Mr Hinderaker, I Demur*

 

*Why Trump is right and you are not (although understandably so).

John Hinderaker, on Power Line blog, is critical of what he calls being “obsessed with righting the alleged (and to some extent imaginary) wrongs that Donald Trump suffered in 2020.” His occasion for these observations is President Trump’s remarks about removing his endorsement of Mo Brooks —

Last year I endorsed Mo Brooks for the U.S. Senate because I thought he was a Fighter, especially when it came to the Rigged and Stolen Presidential Election of 2020. The evidence is irrefutable. Then, out of nowhere, and for seemingly no reason, Mo backtracked and made a big mistake by going Woke at our massive Cullman, Alabama Rally. Instead of denouncing the Voter Fraud in the Election, Mo lectured the crowd of 63,000 people saying, “Put that behind you, put that behind you,” meaning that, in effect, forget the Rigged Election and go on to the future.

The problem is, if you do that, it will happen again. Also, why do Republicans allow Democrats to get away with rigging and stealing elections?

Mr. Hinderaker’s stance is that is not forward-looking and risks being mired in the past for President Trump’s vindication.

That is a respectable position if you take President Trump literally. But as Salena Zito remarked back in 2016–

It’s a familiar split. When [Trump] makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

Sorry to remind you, but a lot of people seem to have lost their President Trump decoder ring. It’s not entirely their fault. President Trump’s personality is such that it is easy to think it is all about him, even when it decidedly isn’t.

It’s about us and the needed electoral integrity for us to be a self-governing society. Hinderaker relies on the Hugh Hewitt formulation that “if it’s not close, they can’t cheat.” But there is evidence that 2020 wasn’t all that close, but they cheated anyway. But it will never be proved with forensic science because we did not require that our elections be auditable.

Hinderaker in his piece essentially accepts there to be cheating and only wants to limit, not eliminate, it. President Trump says it must be eliminated. And the only way it is going to be eliminated is if the truth about 2020 is laid bare. That is not the GOPe position, but it is patently true.

Half the nation gets this; half the nation doesn’t; few politicians are interested in truly buttoning up our electoral process. No, President Trump is not pushing 2020 for personal aggrandizement even though it would certainly personally vindicate him. Just as in 2016, he sees something wrong and he pounds on it. His pounding doesn’t make what he’s pounding about wrong. And some things just don’t get done without a pounding.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 182 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Dbroussa (View Comment):
    Once again, General Barr runs the Justice Department. He was a trusted subordinate with a great deal of responsibility and, supposedly, initiative. Unless he went to Trump with his plans to secure the elections and Trump said no…then he is as, or more, responsible.

    Barr couldn’t send out attorneys. It was Trump’s political decision. And I don’t understand the rationale of what a couple of you have said:

    General Barr said this, and also said that there wasn’t any evidence of cheating…so why would you send out poll watchers to prevent cheating that didn’t happen.

    First, as I said earlier, he suspected that there could be efforts to cheat. And I believe he was one of the people to advise Trump to make the political decision to send out lawyers–it wasn’t up to the DOJ to send out poll watchers. I don’t believe that he said there was no cheating. He believed that there wasn’t enough evidence to say that the amount of cheating would have made a difference in the election. He was probably wrong. Maybe even likely wrong. But I suggest you all listen to Peter’s interview of him on this site, and try to put aside your hatred and condemnation of Barr for a moment. BTW, I’m not going to make these points again. If you refuse to read them carefully, it’s on you. If you don’t agree with them, it’s also on you. ;-)

    It looks as if Barr would have needed to be looking at some sort of civil rights voting violations since it is not clear that there is general federal authority related to the voting process.

    This is an important point.  Barr’s jurisdiction was somewhat limited.

    • #31
  2. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    BDB (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Trump’s constant table pounding about the election strikes me as perfectly characteristic of Trump. The man simply cannot believe that he lost and his ego requires that he relitigate the issue over and over. Perhaps he was robbed, but repeating the same mantra continuously is not going to wear well when the country is so in need of solutions to present issues.

    As if any solutions to issues will be forthcoming while the Marxist Democrats can simply steal the country.

