Can we agree that neither party trusts the voting system(s)?

[dneal]

Perhaps, but given that Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch I am cautious of claiming it to have neutral reportage.

While technically Sky News is at the center of the political spectrum, it tends to lean further to the right, given its ownership and directorship history. It’s up to viewers to decide whether or not they feel it tends to overstep in one direction or the other. But it’s safe to say that Sky News is not as balanced in its broadcasting as many competitors.

I don't disagree, but similarly any outlet you might provide as 'neutral' would also have its proponents and critics.

Competing opinions, competing narratives, feeding each side's distrust.

Although you aren't a U.S citizen - based the media you consume, would you agree that neither party trusts the voting system(s)?

[Bold2013]

I don’t believe there are any ‘neutral’ sources.

[dneal]

Voting machines now broken in Mesa, AZ.

For our international friends, Republican Kari Lake is running for governor against Democrat Katie Hobbs. Katie Hobbs is the AZ Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is responsible for elections.

It appears to be a clear conflict of interest, at a minimum. A judge is required to recuse themselves for even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and it seems reasonable that principle should apply to Katie Hobbs. She was asked to do that very thing by her political opponent, but refused to.

Polls have shown Kari Lake leading, but if she loses these issues will be cited as evidence of fraud - because neither party trusts the voting system(s).

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Perhaps, but given that Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch I am cautious of claiming it to have neutral reportage.

While technically Sky News is at the center of the political spectrum, it tends to lean further to the right, given its ownership and directorship history. It’s up to viewers to decide whether or not they feel it tends to overstep in one direction or the other. But it’s safe to say that Sky News is not as balanced in its broadcasting as many competitors.

I don't disagree, but similarly any outlet you might provide as 'neutral' would also have its proponents and critics.

Competing opinions, competing narratives, feeding each side's distrust.

Although you aren't a U.S citizen - based the media you consume, would you agree that neither party trusts the voting system(s)?

Not sure I would couch it that way rather than as the Right trying to convince people that the voting system is broken, and the Left saying that it is the Right that is broken. If you see what I mean.

[Bold2013]

Voting machines now broken in Mesa, AZ.

For our international friends, Republican Kari Lake is running for governor against Democrat Katie Hobbs. Katie Hobbs is the AZ Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is responsible for elections.

It appears to be a clear conflict of interest, at a minimum. A judge is required to recuse themselves for even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and it seems reasonable that principle should apply to Katie Hobbs. She was asked to do that very thing by her political opponent, but refused to.

Polls have shown Kari Lake leading, but if she loses these issues will be cited as evidence of fraud - because neither party trusts the voting system(s).

You can’t make this stuff up folks

[dneal]

Perhaps, but given that Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch I am cautious of claiming it to have neutral reportage.

While technically Sky News is at the center of the political spectrum, it tends to lean further to the right, given its ownership and directorship history. It’s up to viewers to decide whether or not they feel it tends to overstep in one direction or the other. But it’s safe to say that Sky News is not as balanced in its broadcasting as many competitors.

I don't disagree, but similarly any outlet you might provide as 'neutral' would also have its proponents and critics.

Competing opinions, competing narratives, feeding each side's distrust.

Although you aren't a U.S citizen - based the media you consume, would you agree that neither party trusts the voting system(s)?

Not sure I would couch it that way rather than as the Right trying to convince people that the voting system is broken, and the Left saying that it is the Right that is broken. If you see what I mean.

I don't, but it seems you are saying that (from the media you consume) the right believes the voting system is broken but the left does not. Is that accurate?

[dneal]

Glenn Greenwald via Twitter, showing MSNBC clip

MSNBC is already airing their pundits to call into question whether the results of tonight's elections will be fair and legitimate. Isn't doing this supposed to be a threat to democracy or something?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Perhaps, but given that Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch I am cautious of claiming it to have neutral reportage.

While technically Sky News is at the center of the political spectrum, it tends to lean further to the right, given its ownership and directorship history. It’s up to viewers to decide whether or not they feel it tends to overstep in one direction or the other. But it’s safe to say that Sky News is not as balanced in its broadcasting as many competitors.

