2016 United States Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

His acceptance is not "required" but the concern is to what extent his more deplorable followers will follow his lead.

There is a factor that not many people have talked about that could come into play. One effect of the Shelby decision in 2013 that struck down much of the Voting Rights Act is that the Justice Department can no longer send "observers" to polling places to make sure that voters are not discriminated against or otherwise intimidated. They can still send "monitors" in some cases, but those people can not actually enter the polling places and are much more limited. Now we have Donald Trump going around telling his supporters that the election is rigged and that they should vote and then go do what they need to "prevent" voting problems, which is code to go out and intimidate minorities and others. Can you imagine what that might mean in "open carry" states? I fear our election day might end up looking like some that I have seen reported in Guinea and other third world countries.

[Griffon64]

To that point. From my Facebook feed ( careful, language ).

People are fearful after Little Donnie's remarks regarding not conceding a loss. The idea being that all the calls of rigged elections and fraud and unfair treatment will incite his supporters towards violence or sedition.

Fear not.

A few may act out, but most will not. Why do I think this? Because those peoples lives aren't as bad as Little Donnie makes them believe. They aren't hungry, they aren't actually oppressed, they aren't in real danger and most people, on some level, are aware of that.

This is why the idiots who took over the wildlife reserve in Oregon had a million likes on Facebook and only about a dozen dumb fucks who showed up to "join the rebellion." When the going gets tough, the tough start to look around and honestly assess what they've got to lose.

In those honest moments, all the rhetoric and campaign talk and emotionally based calls to action become less motivating. People see their house, their job, their family, the food in their pantry and they ask themselves, "Are my family's and my fellow countrymen's lives so bad that I am willing to die to make them better?"

For the vast majority of people, the answer to that question is a strong NO. Why? Because despite what Little Donnie wants people to believe, America is not a bad place. It's got its problems, there's shit we definitely need to work on, but all in all it's already pretty Great.

Or not. I could be dead wrong. We'll know on or about November 8th. Regardless, I hope you'll join me in not being afraid, ever.
Because this is just a ride.

[Frelga]

I am more optimistic than V and more pessimistic than Griffy. I am less concerned about problems at the polls and more about tampering with the legitimately cast votes. As the NPR pointed out Republican legislators control the voting process in most States. And let's not forget that Putin's pet hackers have already been caught in voter registration databases in 20 States.
http://wccftech.com/russian-hackers-tar ... 20-states/

[Griffon64]

Well, if we're going to take the possibility of cast votes being tampered with seriously, then that would be a huge shift towards pessimism!

I've seen plenty of articles pop up ( including one in my local paper, from the local officials ) stating that election results are not easy ( or even possible, but "impossible" is a very strong phrase ) to hack. I chose to trust in the system because I don't want to dip even a toe in the murky "mistrust everything that looks like gov'mnt!!11" waters that some of the GOP wallows in. And I would think a lot of Republican officials do not actually want Donald Trump elected.

Either way, nothing to do now but hold on to our hats.

In other news, I read this yesterday: https://goplifer.com/what-the-republica ... -could-be/

That's the kind of thinking that I would like to see from the GOP, instead of this insanely outrageous Trumpism / evangelism / protectionism that has taken over the party.

A couple excerpts:

America today generates more profit than ever before with less demand for labor than ever before. For people who lack the family resources to support many years of fantastically expensive post-high school education, many years of career experimentation, and the economic jolts of often unplanned or unintended career changes, the rewards of this new economy are simply out of reach.

The purpose of the safety net is to hold open the doors of opportunity for everyone, regardless of poor luck, illness, or other disadvantage. Instead of demonizing the poor, we need to refocus our resources on addressing the greater investment required to access the bottom rungs of the economic ladder and reducing the bureaucracy that burdens the current system. A shift away from the welfare state toward a basic or minimum income, as first proposed by Nixon era Republicans, should be a priority.

Climate change is real. It is driven by human carbon emissions. If ignored it promises a threat to civilization unmatched by any challenge we have ever confronted. Denial is a humiliating scandal that undermines our credibility on every other issue. Republicans should be on the leading edge of carbon reduction and climate mitigation strategies that preserve the influence of market forces and preserve the potential of carbon reduction technology to stimulate prosperity and employment.

