvesting. Voter Id. Etc.

we're not in a position to claim that little to no fraud goes on when there's a lack of security and oversight to catch all types cheating in the first place.

Black/white thinking.

What are your reasons?

Sure, we have some security, but it's not enough, especially given the fact that the use of mail in ballots is increasing, which is different from past elections. If someone comes to collect my ballot, I want to make sure they're not going to change my vote or that they won't take advantage of some poor person who lacks education of the laws, and pressure them or bribe them into changing their vote.

Huh? That doesn't make much sense. For a person to change your ballot, they'd have to open two envelopes, change your ballot, and then reseal the envelopes in a way that's undetectable. Further, if that's truly your worry then just drop your ballot off in the mail, or if you're worried about rogue mail carriers, drop it off at a drop box, or if you're even worried about that, drop it off at the elections office.

I presented a case of fraud where a campaign worker was going door to door collecting ballots - i.e. ballot harvesting. The worker was caught "helping" someone fill out their ballot.

As far as bribing people to change their votes, that's a possibility no matter how the vote is conducted. I could potentially go to people's homes a week before the election and pay them money to vote for my candidates, and have them vote that way in person on election day. How would you stop that?

[emphasis added]

It depends on how you would have them vote that way on election day. I'm assuming the briber would want confirmation that you won't change your vote after you take the bribe. If they are there at your same voting booth watching you, then that would raise suspicions which is where the poll workers come in. I would also stop ballot harvesting to prevent this from happening in people's homes.

I would set up undercover operations, as well, where this is suspected of occurring. Have people posing as voters, etc. That would send a message. Doing nothing is certainly not a solution.

Honestly, I've grown quite tired of the dynamic of these discussions where folks like you hold elections to a standard of perfection, and I'm supposed to defend the fact that they're not perfect. As I've noted several times already, we can have the exact same conversation about every law and crime.

People violate speed limits every day. What does that say about our current laws and enforcement?

People kill people every day. What does that say about our current laws and enforcement?

People shoplift every day. What does that say about our current laws and enforcement?

Going by the logic employed throughout this thread, we have to impose draconian measures until we've entirely eliminated every case of speeding, murder, and shoplfifting....even if it means giving up fundamental rights like privacy, prevents some people from driving and shopping, and requires massive police forces.

As long as your measure of success is "the process went perfectly", you'll always have something to point to as justification for more oversight and security. See that guy speeding? Obviously we need to do more!

Finally, as I noted earlier I'm fully supportive of things like increasing random post-election audits, random recounts, etc. I'd go along with voter ID as long as the ID's are free and are automatically given to every registered voter. But I harbor no illusions that those types of things will satisfy the perfectionists.

[AgnosticBoy]

Honestly, I've grown quite tired of the dynamic of these discussions where folks like you hold elections to a standard of perfection, and I'm supposed to defend the fact that they're not perfect. As I've noted several times already, we can have the exact same conversation about every law and crime.

I never claimed that elections had to be perfect, but no reasonable person should be expected to call it "fair" under just any imperfect condition. At the least, I'd expect for there to be reasonable and responsible standards in place. Under a reasonable and responsible system, I expect errors to occur when we don't have the means to cover everything or know everything. But what should not be tolerated are intentional imperfections (election fraud), where we have known areas that cheating can and/or has occurred, and we can do something about it, and it doesn't make it hard to vote, but yet we still do nothing.

People violate speed limits every day. What does that say about our current laws and enforcement?

It says that our laws can be improved, and they should.

Going by the logic employed throughout this thread, we have to impose draconian measures until we've entirely eliminated every case of speeding, murder, and shoplfifting....even if it means giving up fundamental rights like privacy, prevents some people from driving and shopping, and requires massive police forces.

It seems that you think that any new measure is "draconian". Going by that logic, we shouldn't introduce any new measures just because we can't catch every instance of cheating.

As long as your measure of success is "the process went perfectly", you'll always have something to point to as justification for more oversight and security. See that guy speeding? Obviously we need to do more!

For practical reasons, I don't expect any system to be perfect. But as I said before, if there are going to be imperfections, then let them be incidental because of our inherent limitations. It should not involve intentional ones. Borrowing from Epicurus...