I don't disagree, but similarly any outlet you might provide as 'neutral' would also have its proponents and critics.

Competing opinions, competing narratives, feeding each side's distrust.

Although you aren't a U.S citizen - based the media you consume, would you agree that neither party trusts the voting system(s)?

Not sure I would couch it that way rather than as the Right trying to convince people that the voting system is broken, and the Left saying that it is the Right that is broken. If you see what I mean.

I don't, but it seems you are saying that (from the media you consume) the right believes the voting system is broken but the left does not. Is that accurate?

Perhaps you could clarify what 'voting system' means in this context. Is it the way in which the ballots are collected (machines, in-person etc) or the broader system that includes things like districting?

[dneal]

Perhaps you could clarify what 'voting system' means in this context. Is the way in which the ballots are collected (machines, in-person etc) or the broader system that includes things like districting?

Fair point, and something I considered after the OP.

I suppose "election" is better than "voting", and "election integrity" or "election outcome" are better overarching terms.

Perhaps a rephrase would be: Can we agree that neither party has faith in election integrity/election outcomes? (in the context of the U.S. system, of course).

The particulars will vary by party. Russian hackers, mail-in ballot fraud, voter suppression, electronic manipulation of results, etc...

Take hacking in general, for example:

Election cycle 1: Party A loses and blames hackers. Party B claims even if it were the case, it couldn't be effective nationwide or affect the total result.
Election cycle 2: Party B loses and blames electronic manipulation. Party A cites a bureaucrat to assert the system is so secure it is impossible.

Both parties make excuses at it suits them, and no real investigation is conducted - mainly because the winning party doesn't want to concede any ground to the other's claims. Each cycle, the claims grow bolder and the voters become more suspicious. We are now at a point where the electorate in general has moved from suspicious to paranoid.

Whether a riot at the U.S. Capitol in 2020, or rioting in major cities (to include D.C.) in 2016; both sides seem to have lost faith in the system. I expect more of it, mainly from the losing side, this cycle. The rhetoric from each side is designed to incite voters to get to the polls, and has the additional effect of inciting voters to violently demonstrate their belief that their candidate lost due to some nefarious plan.

This is all the fault of the politicians and pundits, whose rhetoric has convinced people that each election is an existential threat. Neither side seems inclined to rebuild confidence in voters - because it negates a rhetorical tool used to motivate them.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Okay, that's clearer to me now, thanks.

And I agree with the point about people feeling the election is an existential threat. Presumably that cements the voters with their chosen party and reduces the likelihood of people flip flopping (if that's the right term)?

The most visible part of the divisive rhetoric, at least from what I've seen, is that protesting has taken on a more muscular aspect. People perhaps thinking that the point of a protest is to force one's view on others rather than raise awareness and spark debate or investigation.

It's not pretty in any case.

[dneal]

Just saw this from Rachel Maddow (far left pundit on MSNBC) on the Arizona election.

"In Arizona, one of the things we have to think about is the fact that Arizona is an open carry state, and a lot of the far-right in Arizona has been willing to use their open carry privilege as a form of political intimidation."

A weird excuse for the expected Hobbs loss, but definitely inciteful hyperbole.

[Chuck Naill]

Did we all participate in democracy yesterday?

[dneal]

Did we all participate in democracy yesterday?

Just the winners, makes no difference if they were team red or team blue.

The losers got cheated, of course.

[dneal]

Back to the topic.

It is completely unacceptable for any state to still be counting votes.

My state, Missouri, had their results by the time I went to bed. Arizona? Still counting. Nevada? Still counting. Colorado? Still counting. It can't be a population thing, MO: 6M. AZ: 7M. NV: 3M. CO 5.7M

I get recount challenges. I get runoffs. I don't get that in the 21st century, we can't count votes in some places; but we can in others.

[Chuck Naill]

What makes it completely unacceptable? I would prefer for it to take as long as every ballot counted. Paper ballots cannot be counted until after the in-person votes are cast. I trust the system.

[TSherbs]

What makes it completely unacceptable? I would prefer for it to take as long as every ballot counted. Paper ballots cannot be counted until after the in-person votes are cast. I trust the system.