    One of Hinderaker’s points is the need to focus on preventing that in the future.

    • #32
  3. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    If we want a secret ballot, then we cannot have auditable elections.

    i disagree with this. I outlined how an auditable and secret election could work and you blew past it. I think we were talking past each other, but it is possible to have an audit system. It is also possible to use serialized ballot where the voter gets a receipt of the ballot and can check the vote status on the ballot while maintaining anonymity. No name tied to the ballot. Only the receipt holder knows whose vote it is.

    • #33
  4. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Rodin: Hinderaker in his piece essentially accepts there to be cheating and only wants to limit, not eliminate, it. President Trump says it must be eliminated. And the only way it is going to be eliminated is if the truth about 2020 is laid bare. That is not the GOPe position, but it is patently true.

    First, cheating can’t be “eliminated,” any more than crime, poverty, or poor health can be “eliminated.” It can be reduced.

    Secondly, John pointed out, in his article, that “Republicans need to nominate candidates who will appeal to voters across a broad range of issues on which we conservatives have the advantage–a range which very much includes election integrity.”

    Anyone who imagines that a full exposé of the electoral crime, mischief, and irregularities of 2020 would or could result in the elimination of electoral fraud has embraced a utopian fantasy. John is right that improving our electoral integrity is important; he’s also right that most Americans are more concerned about the future than the past, particularly at this challenging moment. Losing an election because we ignored that truth would be both a catastrophe and an avoidable one: as John observes, Republicans and conservatives enjoy an enormous electoral advantage right now, based on issues more visceral and immediate than the cheating that occurred in 2020. Yes, continue to address election fraud. But don’t make that the cornerstone of the 2022 and 2024 elections.

    Aiming for elimination ends up with much less than tolerating it because we can’t be rid of it.

    • #34
  5. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Trump’s constant table pounding about the election strikes me as perfectly characteristic of Trump. The man simply cannot believe that he lost and his ego requires that he relitigate the issue over and over. Perhaps he was robbed, but repeating the same mantra continuously is not going to wear well when the country is so in need of solutions to present issues.

    I was robbed. You were robbed. Take a good hard look at the state of this country and tell me we all were not harmed if the election was truly rigged and/or fraudulent.

    • #35
  6. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Dbroussa (View Comment):
    Once again, General Barr runs the Justice Department. He was a trusted subordinate with a great deal of responsibility and, supposedly, initiative. Unless he went to Trump with his plans to secure the elections and Trump said no…then he is as, or more, responsible.

    Barr couldn’t send out attorneys. It was Trump’s political decision. And I don’t understand the rationale of what a couple of you have said:

    General Barr said this, and also said that there wasn’t any evidence of cheating…so why would you send out poll watchers to prevent cheating that didn’t happen.

    First, as I said earlier, he suspected that there could be efforts to cheat. And I believe he was one of the people to advise Trump to make the political decision to send out lawyers–it wasn’t up to the DOJ to send out poll watchers. I don’t believe that he said there was no cheating. He believed that there wasn’t enough evidence to say that the amount of cheating would have made a difference in the election. He was probably wrong. Maybe even likely wrong. But I suggest you all listen to Peter’s interview of him on this site, and try to put aside your hatred and condemnation of Barr for a moment. BTW, I’m not going to make these points again. If you refuse to read them carefully, it’s on you. If you don’t agree with them, it’s also on you. ;-)

    It looks as if Barr would have needed to be looking at some sort of civil rights voting violations since it is not clear that there is general federal authority related to the voting process.

    This is an important point. Barr’s jurisdiction was somewhat limited.

    Republican elected officials in states, governors, legislators, local offices and Party operatives need to get on this within the states. The Democrat Party will oppose all efforts.

    • #36
  7. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Stina (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Trump’s constant table pounding about the election strikes me as perfectly characteristic of Trump. The man simply cannot believe that he lost and his ego requires that he relitigate the issue over and over. Perhaps he was robbed, but repeating the same mantra continuously is not going to wear well when the country is so in need of solutions to present issues.

    I was robbed. You were robbed. Take a good hard look at the state of this country and tell me we all were not harmed if the election was truly rigged and/or fraudulent.

