Precautions for the next election?

[PetrChelcicky]

As for the "insurrection", I have argued that Democrats never believed in a real danger of insurrection, because they have not discussed nor taken any precautionary measures against future insurrections. (For example, when the Germans truly feared an "insurrection" in 1918 Berlin, they moved the whole parliament to Weimar. Precautionary measures are not impossible.)

Now, there would be the time to discuss precautionary measures against the suspicion of election fraud. I understand that the Democrats don't believe that election fraud DID happen - but wouldn't it be in their interest to avoid even the suspicion of election fraud?
There are a lot of possibilities there. What about inviting observers? A lot of Eastern European elections have been observed by the ODIHR, an office of the OSCE, an organization destined for Europe but where the United States are a member. The ODIHR is professionally experienced in the techniques of neutral observation and its testimony would be trustworthy for most people.
Also a lot of measures could be taken to prevent the grosser incidents of the last elections (like, sending the local observers away and then continuing the vote count).
As for the huge problem of the absentee ballot, here in Germany we can counter it with the principle of "secrecy of vote" - because a vote in the family circle is not "secret" (but we in West Germany were rather sensitive about secrecy because of our experiences with the GDR, and the Americans may be less crazy about it).
From what I have read there are till now no precautionary measures to make the next elections more reliable or - if you think that they are reliable - more credible und trusted. Or have I missed something?

[Ken]

As for the "insurrection", I have argued that Democrats never believed in a real danger of insurrection, because they have not discussed nor taken any precautionary measures against future insurrections. (For example, when the Germans truly feared an "insurrection" in 1918 Berlin, they moved the whole parliament to Weimar. Precautionary measures are not impossible.)

Now, there would be the time to discuss precautionary measures against the suspicion of election fraud. I understand that the Democrats don't believe that election fraud DID happen - but wouldn't it be in their interest to avoid even the suspicion of election fraud?
There are a lot of possibilities there. What about inviting observers? A lot of Eastern European elections have been observed by the ODIHR, an office of the OSCE, an organization destined for Europe but where the United States are a member. The ODIHR is professionally experienced in the techniques of neutral observation and its testimony would be trustworthy for most people.
Also a lot of measures could be taken to prevent the grosser incidents of the last elections (like, sending the local observers away and then continuing the vote count).
As for the huge problem of the absentee ballot, here in Germany we can counter it with the principle of "secrecy of vote" - because a vote in the family circle is not "secret" (but we in West Germany were rather sensitive about secrecy because of our experiences with the GDR, and the Americans may be less crazy about it).
From what I have read there are till now no precautionary measures to make the next elections more reliable or - if you think that they are reliable - more credible und trusted. Or have I missed something?

What you are missing is that:

1. The US is not a parliamentary system like Germany and "Democrats" can't just do whatever they want at the national level without passing legislation through a Congress that they do not control. From 2020-2022 they did marginally control the Senate by just one vote, but Senators Manchin and Sinema came out early against any election reform laws in 2021 which basically put an end to any consideration of new legislation. This was the actual vote that brought election reform to a halt in the Senate in January 2022: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/590 ... ting-bill/

2. There is very little that the White House or Administration can actually do on their own since we do not have national elections. They are held at the state level. The main independent national body that oversees elections is the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which is, by law, logjammed with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats and no ability to break ties. And so essentially ineffective. And their main job is to oversee campaign finance not the actual operations of elections.

3. Individual states that are in Democratic control are, in fact, making changes to election laws. In states that are in Republican control things are going in the other direction (such as measures to allow partisan legislatures overrule non-partisan elections officials and boards in election certifications)

4. US elections are already observed at every level by representatives from both parties. And despite Trump's rantings to the contrary (which you repeated above in the underlined passage). No official elections observers from either party were never expelled from a single vote counting room anywhere in the US. What did happen in a few places was the unruly members of the public (WHO WERE NOT ACTUAL OFFICIAL ELECTION OBSERVERS) were expelled from some vote counting rooms because they were being disruptive and obstructionist and didn't actually know what they were doing or even seeing. But no actual election observers were expelled or blocked from observing any operations anywhere. Don't believe me? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/p ... rooms.html

On Twitter and in interviews, President Trump and his supporters have alleged that his campaign observers were blocked from ballot-counting rooms, hindering their ability to witness and report several instances of what the Trump campaign has baselessly claimed was widespread election fraud that has marred the results.

