Post removed

[NCTraveler]

1. Love the transparency.

One of the worst things to come from JPR......

[KittyWampus]

30. I defended Clinton throughout and got many, many hides for it. I AGREE WITH THIS.

So you can stick your head in the sand, but the fact is Clinton and her team were played.

And the fact is, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to give a sh*t about verifiable elections.

Voter suppression? Yes, sort of.

Clinton failed to get the voters to the polls in the Rust Belt.

And she is refusing to stand up for Election Integrity.

[NCTraveler]

31. More transparency. Thanks.

Steins weak and feeble attempt to promote the Green Party while separating hard working Americans from their money is what the huge problem is. When Stein is done deceiving she will have confirmed to a majority of the country that nothing shady happened in this election.

[KittyWampus]

36. whatever the f*ck that means. You want to tell me what your comment means?

Have the guts to say what you really mean.

[NCTraveler]

39. I added a bit to it.

That said, I won't deal with the level of hostility and unbridled anger you are bringing at me.

"Have the guts to say what you really mean."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. LOL. this whole election fraud is as dumb on the left as it is on the right.

at least the right has an agenda, stricter voter ID after they claim fraud. the left doesn't even have that.

[noamnety]

4. The agenda: Identify and reduce/eliminate election fraud.

Not sure what the confusion is about.

Some states already do random partial post-election audits. Others refuse to - and the DNC just gave those states a free pass to continue to operate with no oversight.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. just because you dont like the results doesn't mean there was fraud. nt

[uponit7771]

11. I don't like voter suppression, that is fraud on its face... to dismiss it as a factor is a non star

... starter in any post election analysis.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. yes, voter suppression is fraud. but not the type of fraud that the left seems particularly engaged

in.

[uponit7771]

17. What difference does it make? tia

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. not sure what you mean here.

[uponit7771]

25. What difference does it make what kind of election fraud dems think it is, voter suppression is ...

... election fraud whether we add factors on top of it or just take the voter suppression by face value.

There's OBJECTIVE evidence for attempts at voter suppression before the election.... that's election fraud right?

thx in advance

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. right but by focusing on the theft narrative, we don't see what is happen in the open

[noamnety]

12. I agree with you on that.

And that's why it's so important for the DNC to act now to push for election audits in the future - instead of waiting for an election where they don't like the results.

It's about acknowledging that verified voting and audits should be a normal part of the process, whether we like the election results OR NOT.

I know the country has gotten to a sort of screeching partisan place where it's hard for people on either side to see the bigger picture. I'm suggesting we rise above that and acknowledge that election audits should be routine, to identify faulty equipment (broken machines, ballots that are run multiple times after jams), as well as to identify possible sources of fraud or incompetence.

[uponit7771]

26. Yes, so much... focusing on Shitlers tweets and crap isn't going to change anything but making sure

... people can vote will

[KittyWampus]

32. And just because you and I both supported Clinton doesn't mean we can't criticize the FAIL

that was her campaign. Yeah, you can blame lots of other factors. But not acknowledging the egregious errors on Clinton and her team's part is not acceptable to me. It is not helpful.

She and the Democratic party elite need to start standing up for Verifiable Elections as well as standing against Voter Suppression.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. this is not one of her fails. one of her fails was to go to states that we could never win

like texas.

this is not an area where she failed.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. THERE IS NO FRAUD! There is suppression, gerrymandering, and other problems, but...

calling them fraud assumes easy answers.

There are no easy answers and recounts just because you don't like the results is counterproductive. Recount a county or whole state and finding a dozen or so questionable votes will kill off any chance of real reform.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. yup

[noamnety]

28. Can you understand that this issue

is not about me liking - or not liking - the results of a particular election?

I'm really concerned that people here are so partisan that they can't comprehend that viewpoint.

(Also concerned that there is a belief that election fraud is impossible and never exists.)

[TreasonousBastard]

41. I never said fraud is impossible...

and it certainly did exist in the past with destroyed paper ballots and voting machines in the Chicago river.