    I don’t think that I said otherwise.

    • #37
  8. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Dbroussa (View Comment):
    Once again, General Barr runs the Justice Department. He was a trusted subordinate with a great deal of responsibility and, supposedly, initiative. Unless he went to Trump with his plans to secure the elections and Trump said no…then he is as, or more, responsible.

    Barr couldn’t send out attorneys. It was Trump’s political decision. And I don’t understand the rationale of what a couple of you have said:

    General Barr said this, and also said that there wasn’t any evidence of cheating…so why would you send out poll watchers to prevent cheating that didn’t happen.

    First, as I said earlier, he suspected that there could be efforts to cheat. And I believe he was one of the people to advise Trump to make the political decision to send out lawyers–it wasn’t up to the DOJ to send out poll watchers. I don’t believe that he said there was no cheating. He believed that there wasn’t enough evidence to say that the amount of cheating would have made a difference in the election. He was probably wrong. Maybe even likely wrong. But I suggest you all listen to Peter’s interview of him on this site, and try to put aside your hatred and condemnation of Barr for a moment. BTW, I’m not going to make these points again. If you refuse to read them carefully, it’s on you. If you don’t agree with them, it’s also on you. ;-)

    It looks as if Barr would have needed to be looking at some sort of civil rights voting violations since it is not clear that there is general federal authority related to the voting process.

    This is an important point. Barr’s jurisdiction was somewhat limited.

    Republican elected officials in states, governors, legislators, local offices and Party operatives need to get on this within the states. The Democrat Party will oppose all efforts.

    Is the Republican National Committee doing anything?  I don’t know, but it’s typically ineffectual and there’s a clear role for it here. 

    • #38
  9. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    The election steal was real and the events leading up to and including Jan 6 inform us that dealing with the steal is primarily a state and local issue. There may be some places for federal action related to dealing with public media and big tech involvement controlling information and improper funding of election related activities.

    • #39
  10. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Dbroussa (View Comment):
    Once again, General Barr runs the Justice Department. He was a trusted subordinate with a great deal of responsibility and, supposedly, initiative. Unless he went to Trump with his plans to secure the elections and Trump said no…then he is as, or more, responsible.

    Barr couldn’t send out attorneys. It was Trump’s political decision. And I don’t understand the rationale of what a couple of you have said:

    General Barr said this, and also said that there wasn’t any evidence of cheating…so why would you send out poll watchers to prevent cheating that didn’t happen.

    First, as I said earlier, he suspected that there could be efforts to cheat. And I believe he was one of the people to advise Trump to make the political decision to send out lawyers–it wasn’t up to the DOJ to send out poll watchers. I don’t believe that he said there was no cheating. He believed that there wasn’t enough evidence to say that the amount of cheating would have made a difference in the election. He was probably wrong. Maybe even likely wrong. But I suggest you all listen to Peter’s interview of him on this site, and try to put aside your hatred and condemnation of Barr for a moment. BTW, I’m not going to make these points again. If you refuse to read them carefully, it’s on you. If you don’t agree with them, it’s also on you. ;-)

    It looks as if Barr would have needed to be looking at some sort of civil rights voting violations since it is not clear that there is general federal authority related to the voting process.

    This is an important point. Barr’s jurisdiction was somewhat limited.

    Republican elected officials in states, governors, legislators, local offices and Party operatives need to get on this within the states. The Democrat Party will oppose all efforts.

    Is the Republican National Committee doing anything? I don’t know, but it’s typically ineffectual and there’s a clear role for it here.

    Given what we have learned about education over the past few years we may be seeing a combination of GOPe influence coupled with incompetence, they go together.

