Trump's HBO Interview

[jason_c]

my gut feeling, and it is only a gut feeling, is that voter fraud by inserting yourself into the process is difficult and probably not worth the risk. By "Process" I mean

1. Person A is a registered voter
2. Person A then applies for a postal vote.
3. Person A then gets a ballot with a serial number/bar-code
3.a Here is the first opportunity for Person B to intercept the letter somehow. For the fraud to work, Person B would need to get access to the mail and correctly guess the voting intention of Person A (otherwise, all this fraud would not actually change a vote). Person B could then tick a different box than person A would have, sign it and send it off. Here are already two crimes. Mail theft and voting fraud for potentially switching just ONE vote.

So I don't see this as a realistic scenario. Especially when considering that Person A could call the electoral commission and state that he/she has not received the ballot which would like put a red-flag on that serial number or bar-code which means they would be on the look-out for when that ballot comes back. Also, if there are several bad actors actually doing exactly this, then would they not need to coordinate and all switch votes the same way? Or if they are not coordinating, would they not all cancel each other out (more or less)

If voter fraud could be done on a scale that could potentially change the outcome of an election, then this would need to be done in a place where someone would have access to large quantities of ballots. For example:

1. where the ballots are printed. But here, systems must be in place where a serial number would need to be unique on all ballots and all are accounted for. Incidentally, the same problem (and solution) would exist where ballots are printed for in-person voting so mail-in ballots should not be inherently less safe.
2. Where filled-in ballots are received. There seems to be a practice in the US called "ballot-harvesting", where political operatives can go from house to house and say "Let me collect your vote and I will deliver it to the polling station" or to that effect. Personally, I think this is insane. Elections need to be carried out by non-partisan institutions and no party should ever get their hands on a ballot. Ever. Situations like these can lead to the scandal in 9th District in NC in 2018 where a GOP operative was convicted of large voter fraud. Simple solution: get rid of this "Ballot Harvesting" practice. What's so difficult about it?
3. When votes are counted. So in the US, I believe almost all votes are cast electronically, so there is no counting of papers that can be verified like in the UK for example. But I suppose the same system could be deployed to count the postal votes in the US. The counting should be public and operatives of all parties should be able to view the proceedings to ensure that they are not getting screwed over during THIS part of the process.

So looking at all of this, I don't see how massive voter fraud could reasonably be committed providing some BASIC PRECAUTIONS AND PROCEDURES are in place. And it is the job of the states to ensure that such processes are implemented and enforced.

Even when we discuss all the potential shortcomings for mail-in (and therefore paper-based) voting, what makes us think that electronic in-person voting can be trusted that much more? Voter databases can be hacked into and HAVE been hacked into by the Russians, the programs that compile vote counts can fail or be tampered with, etc. etc.. I feel that there are gaps in those processes that need attention that no one is talking about and Moscow Mitch's Senate is too apathetic to do anything about (because the comrades in Moscow are of course doing all of this on the GOP's behalf).

Finally, let's take a steps back and wonder why this issue is so important to Trump and the GOP. The simple answer is that postal-voting undermines the GOP's traditional voter suppression tactics such as
1. fewer number of voting stations in relation to population in ethnic minority areas.
2. Moving voting stations miles away from population centres.
3. changing locations last minute.
4. Under staffing so that voters have to wait for hours.

and probably a few others I can't think of right now. All of the problems above are solved by mail-in voting. Now this paragraph might sound extremely cynical an I have no direct proof of all this happening by malicious design but it is happening nonetheless.

So the whole thing is a trade-off. You may swap some existing problems with in-person voting for new problems with mail-in voting, I'm happy to acknowledge that. The challenge is to mitigate those problems and it is here where I see no attempt whatsoever by Trump and his goons to do their duty. That duty is to give people palatable options to cast their votes safely, securely and fairly. Trump actually does the opposite, he is sabotaging the US electoral process. For that alone, he should be impeached and immediately be removed but as long as the goons are running the Senate, this fail-safe is not realistically available to US citizens.