I am saying that there are few, if any, cases of verifiable fraud these days.

Have any of the myriad investigations actually proven fraud? Not just machine errors-- actual intent.

(edited subject line)

[noamnety]

48. People have been arrested for election fraud

and not just in the distant past.

But your post implies that catching and prosecuting someone for fraud is the only reason for an audit. I'm trying to be consistent in explaining that an audit also can expose problems that need to be fixed regarding machine malfunctions, as well as systemic human error.

So for example, if you look at the infamous Florida recount,, most of can agree we were disgusted by both the election outcome and how it was decided, along with the way in which the recount was stopped.

But the recount wasn't a total loss, because it shed light on two systemic problems - butterfly ballots and hanging chads. And since then they have modernized equipment so neither of those are still being used.

Note: I am not saying Florida is fraud-proof. I am saying that a partial post-election audit identified two specific problems and as a result those two specific problems were fixed. And you'll notice - neither of those were election fraud issues. Fraud is not the only reason to request an audit.

[uponit7771]

29. Those are FORMS of election fraud... PERIOD... END OF STORY

[TreasonousBastard]

42. And not dealt with by recounting that "fraudulent" vote...

these are political, not criminal, problems.

Find a better definition of "fraud".

[uponit7771]

44. Irrelevant on how they're dealt with post election, no one is talking about that. Getting to agree

... that voter suppression is a form of election fraud seems to be a point of dispute on DU right now.

Hmmmm, I wish I knew how to do a poll on this

[TreasonousBastard]

49. Voter suppression is a real stretch on "fraud"...

it is unforgivable, illegal in most places, and just plain wrong.

But calling it "fraud" muddies the issue.

If I promise you something for your money and have no plans on coming through, that would be fraud.

If I take the money from your cash register, that is theft.

It is simply a question of properly defining terms.

Voting machine errors could often simply be errors, with no intent to defraud. Gerrymandering has a definite intent. As do moving the polling places, advertising a phony change of date, and just stopping black folks from voting by any means available.

[uponit7771]

50. In your example eligble citizens are promised the right to vote no? PREVENTING people from voting or

... disabling their votes via a myriad of illegal or out right fraudulent tactics like aiming the rules towards demograhpics is fraud

[KittyWampus]

34. Well, since recounts aren't happening and can not happen due to systems that are inexcusably

hackable and broken... you can't prove there is no fraud.

And that is the point.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. I don't have to prove there is no fraud...

Alas, the accuser has to prove the accusation.

I agree absolutely that where there is no audit trail there are possibilities of fraud, error, and all sorts of other nasty things. But, since there is no audit trail, nothing can be proven. So, we go with the path of least resistance and assume the accuracy of the results, as distasteful as that may be. Any other assumption would require a revote.

I would suggest that in states with hackable machines, the effort should be to replace those machines.

[uponit7771]

10. Cause voter suppression was aimed at the right? REALLY?! Factually this is not true, I like reality

... like the rest of us

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. i didn't say that.

[uponit7771]

16. You intimated such by saying election fraud is dumb, voter suppression is a form of election fraud..

... PERIOD

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. i have created a few thread now about voter suppresssion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/118758787

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028333745

https://www.google.com/search?q=priyanka%2C+voter+suppression&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[jonno99]

13. How to guarantee that fraud doesn't occur and that every vote counts? Sometimes simpler

is better...

[TwilightZone]

3. Recounts aren't up to the candidates.

They're up to the states. The candidates could have signed the pledge you're talking about, but it would have been completely meaningless. It's not in their power to unilaterally order recounts.

[noamnety]

7. Recounts can be requested by the candidates.

As happened in this election.

And court challenges were also placed by a candidate in this election.

[dsc]

8. depends on the state

in NC if the margin is above 10k no recount even if the candidate is willing to pay for it.

[noamnety]

23. At least they have random audits in NC.

That's all tangential to my point though, which is that even though the results ended up beyond that threshold in that state, Hillary should have challenged Trump to agree not to go to court to stop any requested recounts. And then if the results had been below the threshold, she would have been in a position to ask for the recount without looking like an idiot with no principles after taking a stand against them.