    • #40
  11. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos
    1. There is no redress for successful electoral cheating.  Once the ballot is separated from any identifying or qualifying record and deposited into the ballot box, it counts.  If the fake registration etc is not caught before the ballot hits the box, that ballot cannot be pulled back. The day after the polls close, the cheats can happily concede that X thousand deceased, out-of-state, non-existent persons voted because there is no way to precisely quantify how many of those voted Democratic, only reasonable (but not legally binding) assumptions.
    2. Trump’s WH lawyers tried to explain to him that there is no way to undo a successful cheat with recounts or post-mortems.  Even if it is highly likely that one or more swing states were stolen, there was no constitutional or other legal provision to block certification with the time and means at hand.
    3. The country does not want to rehash the 2020 election.  “Avenge Donald!” is not a winning core message.  As much as we would like to bitch slap the left in 2022 and ’24 for their misdeeds then and since, that is not the best path to get the full-sized win we need.
    4. Joe Biden is setting new records for voters’ buyers’ remorse.  A forward-looking alternative that elects people who will plug the holes in the election process is what we need.  I want a big win.  That is the vengeance we need and the only vindication needed.

    I admit to being confused by the fact that the mathematical critique of the vote count (simultaneous stoppages in vote counts, improbable simultaneous bump in Biden votes followed by an equally improbable precisely sustained margin in the running count) has found no substantive purchase in analyses.  If that was actually done, how?

    I also think that without a very thorough, sustained reform of the DOJ and FBI, there will be no serious investigation even if this happens again.  Surely, the 2,000 mules and the whole 2020 cheating apparatus include people who are in trouble with the law and should be willing to offer up some juicy info about election fraud in lieu of prosecution.  It is noteworthy that even as Hillary’s thug posse faces prosecution for their Mueller-RussiaFraud insurrection, the traditional Democratic code of omerta remains in effect.  No John Deans or even Liz Cheneys on that side of the aisle.

    • #41
  12. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    BDB (View Comment):

    “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    This question from an earlier Marxist is more on point:

    What Is to Be Done? 

    • #42
  13. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    The year 2020 was interesting as it developed. The Covid-19 pandemic really changed the picture on the election and its processes as the year progressed. Most of what would actually affect the voting was taking place at the state and local levels and those actions were different in each state and locality and, as we well know, POTUS is not a nationally elected office. The state Republican Parties is where the work must be done especially since the national Republican Party might actually be satisfied with what happened.

    • #43
  14. GFHandle Member
    GFHandle
    @GFHandle

    genferei (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    So Barr thought there was going to be fraud, but after the clearly fraudulent election, Barr just brushed it off?

    This doesn’t add up.

    That’s not what he said. He was saying there could be fraud, and Trump should take steps at least to make it more difficult. He chose not to. Let’s put responsibilities where they belong.

    Hmm. What sort of system is it that puts the onus for avoiding crime on the potential victim?

    Who better? The potential criminals?

    • #44
  15. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Barfly (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    This question from an earlier Marxist is more on point:

    What Is to Be Done?

    Here’s what I think should be done. If we conclude that the voting process itself cannot be controlled to assure validity then remove the election of POTUS and Senators from statewide popular vote and have state legislators, who have been elected by popular vote of the people to represent them, select the Senators and Presidential Electors. This would be a much more open and transparent process.

    • #45
  16. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Dbroussa (View Comment):
    Once again, General Barr runs the Justice Department. He was a trusted subordinate with a great deal of responsibility and, supposedly, initiative. Unless he went to Trump with his plans to secure the elections and Trump said no…then he is as, or more, responsible.

    Barr couldn’t send out attorneys. It was Trump’s political decision. And I don’t understand the rationale of what a couple of you have said:

    General Barr said this, and also said that there wasn’t any evidence of cheating…so why would you send out poll watchers to prevent cheating that didn’t happen.

    First, as I said earlier, he suspected that there could be efforts to cheat. And I believe he was one of the people to advise Trump to make the political decision to send out lawyers–it wasn’t up to the DOJ to send out poll watchers. I don’t believe that he said there was no cheating. He believed that there wasn’t enough evidence to say that the amount of cheating would have made a difference in the election. He was probably wrong. Maybe even likely wrong. But I suggest you all listen to Peter’s interview of him on this site, and try to put aside your hatred and condemnation of Barr for a moment. BTW, I’m not going to make these points again. If you refuse to read them carefully, it’s on you. If you don’t agree with them, it’s also on you. ;-)