“THE OBSERVERS WERE NOT ALLOWED INTO THE COUNTING ROOMS,” Mr. Trump alleged in a tweet on Saturday. “BAD THINGS HAPPENED WHICH OUR OBSERVERS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SEE.”

The charge was without any basis in fact, and was, in reality, contradicted by several of Mr. Trump’s own legal filings.

In cases that his campaign brought in Nevada and Pennsylvania — one dismissed, the other pending — it acknowledged that its observers were indeed present in the counting rooms. His lawyers were, rather, asking the courts to force election officials to allow Mr. Trump’s observers to get even closer views of the counting activity.

And so here we are.

[Jazman]

The title asks a question...
Here's one answer: don't trust this 'conservative' political outfit... which no doubt will be active come Nov... stirring up fear & acrimony (likely raising lots of money, for themselves, at the same time...oh look, it's actually publicly known that they do exactly that!)

[Bootstrap]

Unpacking Jazman's post ...

1. True the Vote says they have no evidence for their claims of electoral fraud in Georgia.

https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elec ... 007cd23115

A conservative group has told a Georgia judge that it doesn’t have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later.

Texas-based True the Vote filed complaints with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in 2021, including one in which it said it had obtained “a detailed account of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes across metro Atlanta” during the November 2020 election and a January 2021 runoff.

In their written response, attorneys for True the Vote said the group had no names or other documentary evidence to share.

2. Leaders of Texas-based activist group True the Vote accused of using donations for personal gain

[Josh]

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the DA who tried prosecuting Trump turns out to, well, not be squeaky clean.

[Ken]

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the DA who tried prosecuting Trump turns out to, well, not be squeaky clean.

She hasn't been accused of any wrong doing that I am aware of.

[Josh]

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the DA who tried prosecuting Trump turns out to, well, not be squeaky clean.

She hasn't been accused of any wrong doing that I am aware of.

Generally speaking, most people consider it questionable to hire your boyfriend and pay him a million dollars (of public money) and then frequently go on cruises and lavish vacations with him, paid for by his company credit card… that’s funded with the legal fees being paid for with public funds.

This situation is serious enough that Trump is probably going to get the case against him thrown out because of the prosecutor’s misconduct.

[Ken]

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the DA who tried prosecuting Trump turns out to, well, not be squeaky clean.

She hasn't been accused of any wrong doing that I am aware of.

Generally speaking, most people consider it questionable to hire your boyfriend and pay him a million dollars (of public money) and then frequently go on cruises and lavish vacations with him, paid for by his company credit card… that’s funded with the legal fees being paid for with public funds.

This situation is serious enough that Trump is probably going to get the case against him thrown out because of the prosecutor’s misconduct.

If she broke the law then she should face consequences.

If she didn't then there really isn't anything to see here. Even public people are allowed private lives.

If you think that she should be removed from her job and/or prosecuted for something this trivial. Then I'm sure you will agree that Trump should be pulled off the ticket, removed from consideration for the presidency and prosecuted for behavior that is 1000x more egregious, profuse, venal, and long-lasting.

Anything else is utter rank hypocrisy.

[JimFoxvog]

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the DA who tried prosecuting Trump turns out to, well, not be squeaky clean.

I expect there aren't many people who someone can't find something (real or imagined) against. I expect this is deliberate intimidation tactics showing what happens to anyone who tries to prosecute.

[Josh]

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the DA who tried prosecuting Trump turns out to, well, not be squeaky clean.

I expect there aren't many people who someone can't find something (real or imagined) against. I expect this is deliberate intimidation tactics showing what happens to anyone who tries to prosecute.

No, it isn’t. It’s completely reasonable to expect prosecutors who hold one of the most important law enforcement jobs in the land not to:

- Hire their boyfriend
- Hire a boyfriend with no experience prosecuting, which probably explains why so many of the other defendants charged got off on plea deals with no jail time. (The other possibility is they weren’t guilty of anything.)
- Pay him a much higher rate than he’s ever made before (usually public sector pays less than private sector…) - then take kickbacks on the form of expensive vacations with bins
- Not use large amounts of untraceable cash, which the DA claims she has no receipts for taking out of the bank. Her boyfriend-employee claims he never deposited it in the bank. Neither of them disclosed this on their financial disclosures or interrogatories. Yet they are claiming these large cash exchanges were to prevent there being any kickbacks.

If someone wants to prosecute Trump for fraud, corruption, etc. then we should expect that prosecutor not to be committing rather obvious fraud and corruption, shouldn’t we?