Another somewhat breathless article positing a planned executive-branch takeover of elections, this time declaring a "national emergency".
-
Another somewhat breathless article positing a planned executive-branch takeover of elections, this time declaring a "national emergency".
There's no telling what Trump might include in an executive order, but whether he can actually carry any of these sweeping proposals out (constitutionality aside) is another story altogether.
The midterms are less than 9 months away, which is simply not enough time to extensively alter voting tech or procedures.
The supposed draft order (which apparently was written by MAGA activists, not the WH itself) calls for eliminating "voting machines" and no-excuse mail-in voting. "Voting machines" isn't defined, but presumably means electronic ballot tabulators, which are used in some form almost everywhere. And mail-in voting has become either the primary voting method or a very popular one in many states.
-
The supposed draft order (which apparently was written by MAGA activists, not the WH itself) calls for eliminating "voting machines" and no-excuse mail-in voting. "Voting machines" isn't defined, but presumably means electronic ballot tabulators, which are used in some form almost everywhere. And mail-in voting has become either the primary voting method or a very popular one in many states.
Anyway, I don't think wild arm-flapping is a particularly useful response to this nonsense. Better, I think, to respond to specific proposals and orders rather than vague right-wing wish lists.
-
Anyway, I don't think wild arm-flapping is a particularly useful response to this nonsense. Better, I think, to respond to specific proposals and orders rather than vague right-wing wish lists.
@mattblaze Yeah. My first thought is that this plot (if a plot it is) has dropped at a really weird time: too late to ride on Trump's immediate post-election seeming invulnerability; too soon to work as an excuse to occupy polling places at the last minute by surprise.
Of course all the people involved in these things are totally incompetent, so you can't rule out that they wanted it to come sooner or later but couldn't get their act together to make it happen
-
Anyway, I don't think wild arm-flapping is a particularly useful response to this nonsense. Better, I think, to respond to specific proposals and orders rather than vague right-wing wish lists.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that there *are* real risks involving electronic vote tabulators, but also that there are statistically rigorous, efficient methods for assuring high-integrity elections even when untrustworthy technology is compromised. Search "risk-limiting audits" for details.
-
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that there *are* real risks involving electronic vote tabulators, but also that there are statistically rigorous, efficient methods for assuring high-integrity elections even when untrustworthy technology is compromised. Search "risk-limiting audits" for details.
As to the substance of Trump's claims about the 2020 election: there are technical weaknesses in parts of US election infrastructure, but there is simply no evidence that any US election outcome has been altered through them. And none of these proposed "safeguards" being floated by the administration actually addresses real problems that elections have. But imposing them would cause significant disruption. (Whether that is an intended outcome is a question I can't answer.)
-
The supposed draft order (which apparently was written by MAGA activists, not the WH itself) calls for eliminating "voting machines" and no-excuse mail-in voting. "Voting machines" isn't defined, but presumably means electronic ballot tabulators, which are used in some form almost everywhere. And mail-in voting has become either the primary voting method or a very popular one in many states.
@mattblaze
Yes. I doubt that anyone who’s had mail-in voting would be real happy giving it up. -
As to the substance of Trump's claims about the 2020 election: there are technical weaknesses in parts of US election infrastructure, but there is simply no evidence that any US election outcome has been altered through them. And none of these proposed "safeguards" being floated by the administration actually addresses real problems that elections have. But imposing them would cause significant disruption. (Whether that is an intended outcome is a question I can't answer.)
@mattblaze given the specificity of the measures, and the inevitability of their impact, you're not even willing to opine on the intent behind them?
It seems like saying "here's a living person, they're proposing to administer cyanide to them. This will be highly disruptive but I can't say if that's their intent."
-
@mattblaze given the specificity of the measures, and the inevitability of their impact, you're not even willing to opine on the intent behind them?
It seems like saying "here's a living person, they're proposing to administer cyanide to them. This will be highly disruptive but I can't say if that's their intent."
@hyc I guess I’m just not very good at mind reading.
-
@mattblaze given the specificity of the measures, and the inevitability of their impact, you're not even willing to opine on the intent behind them?
It seems like saying "here's a living person, they're proposing to administer cyanide to them. This will be highly disruptive but I can't say if that's their intent."
@mattblaze one has to wonder:
is there any possibility of a beneficial impact of their proposals?
is there any possibility they are unaware of the negative impact?When both of those are vanishingly small, there's little else left to conclude.
-
@mattblaze one has to wonder:
is there any possibility of a beneficial impact of their proposals?
is there any possibility they are unaware of the negative impact?When both of those are vanishingly small, there's little else left to conclude.
@hyc I said what I said, based on the information that I have. I hope this background information and context is helpful to some. My speculation on anything else is no more or less valid than anyone else’s, and so I see no particular reason to include it.
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