    I did listen to him on the Flagship podcast and Peter’s.  He carefully words his responses because he is a careful lawyer.  If General Barr truly thought that there was a chance of cheating happening, is it up to the campaign or the RNC to stop it, or is it something that the Justice Department should investigate?  During the primary in Texas in March, my Vote Center was audited by the Secretary of State’s office.  That is because it is the Secretary of State’s duty to ensure that elections are run following the election code of Texas.  It is the Justice Department’s duty to ensure that elections are run within the laws of the US.  It’s an overlapping duty and one that he didn’t think was important enough to actually bother with prior to or during the election.  He was even less interested in investigating after the election.  As near as I can tell, he decided that there was no way to prove any cheating and thus declared the election OK.  I agree that he likely knew that it was impossible to prove any cheating, but if he honestly thought it was a chance, he should have placed investigators in place prior to the election.  That he didn’t was his choice, but for him to then say it was all on Trump seems wrong to me.

    • #46
  17. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    Stina (View Comment):

    If we want a secret ballot, then we cannot have auditable elections.

    i disagree with this. I outlined how an auditable and secret election could work and you blew past it. I think we were talking past each other, but it is possible to have an audit system. It is also possible to use serialized ballot where the voter gets a receipt of the ballot and can check the vote status on the ballot while maintaining anonymity. No name tied to the ballot. Only the receipt holder knows whose vote it is.

    It would be possible to do SOME things, but any system that allows an ID number to be tied to a voter and a ballot is possible to decrypt the ID and thus know how a person voted.  If I understand your suggestion, the tabulator (or the ballot marking machine could give the voter a receipt for their ballot, but, when it comes to in-person voting I have a hard time wondering why this is important.  Now, for mail-in voting (which I would favor eliminating except in very limited circumstances), this is more important, but no matter what you do, how do you confirm that the person voting the ballot is actually the person on the rolls?

    • #47
  18. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    When did Barr become a General? (The “general” in “attorney general” is an adjective.)

    • #48
  19. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    genferei (View Comment):

    When did Barr become a General? (The “general” in “attorney general” is an adjective.)

    The AG is referred to a General <surname> in court documents and the legal profession.  General Barr actually brought that up on the flagship podcast and said that in other countries it is the reverse and they are Attorney <surname>.  The plural is Attorneys General, which just sounds odd.  According to various internet sources, General Barr would be correct in court filings, but is not used outside of legal documents or the legal profession.  “The Honorable Mr. Barr” would be one correct for of written address, or Mr. Barr is always appropriate if the full Attorney General Barr is not used.  Most of the times I have heard him interviewed is was by a lawyer (Hugh Hewitt) who calls him General Barr, which, for him would be appropriate as a lawyer.  It seems that I should have just said AG, or Attorney General, or Mr. in my post.

    • #49
  20. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    genferei (View Comment):

    When did Barr become a General? (The “general” in “attorney general” is an adjective.)

    As it is in “General Officer”.  In both cases, the short from title is “General.”  Annoyingly, the Surgeon General is an “Admiral” despite having NOTHING to do with the Navy, but no system is perfect.

    • #50
  21. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    If we want a secret ballot, then we cannot have auditable elections.

    i disagree with this. I outlined how an auditable and secret election could work and you blew past it. I think we were talking past each other, but it is possible to have an audit system. It is also possible to use serialized ballot where the voter gets a receipt of the ballot and can check the vote status on the ballot while maintaining anonymity. No name tied to the ballot. Only the receipt holder knows whose vote it is.

    It would be possible to do SOME things, but any system that allows an ID number to be tied to a voter and a ballot is possible to decrypt the ID and thus know how a person voted. If I understand your suggestion, the tabulator (or the ballot marking machine could give the voter a receipt for their ballot, but, when it comes to in-person voting I have a hard time wondering why this is important. Now, for mail-in voting (which I would favor eliminating except in very limited circumstances), this is more important, but no matter what you do, how do you confirm that the person voting the ballot is actually the person on the rolls?

    A paper ballot could have a tear off receipt with just the serial No of the ballot. In counting, the vote and serial can go online. The vote can be looked up by serial.

    Because the serial is randomly distributed, it can’t be tied to one voter. No decryption.

     

    this only allows for a voter to check their vote was properly tabulated. Serialized ballots makes duplicating or fraudulently manufacturing ballots not possible.