In the debates, Hillary should have agreed with Trump that elections are prone to fraud, human error and mechanical error, and challenged him support recounts where allowable - and challenged him to support legislative changes in the states that have little or no checks on the process.

[TwilightZone]

18. And we see how well that went in MI.

It's ultimately up to the states. In some states, recounts aren't available outside of very specific parameters, even if they're paid for by the candidates.

[noamnety]

33. If hillary had requested it in Michigan

the recount may well have gone forward. The court problem was that Jill was not able to prove she was an aggrieved candidate because her election wasn't viable.

If Hillary hadn't done what she did, the recount would still be going on, and the final result would have done one major thing that we all should support, no matter what the final recount was:

It would have identified systemic and individual problems that need to be addressed. All those precincts that were uncountable due to errors? That's what an audit is SUPPOSED to uncover, if it exists. If hillary hadn't acted the way she did, she could have filed the recount request, and we could still be exposing where the problems are, so we could fix them.

If you believe the sole purpose of an audit is to change election results so your candidate wins, you have a different set of ethics than me.

[JTFrog]

6. YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!%(#)%*@@!! nt

[uponit7771]

9. Those are words, he "strong position" doesn't mean crap legally... she can still chalenge the result

[Justice]

19. What? HRC said she would accept election results; she never took stand against verifying them.

Her campaign lawyer Marc Elias said they looked at challenging the results, but concluded the margins were too great to overcome.

He has been doing this for a long time; he was involved in NC efforts that resulted in Roy Cooper being governor.

At this time, the focus of Democrats has to be on getting people registered and getting them the correct voter ID.

[noamnety]

35. I recall her saying a little more than that.

It wasn't just "I'm going to accept the results of the election."

[underthematrix]

40. Yes. I'm a pragmatist too

Know your state's election law, get the required ID, register to vote, then vote in every election.

[HassleCat]

37. We expected to win.

We thought, and Hillary thought, the initial results would show her as the winner. Trump thought so, too, which is why he proclaimed the system rigged.

[noamnety]

43. All that is true, but it doesn't change my point.

She clearly gambled on that and lost, fucking herself in the process.

But more importantly, she missed that it isn't always about her.

The stand she took against verifying election results - as a general concept - hurts democrats down ticket, and democrats in future elections. She claimed that verifying election results is anti-democracy, and the DNC sat around applauding her as she said it.

[HassleCat]

46. Is there a link to what she said?

I'm not clear on her objections to recounts, audits, etc.

[noamnety]

51. Here's what was said:

Trump: “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win,” Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump told a rally in Newark, Ohio on Thursday.
“Of course I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result,” he continued."

My note: that's a pretty standard position for a candidate to take, that they don't challenge results if they win, but they reserve the right to file a challenge if the results are questionable.

Hillary's response (at a New Hampshire rally shortly afterwards): "He became the first person, Republican or Democrat, who refused to say that he would respect the results of this election. Now, that is a direct threat to our democracy."

My note: Along with her statement being frankly bizarre (many candidates throughout our history have requested recounts), requesting an audit or recount of a questionable result or a close election is not a "direct threat to democracy." It's the exact opposite of that.

[Fast Walker 52]

47. yes, she was too busy being outraged by groupthink and should have nuanced it

Dems always seem to give too much credit to our election systems

[randr]

52. I am going to say it again

If we can count every last penny spent every single day why can't we accurately count votes once every two years?
The fact that this is a question is positive proof without a doubt that the system is corrupt.

[guillaumeb]

53. One of the pervasive myths in this country is that there are free and fair elections.

Given the huge influence of the 1% who buy politicians,
given the systematic racial suppression of voting,
given the GOP control of the election process 30 states,
that anyone, much less a Democrat, could really believe that elections are open and fair is amazing.

The auditing is of course an excellent idea, but the suppression and money influence determine who gets nominated and elected in the first place.