[yovargas]

Republicans* should be on the leading edge of carbon reduction and climate mitigation strategies...

*Correction: Everyone.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I chose to trust in the system because I don't want to dip even a toe in the murky "mistrust everything that looks like gov'mnt!!11" waters that some of the GOP wallows in.

There is some of that attitude on the left, as well. It manifests itself differently, but it is base on the same paranoia.

[Cerin]

Refusing to admit that our electoral process has no integrity, calling concern about the electoral process paranoia, guarantees it won't be fixed.

Indeed, it has been demonstrated that the voting machine results are easy to tamper with. Votes can be flipped without detection. Voting rolls, now computerized, can be easily hacked, resulting in massive disenfranchisement at the polling places (this happened numerous times during the primaries). Dirty tricks are routinely engaged in, to fool and threaten people -- mostly minorities -- into not voting. Polling places can and have been closed at the whim of partisan secretaries of state, leaving extreme shortages in certain areas, again often in poor and minority neighborhoods, creating long lines to discourage voting. Partisans in each state are in charge of running the elections and counting the votes.

We already have a third world voting situation; but what sets us apart is the notion that our corruptible shambles of an electoral process is incorruptible, that questioning its integrity is an existential threat to our 'democracy,' and is only engaged in by crackpots. What a Catch-22. Our elections will remain corruptible until we are willing to admit the possibility that they are corruptible.

edit spelling

[Primula Baggins]

If every state adopted vote by mail, there would be a paper trail for every single vote. The signatures on every ballot envelope would be compared with the signature on the voter's registration form, making impersonation fraud almost impossible. It would also be impossible to vote twice. There would be no voter intimidation because there would be no polling places. People without transportation or with physical limitations would have the same opportunity to vote as everyone else. People without money for postage would probably have a 24-hour free dropbox available at a nearby shopping center, pubic library, or school.

Combine that with automatic opt-out voter registration at the DMV, and you have close to universal enfranchisement with close to universal ability to vote. Huge turnouts for every election. Better-informed voters because you can fill out your ballot with the voters' pamphlets at your elbow.

But, of course, in a fair number of states, the people with power over the electoral process do not want any of those things.

[Inanna]

That could also lead to women, for example, not being able to make their own choices. Would entire households vote the way the head/dominant person in that household does? It could lead to the way you voted being traced back to you - and the threats that would come with it.

I think the vote, the actual vote, should be anonymous.

[Primula Baggins]

In Oregon, if you're made to vote under duress, you can go to the county elections office and they'll retrieve your ballot and give you a new one to vote then and there.

I believe you can arrange this by phone in advance, too. You must vote in person, but they will hold your ballot until you can come in.

The signature is on the mailing envelope, not the ballot itself. Ballots are removed from the envelope before being counted.

[Primula Baggins]

And, this is all done in a room with an interior window, and anyone can come and watch the process. They can't interfere, but they can observe.

[River]

My signature has changed since I registered and my state went entirely over to mailing it in this year. I'll figure it out, but signatures really aren't a static means of identification/authentication.

[Primula Baggins]

No, that's true. It happened to my son, in fact. They caught the difference, and he had to go in to the elections office and prove it was his new signature. No trouble since. (He has dysgraphia and his signature didn't settle down until he was 20 or so.)

[narya]

Mine still hasn't settled down.

[River]

Mine was settled and then I got this job where I have to sign off every page of my lab notebook plus sign the edges of anything I print out and tape into my notebook (i.e., all processed data). Each notebook is 200 pages long. I opened up my twelfth this week. I was barely even halfway through the first when my signature went from a pair of scribbles to a pair of lines.

My handwriting is otherwise fairly tidy and legible. It's not pretty, but no one's going to be scratching their heads wondering whether there are any letters in the madness.

[Cerin]

I'm seeing reports that Clinton is ahead in swing states in early voting. I had assumed early ballots were not counted until polls close on election day.

[Lalaith]

That's what I thought, too, Cerin.

[tinwë]

The ballots aren't counted, but party affiliation is. There has been a larger then usual number of Democrats voting early, and it's safe to assume not many of them are voting for Trump.

[Lalaith]

Ahhh, okay. That makes more sense.

[narya]

Could someone please explain this to me? Am I hanging around with an unusual selection of white people here?