    Keeping mail in and drop off ballots and envelopes in batches allows a batch to be auditable. If ballots exceed envelopes, fraud. If envelopes have process errors like bad signatures, etc, the batch can be adjudicated by an election judge with legislative rules to toss. It’s not ideal, but it promotes anonymity and puts a burden on the people to demand process rules be followed lest their votes not count. Precincts become important. A precinct disregards rules, the precinct is punished, the people demand a new precinct manager.

    None of it will be perfect, but you can create process and consequences and maintain subsidiarity to prevent a bad batch contaminating the whole. Legislatures need to have a fall back for if a certain amount of their state votes did not follow proper process. It could be choosing their own electors or running a re-do. Let the state legislature decide.

    It is possible to improve this system and add auditable controls.

    • #51
  22. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    No Caesar (View Comment):
    I think the best move for Trump and the country is that he not run, but keep teasing and politicking like he’s going to run.

    Yes, but it’s a shame you have to say it out loud. 

    • #52
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic &hellip; (View Comment):

    So Barr thought there was going to be fraud, but after the clearly fraudulent election, Barr just brushed it off?

    This doesn’t add up.

    That’s not what he said. He was saying there could be fraud, and Trump should take steps at least to make it more difficult. He chose not to. Let’s put responsibilities where they belong.

    And yet, without the monitoring Barr called for, Barr still claims that there was no “significant” fraud?

    • #53
  24. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    BDB (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    When did Barr become a General? (The “general” in “attorney general” is an adjective.)

    As it is in “General Officer”. In both cases, the short from title is “General.” Annoyingly, the Surgeon General is an “Admiral” despite having NOTHING to do with the Navy, but no system is perfect.

    The Commisioned Corps of the US Public Health Service Officers are commissioned with naval ranks.  They are not military, but have ranks from Ensign through Admiral.  It is another odd thing that we do and has a long history About Us | Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service (usphs.gov).  Originally they were serving sailors so they got naval ranks.

    • #54
  25. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Stina (View Comment):

    If we want a secret ballot, then we cannot have auditable elections.

    i disagree with this. I outlined how an auditable and secret election could work and you blew past it. I think we were talking past each other, but it is possible to have an audit system. It is also possible to use serialized ballot where the voter gets a receipt of the ballot and can check the vote status on the ballot while maintaining anonymity. No name tied to the ballot. Only the receipt holder knows whose vote it is.

    Keeping in mind, of course, that when you have computers doing these things, you can be shown that your vote was properly counted for Republican candidates, but the final results count your vote towards the Democrats.  And how would you prove it was mishandled?

    • #55
  26. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Stina (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    If we want a secret ballot, then we cannot have auditable elections.

    i disagree with this. I outlined how an auditable and secret election could work and you blew past it. I think we were talking past each other, but it is possible to have an audit system. It is also possible to use serialized ballot where the voter gets a receipt of the ballot and can check the vote status on the ballot while maintaining anonymity. No name tied to the ballot. Only the receipt holder knows whose vote it is.

    It would be possible to do SOME things, but any system that allows an ID number to be tied to a voter and a ballot is possible to decrypt the ID and thus know how a person voted. If I understand your suggestion, the tabulator (or the ballot marking machine could give the voter a receipt for their ballot, but, when it comes to in-person voting I have a hard time wondering why this is important. Now, for mail-in voting (which I would favor eliminating except in very limited circumstances), this is more important, but no matter what you do, how do you confirm that the person voting the ballot is actually the person on the rolls?

    A paper ballot could have a tear off receipt with just the serial No of the ballot. In counting, the vote and serial can go online. The vote can be looked up by serial.

    Because the serial is randomly distributed, it can’t be tied to one voter. No decryption.

    Is the purpose of such a receipt to allow you the voter to know that your vote was counted?  To be able to pull up how it was counted?  To see how you voted later?  How does this help with an audit, unless, if it is later determined that a voter was invalid we use that number to remove the ballot from the system.  But, that would require an ability for the administrators to tie an invalid voter to a ballot.

