You still think so, given the amount of ‘shennanigans’ that took place?
Ever heard about the ‘near miss effect’ as it is used to perpetuate gambling/gaming. I think the same psychology can be used to reduce the likelihood people would cry foul about election results.
In a hotly contested election, I’d be more likely to accept a narrow loss than a complete drubbing.
With a razor thin margin of losing, I would be encouraged to go away thinking “if only”…and I’m sure I could find a lot of “if only”’ instances to rationalize the candidate didn’t lose due to fraud of some kind, but failed to say something ultra-charismatic or brilliant at the right time.
The point being that if I wanted to rig a win for a mediocre candidate, I would try to arrange the final lead to be about ~2% or so; depending on the rules that trigger an immediate recount. Two reasons: people will more than likely believe that they lost by ‘just a little’ and the results don’t risk flirting with needing 100% turnout in any location (which would be a red flag).
The pernicious aspect of this is that while losing by 15%, or precincts that produce 98%+ turnout are obvious indicators that suspicion could be justified, losing by 2% is a possible outcome. Its possible. Without all the indicators this time that undermine the credibility of the result, it might not just be possible, it might be believable too.
Please stop thinking “if only” or blaming inadequate turnout until we can get improved election transparency & security.
Seriously, stop it.
As long as the system can be heavily manipulated, you can’t know what the real turn-out numbers were.
Demand transparency for elections going forward. Request video surveillance and time-stamps during counting…compartmentalize counted votes on an hourly schedule.
Demand measures be put in place to make it difficult to counterfeit ballots. Paper ballots are essential. Scans of paper ballots are not an acceptable alternative. A paper ballot design that can be reproduced in a photo copier is asking for problems.
Demand security for military ballots.
Demand signature verification for absentee ballots.
Demand absentee ballots be subject to written request.
Demand unsolicited, mailed ballots be prohibited.
Demand photo-id for in-person balloting and include signature verification.
Demand retention of physical evidence, like rejected ballots, cured ballots, replacement ballots,
Demand chain-of custody for ballots. Eliminate insecure dropboxes, ‘ballot harvesting’…
These are not cure-all measures. Some may already exist in your state.
I’m sure there are more things to add to the list (like constraining early voting, or changes to how the vote counts are reported within a state) but the past two months have demonstrated that the process to contest an election certified by a rogue state is not up to the task.
Closer to a precinct level, very few election canvassers are willing to ‘not certify’ a result even when that would be the correct, justified action. One side-effect of added ballot security measures is it helps prevent the canvassers being put in a position where potentially doing the honest thing is inviting physical danger. A different process may be needed there.
I also think the live poll book app has to have limited (or delayed) access. Some places allow the voter status to be reviewed in real time, by anybody; to determine who has (and hasn’t) voted. While this does allow a voter to confirm that their vote was registered, it also allows someone who wants to produce fake ballots to determine which names they can put on those ballots. There are electioneering uses for this app. as well.