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

The bold part applies here.

Finally, as I noted earlier I'm fully supportive of things like increasing random post-election audits, random recounts, etc. I'd go along with voter ID as long as the ID's are free and are automatically given to every registered voter. But I harbor no illusions that those types of things will satisfy the perfectionists.

Not wanting to tolerate avoidable/intentional imperfections, especially in an important system, does not make me a perfectionist.

What I worry about more are those in power that would allow security lapses when it benefits their side.

[otseng]

But it looks to me like you're a fairly typical internet conspiracy theorist who will just stick to your conspiracy theories no matter what.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without making personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jose Fly]

Honestly, I've grown quite tired of the dynamic of these discussions where folks like you hold elections to a standard of perfection, and I'm supposed to defend the fact that they're not perfect. As I've noted several times already, we can have the exact same conversation about every law and crime.

I never claimed that elections had to be perfect, but no reasonable person should be expected to call it "fair" under just any imperfect condition. At the least, I'd expect for there to be reasonable and responsible standards in place. Under a reasonable and responsible system, I expect errors to occur when we don't have the means to cover everything or know everything. But what should not be tolerated are intentional imperfections (election fraud), where we have known areas that cheating can and/or has occurred, and we can do something about it, and it doesn't make it hard to vote, but yet we still do nothing.

People violate speed limits every day. What does that say about our current laws and enforcement?

It says that our laws can be improved, and they should.

Going by the logic employed throughout this thread, we have to impose draconian measures until we've entirely eliminated every case of speeding, murder, and shoplfifting....even if it means giving up fundamental rights like privacy, prevents some people from driving and shopping, and requires massive police forces.

It seems that you think that any new measure is "draconian". Going by that logic, we shouldn't introduce any new measures just because we can't catch every instance of cheating.

As long as your measure of success is "the process went perfectly", you'll always have something to point to as justification for more oversight and security. See that guy speeding? Obviously we need to do more!

For practical reasons, I don't expect any system to be perfect. But as I said before, if there are going to be imperfections, then let them be incidental because of our inherent limitations. It should not involve intentional ones. Borrowing from Epicurus...

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

The bold part applies here.

Finally, as I noted earlier I'm fully supportive of things like increasing random post-election audits, random recounts, etc. I'd go along with voter ID as long as the ID's are free and are automatically given to every registered voter. But I harbor no illusions that those types of things will satisfy the perfectionists.

Not wanting to tolerate avoidable/intentional imperfections, especially in an important system, does not make me a perfectionist.

What I worry about more are those in power that would allow security lapses when it benefits their side.

You can say you're not holding elections to a standard of perfection, but this thread shows otherwise. It's pretty much been the same thing throughout....you and others citing examples of the system not working perfectly in a "Well then what about THIS?" manner, and apparently expecting me to explain how our elections can still be free and fair in light of those examples.

As I noted earlier, I'm rather tired of that dynamic, so I'm content to say we'll just have to disagree. Thanks for your time.

[AgnosticBoy]

You can say you're not holding elections to a standard of perfection, but this thread shows otherwise. It's pretty much been the same thing throughout....you and others citing examples of the system not working perfectly in a "Well then what about THIS?" manner, and apparently expecting me to explain how our elections can still be free and fair in light of those examples.

My examples were not simply to show that fraud exists, but rather they show that some cases would go uncaught under the election process we have now. That's the main reason I advocate for there being more security. This was all in response to you and historia trying to make it seem as though all of those incidents of cheating that I and Purple Knight brought up could be caught under the system that we have now.

Remember that it was you (in post #47) that challenged us to bring up "real" cases of cheating as opposed to imaginary scenarios of cheating. And when I'm successful at doing just that, you complain, and then try to mix up the purpose of why I was bringing up those examples (to counter a specific claim vs. using it to claim that elections have to be perfect which I NEVER said).

For the record, my position is that elections are fair to a degree. That is my position because we are not doing things that can be done. And because of that we're in the dark about the examples that I brought up when it comes to the extent that they occur. When someone is against more security for no no good reason (esp. when politics is at play), then my confidence decreases even more.