• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    52 minutes ago

    The scary thing about elections is that, by design, nobody can ever “prove” they won.

    Votes are designed to be anonymous. They have to be. If they’re not, they’re very vulnerable to manipulation. If someone can prove how they voted, then they can either be bribed to vote a certain way, or threatened to vote a certain way. If you can check that your vote was counted successfully for the candidate you chose, then someone else can check that you voted for the candidate they chose.

    That means that, by design, the only security that elections can have is in the process. In a small election, like 1000ish votes or fewer, someone could supervise the whole thing. They could cast their vote, then stand there and watch. They could watch as other people voted, making sure that nobody voted twice, or dropped more than one sheet into the box. They could watch as the box was emptied. Then, they could watch as each vote was tallied. Barring some sleight-of-hand, in a small election like that, you could theoretically supervise the entire process, and convince yourself that the vote was fair.

    But, that is impossible to scale. Even for 1000 votes, not every voter could supervise the entire process, and for more than 1000 votes, or votes involving more than one voting location, it’s just not possible for one person to watch the entire thing. So, at some point you need to trust other people. If you’re talking say 10,000 votes, maybe you have 10 people you trust beyond a shadow of a doubt, and each one of you could supervise one process. But, the bigger the election, the more impossible it is to have actual people you know and trust supervising everything.

    In a huge country-wide election, there’s simply no alternative to trust. You have to trust poll workers you’ve never met, and/or election monitors you’ve never met. And, since you’re not likely to hear directly from poll workers or election monitors, you have to instead trust the news source you’re using that reports on the election. In a big, complex election, a statistician may be able to spot fraud based on all the information available. But, if you’re not that statistician, you have to trust them, and even if you are that statistician, you have to trust that your model is correct and that the data you’re feeding it is correct.

    Society is built on trust, and voting is no different. Unfortunately, in the US, trust is breaking down, and without trust, it’s just a matter of which narrative seems the most “truthy” to you.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    If Trump wins through fraud Liberals will find a way to blame third party voters and continue to blame them for the next four years, other then that they might complain.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      4 hours ago

      We already had four years so technically we would only get another four.

      Until SCOTUS says the constitution isn’t constitutional and gives him a literal crown.

        • kitnaht@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That’s how Putin did it; probably the guy guiding all of this.

          They have term limits over there in Russia as well, but they have interpreted it as “only allowed X years in a row”…so Putin installs a crony for 1 session every X years, and then magically wins the votes by a landslide every other time.

          That’s what they’ll end up doing. They’ll ‘interpret’ it as consecutive terms, and we’ll get 8 years of Trump, then 4 of Vance, then 8 of Trump, etc.

          • chetradley@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            42 minutes ago

            Your scenario implies Trump lives to 98, and unless the preservatives in big macs are the key to longevity, I doubt he makes it that long.

          • pound_heap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Russian Constitution literally had this phrase “A same person cannot be a President for more than two terms in a row”, so it was already opened for an interpretation they did. This actually had changed for just “two terms” in 2020, but provided another excuse for Putin to be elected.

            Anyhow, in US Constitution the 22nd amendment says that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, so there is no room for interpretation. Even conservative SCOTUS would not do that.

            • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              49 minutes ago

              They’d write off Trump by then anyway. They’d hand the reigns to Vance, and go FULL project 2025 while keeping the Magats allegiance to Vance, while extending HIS term limits.

              Not that my scenario is any better.

            • ninja@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              Run for VP with crony as pres. crony resigns. Wasn’t elected as President. Loophole!

    • mesamune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Except now hes older. Theres a good chance no matter what, the next 4 years we may not have Trump around. Im more concerned about who comes after.

      • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        60 minutes ago

        I’m hoping it’s a painful death, it’s already slow as fuck. he’s such an ugly person, deep inside.

      • benignintervention@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’ve been saying this exact same thing. Trump is a raging moron and I fear the intelligent demagogue that follows him more than I fear a second trump presidency (although a second trump term might guarantee the former)

        • Atom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 hours ago

          It’s not much consolation, but I do take a little solace in the fact that nearly all of the Trump-wannabes have crashed and burned on the ballot. So far, it seems like only Trump can pull of Trimpism. His ego won’t let him name a successor, so when he goes, there will be a MAGA void to fill and it might be difficult for a single person to fill it.

          Will Trump’s natural death free us from right wing extremism? Absolutely not. But will one savvy politician gather all the support trump has? Not immediately, that’s for sure. When he’s gone, I bet 40% of his base will believe he’s still alive and the deep state is hiding him somewhere while Desantis-Cruz-Vance, etc are false prophets. I mean, Vance was supposed to be the savvy MAGA guy, and look how well liked he is.

          • kitnaht@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Yeah, the whole “Cult of Personality” thing is solidly in Trumps hands - because look at him: The guy never backs down off of a lie. He can’t. He won’t. No other republican has had the bravado to be that stupidly bold.

            IF by some absolutely obscene miracle we manage to avoid him this election term - then I suspect he’ll be gone for good. Nobody is going to put a 2-term loser up for president for a 3rd time. ---- Though I’ve been wrong in the past.

          • eronth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            He doesn’t need to name a successor. His followers just need to be convinced that he named one.

  • kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I believe the goal and intent is to get enough results into question that they kick it into Mike Johnson’s hands - and that mfer has almost no history at all. No bank account, nothing. He’ll do the thing, it’ll be contested, it’ll go to supreme court, where – surprise surprise, they’ll rule in favor of Donald J Trump and he will be elected our new Dictator. At which point he’ll be sworn in, because - Dems have never had any backbone - and then he’ll proceed to gut every institution which questions him, and turn this nation into an autocracy.

    What people don’t realize yet, is that the election doesn’t matter unless Kamala wins by such a large margin that they can’t pull this off. They require the veil of uncertainty for this all to work. But since we’re on razor-thin margins, it’s going to happen anyways.

    We’re already boned, and nobody realizes it yet. The playbook is out in the open and the media has stopped calling this out. They’re complicit in it, because they think the leopards won’t eat their face too. So they’re cozying up early.

    • kitnaht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Bonus: I believe they’ll be doing something wild with Vance as well - probably temporarily making him president, while he pardons Trump for any past crimes, and then giving the presidency back to Trump.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Hmm, we learned in 2022 that the House can’t do anything until a Speaker is installed. And the new Congress is seated a few days before the EC votes are counted. What if Kamala wins the election, but the House declines to elect a Speaker? Can they even convene to count the votes? I hope so, since the VP president over the counting of votes, not the Speaker.

        Still, a Kamala win will be a lot more bullet-proof it it comes with a Democratic House and Senate, too. Then there is far less that Mike can do to fuck it up.

    • qooqie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Only point of dispute is if she wins by a large margin they’ll just say the only way someone can win by such a large gap is through fraud.

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      There is still something the American People can do in such an undemocratic maneuver. Its the single action that we’ve built all of this bureaucracy to avoid. But the SC should never decide the president in a Democracy and neither should the Speaker. It should be counted until the counting is done, thats it. I will be razing hell the moment they try to remove our own agency and place it into the hands of their cronies. I’ve got a megaphone ready and all the PTO in the world.

      Edit: raising, not raze. I’d rather not make it worse.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I believe you meant “raising hell” as in bringing it too the surface of Earth and recruiting Satan’s legions to fight with you, not razing hell as in cutting it down, because how would that help?

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    4 hours ago

    If we’re saying “Trump won” what do we mean? The election is certified and he gets to be sworn in? If that’s the case then there is absolutely nothing that can be done. We’ll have PBS and 60 minutes stories about what happened and we’ll just have to suffer the reality that they got what they wanted.

    If he claims to have won on Tuesday, but the results aren’t in completely then there is room to argue. It would just be bluster, it wouldn’t be officially recognized as a victory. When he does that it will be to ensure he can cry foul if the final results don’t go his way. He 100000000% will be doing this.

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I have just watched the Legal Eagle video about the various law-related things that happened around the 2020 election.

      It served as a reminder that the plan had apparently been to claim to have won before all the votes were counted - something about doing so in the interim between two sets of votes being counted (I want to say mail-in versus in-person, but I might have misunderstood) and then act as if Trump had actually won at that point, thus giving legitimacy to any later cry of foul that was almost sure to be needed.

      Which is precisely what Trump did.

      … my point being that it would be foolish to assume it wasn’t in the play book for this time around as well.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        What I’m interested in seeing is if fox news will be willing to cast off any remaining semblance of fairness in favor of calling the election for him as well.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I mean, Biden has the power to do whatever he wants now and could potentially overturn the results in the interests of national security or whatever. He won’t, but it’s nice to think that he could do something to avert a fascist takeover. Democrats will take the high-road into letting democracy die.

  • Nytixus@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 hours ago

    It will exactly be a repeat, for sure. It’ll be like the new inaugural routine, where a portion of the population will rise up for their murderous conman and try to overthrow a government. So long as he’s alive.

    It’s still funnily ironic how this is the party, the GOP, that told Democrats in 2016 to just “accept it”. But when it was their turn to, no, they start an insurrection.

  • Troy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The premise here is that Trump loses but refuses to back down, attempting to forcibly claim victory. If Trump legitimately wins, there is a different path. Then…

    Assuming multiple systematic failures occur simultaneously, including any of: actual voter fraud, fraudulent electors, congress refusing to certify, a captured supreme court acting in favour of Trump, or actual insurrection on or before Jan 6th.

    I actually expect the US Military to step in. Every member is sworn to uphold the constitution. But if the constitution has been discarded, then I’d expect them to step in to restore it.

    Failing that, the US likely fractures and we leave the Republic phase.

    • vzq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I actually expect the US Military to step in. Every member is sworn to uphold the constitution. But if the constitution has been discarded, then I’d expect them to step in to restore it.

      Have you met the Oathkeepers?

      If shit goes down, assume anyone with a uniform is going to throw in with the authoritarian despot.

  • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    How would he win it through fraud? If he wins, he’ll win legitimately.

    Claiming that it’s fraud if he wins is exactly what Trump did in 2020.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You have not heard of the “contested electors” delegates his party attempted to send in place of the actual delegates last time around?

    • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Yes. Yes we are. On account of the massive amount of fraud that’s been coming out of his corner for 8 years and counting.

      That Trump is committing voter fraud is a given guarantee, whether it lets him win or not is what’s up in question.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You don’t remember the alternative delegates they attempted to send last time? That’s fraud, and there’s no reason they won’t try it again this time

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    If there is another jan 6th it will be a tragedy.

    There will be many more casualties.

    The incumbent office won’t hesitate to act like Trump did, tactfully. It will be a massacre.

    That’s all I know.