    I’m not against giving people a receipt of some type.  Your system could generate a GUID embedded in a QR code that would enable me to scan that code and see either the status of my vote, or, potentially my entire ballot, but while that is nice, it doesn’t help with an audit.  I mean, I, personally, can go look at my ballot, but what happens if I think it’s wrong?  Can I go complain and change it?  That is fraught with issues as well.  

    I could see a printed copy of my ballot that I get to keep, with a unique GUID to look it up if I want, but that has it’s own issues again.  We need to either ensure that only votes that are valid are counted, or allow for a ballot to be tied to a person.

    • #56
  27. No Caesar Thatcher
    No Caesar
    @NoCaesar

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    No Caesar (View Comment):
    I want to win big in November, and bigger in 2024.

    If they cheat there’ll never be any big win, ever. That’s why it’s so important.

    They will cheat.  Which is why it has to be a big win, outside the margins of fraud.  And we are better off focusing on pre-emptive actions to combat the certain attempts at fraud by the Left.

    Obsessing on the past will guarantee a loss.  The Democrats are still the default party for a majority of voters: if unsure they vote Dem.  That is reality, whether we like it or not.   The electorate must have a reason to vote for the GOP.  If they do not see a positive plan we may win in 2022 because the suck and buyer’s remorse are fresh, but they won’t be in 2024 and we will fail.

    Absent an affirmative plan and a forward-looking agenda, the 2024 campaign will be: “everything sucks, do you want to take a chance on a party that just complains about the past?  Maybe the problems aren’t all Brandon’s fault, etc. etc.”  You get the drift.

    Voting integrity is best done quietly and without fanfare.  It is no reason to vote for/against a candidate for most, it’s too low in the priority list, especially now.  The only caveat is if a fraud claim ran against a GOP candidate, then it’s wall to wall coverage up and down by the corporate press.  It’s not fair, but it’s reality.  It’s in reality that we have to operate.  And operate is the key.  The only thing that matters is winning outside the margins of fraud.  If we do that then the rest falls into place.

    The best defense is a good offense.

    • #57
  28. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    No Caesar (View Comment):
    The only thing that matters is winning outside the margins of fraud.  If we do that then the rest falls into place.

    Since we don’t know the details of the 2020 steal, how do we know the margins of fraud? Scott Adams had an interesting idea today: Have Rasmussen poll in each state who they voted for in 2020. If the polling suggests a big disconnect between the reported returns and who people said they voted for, then there would be a lot of pressure in those states to investigate/reform. People might lie due to voter’s remorse. But even if they did it would push reform.

    • #58
  29. No Caesar Thatcher
    No Caesar
    @NoCaesar

    Rodin (View Comment):

    No Caesar (View Comment):
    The only thing that matters is winning outside the margins of fraud. If we do that then the rest falls into place.

    Since we don’t know the details of the 2020 steal, how do we know the margins of fraud? Scott Adams had an interesting idea today: Have Rasmussen poll in each state who they voted for in 2020. If the polling suggests a big disconnect between the reported returns and who people said they voted for, then there would be a lot of pressure in those states to investigate/reform. People might lie due to voter’s remorse. But even if they did it would push reform.

    We know enough.  Vote harvesting and blind mailed ballots.  All created the environment for chicanery.  A number of states have put in place good policies.  But that misses the point, a positive future-oriented agenda will make the difference.  Voting integrity is part of a good defense, but it is not an offensive plan.  We need to be on offense.  Always.

    “Grab ’em by the nose and kick ’em in the ass”  attributed to G.S. Patton

    • #59
  30. EB Thatcher
    EB
    @EB

    genferei (View Comment):
    Hmm. What sort of system is it that puts the onus for avoiding crime on the potential victim?

    It’s the world.  If you are smart, you prepare for the worst.  You have lawyers and you have citizen poll watchers.  

    That’s why we have a military.  We don’t want war, but we prepare for war to ensure peace.  If you are running for president, you don’t just go along patting yourself on the back and thinking that your wonderfulness will carry the day.

    That’s why we don’t walk down dark streets on the bad side of town.  If that person gets mugged – sure the mugger was in the wrong, but the muggee was “in the stupid.”

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.