I think that once we get past this crisis of doubt and infidelity to democracy, what we will find in restrospect that this was almost entirely an internet-feuled conspiracy mental virus spread mostly among the anguished losers in a polarized election, stoked and fomented by one of the loudest voices and internet influencers, Donald Trump, and his group of loud voices on television and internet. We will see that it was a giant concoction of "bullshit" and "noise" meant (and effectively did, for millions of people) to cloud their judgment and sow distrust in safe and sound election systems with built in redundancies and safeguards and quality control checks.

I believe that as a nation of voting adults, we will look back in a bit of shame and embarrasment at our conduct (our gullibility and vulnerability to emotional manipulation) and that the behavior of Donald Trump and his kraken-crazed lying supporters will be forever tarnished.

This is personally the process that many of Trump believers have been going through since January 6 who went to that event and participated in that assault on the Capitol, thinking that they were doing their country and their chosen (but NOT elected) leader's wishes. Many of them have since been embarassed, chagrined, awakened to the reality of their un-critical belief and acceptance of Trump's election lies. Unfortunately, some have not come to this realization. Perhaps some time soon. Perhaps not.

[dneal]

TSherbs’ post is another clear example of the partisan argument, but it’s readily apparent that both parties do this.

From another thread: HRC on Twitter: "Right wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next Presidential election..."

[Chuck Naill]

If the argument is that the Trumpians are no different than the Democrats, the history since 2015 disagrees. It also disagrees with the Karl Rove and the Gingrich years where name calling were but a preview to the atrocities of Trumpian disrespect.

What the Democrats have done more often in history is to ensure that minorities' votes are allowed to occur and then be tallied. As Ted pointed out, the Republicans have failed to garner the majority of votes in a Presidental election since 2004. Their gerrymandering have resulted in stacking Republicans that do not represent the demographics and preferences of the electorate.

[TSherbs]

If the argument is that the Trumpians are no different than the Democrats, the history since 2015 disagrees. It also disagrees with the Karl Rove and the Gingrich years where name calling were but a preview to the atrocities of Trumpian disrespect.

What the Democrats have done more often in history is to ensure that minorities' votes are allowed to occur and then be tallied. As Ted pointed out, the Republicans have failed to garner the majority of votes in a Presidental election since 2004. Their gerrymandering have resulted in stacking Republicans that do not represent the demographics and preferences of the electorate.

Even Trump (he has not been the only one) is captured on video saying that if the entire population (adult, eligible) actually voted, that Republicans would never win again. So, since both sides want to win (that is how our system is set up), then the GOP has, naturally, become opposed to widening and easing access to voter participation and has attempted through geryymandering to limit the effect of these changing demographic trends (to be fair, both sides gerrymander to whatever degree they can get away with). But easy access to voting is almost always supported by Dems and opposed by Reps. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the under-35 demographic that lately has been highly motivated by loan forgiveness, the Dobbs decision, and civil rights (gender identity and LGBTQ+ issues and race). I am no political genius, but the country seems to me to be moving in a certain direction toward more equality and acceptance regardless of which preachers and politicians rail against it and no matter what the Supreme Court does. The change is coming, it is inevitable, the broadening of justice--in the long run--cannot be stopped. So much of what we see as equality and equity today was nearly unthinkable 200 years ago. But then people did start thinking it (long before many people on the right acknowledge it) and started espousing it, asking for change in the name of justice. And they were scorned, abused, mocked, dismissed, even killed. And today we have put many protections into our laws supporting these very same ideas that were considered anathema 200 years ago. Why would anyone have the hubris or myopia today to think that the same process of broadening of justice and equality would not continue for another 200 years (assuming that the world survives)? Why would anyone dare to believe that today, or last week, or 1953, or 1905 we reached the pinnacle of the dispensation of justice and there is no more growth or development left to occur? That, to me, would be the pinnacle of human ignorance and hubris (of course, we are also pretty stupid at times, too). That we cannot see this future, conceive of it, or not even wish for it has nothing to do with whther this future is coming. It is coming!

[TSherbs]

"Winter is coming."