Cheers.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I agree that ballot harvesting is the real problem. Below is a link to a Dem operative who says he has been doing this for years. It is a real and present danger. I'm of the opinion that the greater the human input required to vote the less secure the vote actually is. Not only is ballot harvesting a problem but I'm also suspicious of postal workers. All it takes is for a postal worker to stuff postal votes into the trash from a heavily Repub or Dem area and the result is compromised. I barely trust a postal worker with £5 for my nephews birthday, I don't trust them with the fate of the free world in their hands. This is especially so when their union has endorsed Biden and union members have been told by the media that one of the candidates is literally Hitler.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/politi...il-in-ballots/

[Svensson]

I think the Post Office Union's decision to endorse Biden is hardly surprising when the other candidate called the post office "a Joke" in the Oval office just because he has a personal feud with Jeff Bezos and then installs a lackey who has financial interest in the Postal Services competitors and is actively restricting the Postal Service's capabilities.

[jason_c]

I think the Post Office Union's decision to endorse Biden is hardly surprising when the other candidate called the post office "a Joke" in the Oval office just because he has a personal feud with Jeff Bezos and then installs a lackey who has financial interest in the Postal Services competitors and is actively restricting the Postal Service's capabilities.

The unions beef with Trump doesn't explain their endorsement of Clinton in '16 and Obama in '12. I think we know which side of the political aisle the postal union is on most years. Trump has nothing to do with their decision. I don't think you'd trust the NRA to count Presidential votes yet I'm expected to trust a partisan union to deliver them.

[Wickerman]

I thought you said you were not American?

[Wickerman]

I don't think you'd trust the NRA to count Presidential votes yet I'm expected to trust a partisan union to deliver them.

A simple envelope does not distinguish between Democrat or Republican.

[jason_c]

A simple envelope does not distinguish between Democrat or Republican.

True, but the US is filled with areas which tend to vote either heavily Republican or heavily Democrat. Shoving a bunch of ballot envelopes in the trash from, say, rural Michigan or downtown Detroit and its fairly obvious which candidate's votes you are interfering with.

[Wickerman]

If a mailman threw his entire bag in the trash, it isn't going to affect a nationwide election.

[jason_c]

If a mailman threw his entire bag in the trash, it isn't going to affect a nationwide election.

It's not done to influence a nationwide election, it's done to influence the results in a particular state. If one mailman can do it in a certain state a few dozen more can also do it.

[Wickerman]

Now we have Trump calling dead war hero's "loser's" & those who volunteer, "sucker's".
Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to confirm the news report is true, even his own "cheerleader" network, Fox News report they have confirmed the story.

Lets hope this guy is done!

[jason_c]

Now we have Trump calling dead war hero's "loser's" & those who volunteer, "sucker's".
Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to confirm the news report is true, even his own "cheerleader" network, Fox News report they have confirmed the story.

Lets hope this guy is done!

100% did not happen. The journalist who wrote the story is the same guy who first claimed a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. You can also tell it's untrue because the 'sources' do not give specifics of exactly where and when these words were said. The reason for this is because the 'sources' do not want others who were in the same conversation to have an ability to deny these words were said by Trump.

[Wickerman]

Ouch, that seemed to hit a sore spot

You obviously don't know what "independent confirmation" means.

[jason_c]

Ouch, that seemed to hit a sore spot

You obviously don't know what "independent confirmation" means.

Get back to me when you can prove these 'independent' sources did not conspire beforehand. It's a small world of military and civilian aides operating in and around any Republican or Democrat administration. I'm willing to bet these 'independent' sources all knew one another or knew of one another.

Btw I'm still waiting for confirmation of Goldberg's claim that Saddam and Al Qadea were linked. I hope we get more news on the issue otherwise we may be going to war with Saddam Hussein soon.

[Wickerman]

Like I said..."you obviously don't know what "independent confirmation" means".
It's already done, by professionals who do know what it means.

[Wickerman]

Story confirmed by independent reporters of Associated Press.
Also, by reporters from The Washington Post, .....The New York Times, ..... Fox News.
All independent of Goldberg, that's how the process is supposed to work.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Ouch, that seemed to hit a sore spot

You obviously don't know what "independent confirmation" means.

Clearly have hit a sore spot Jon, but not to worry, he's not a yank, same as you and I, so we'll leave the election down to them. For my tuppence worth, I think The Donald will win, not because of his positive attributes, but because the Democrats fielded a poor candidate. Think how bad he is while trying to swing favour. Another five years, **** it's going to get bad. Patriots Vs Anarchists. Civil War.