I have one question:
Who here knows that your paper ballot was counted properly? And can you prove it?
Knows? No.
But that’s not the point. Interference with paper ballots is very much harder to do secretly on any sort of scale, than it would be for electronic methods.
I meant no insult by it, and it’s not exactly Dunning Kruger, but it is something similar; deciding that something is simple for someone else to do, without actually knowing how, or if it can be done.
No insult taken. But clearly I have not decided anything yet.
On another note, my original thought on the practicality of this was that it would lead to more people voting, and that this is good for democracy, as voting provides a way to for citizens to air their grievances and desires as to what would make their lives better. The more people that vote, the better that more problems can be resolved by those we elect. But I just read this from the Wiki page on electronic voting.
Putting aside the (im)possibility of having a reliable way to vote on line for the moment, that immediately changed the thought I had. I would say unequivocally that I would be against online voting, if it ever happens, if it’s found that one group would be disadvantaged in a meaningful way by it. Only when all citizens are aware of and have access to online voting, should it be used.
Sorry if I missed it upthread but it occurred to me today that I may kinda like ths electoral college thing.
As it is: Trump can try suing in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, etc.
-if we got rid of it-
Trump can claim widespread fraud, require all states to recount, launch dozens of lawsuits and delay this until next summer.
Maybe this setup contains the bleeding. It allows some redress if there’s truly a problem, but it’s an uphill fight for a bullshitter. Trump might have political cronies or put pressure on offiicials in one state, but not across the board. Spreading the electoral votes across different authorities makes them harder to corrupt.
In the face of that, normal human beings will actually concede defeat.
Getting back to the OP: isn’t the answer that the US election system has worked well? See this NY Times article (sorry for the paywall):
In terms of the mechanics and operations of conducting an election were it normal times, much less the current environment, a resounding yes.
But …
That state election officials are identified as representing a political party is a fundamental flaw.
Yet results would suggest that institutional respect for the electoral process triumphed.
There is no such thing as apolitical in politics. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? applies in spades.
You want to metaphorically handcuff observers from both sides together to perform every act from distribution to receipt to validating to guarding to counting to certifying.
The totally zero-sum nature of the game ensures that any shenanigans will redound to somebody’s disadvantage and therefore will be whistleblown when detected by the opposite side.
There really is no other way when the stakes are large enough that cheating will occur unless the goods are nailed down and under constant surveillance.
Ah, the old village Venus argument.
You have never left the confines your own village so the cutest girl in your village is the most beautiful girl in the world.
It’s not rocket science. Counting votes is a mechanical, organisational, not partisan process.
You have a national body (over here we have the AEC, there are many other good examples) charged with conducting elections ie from maintaining the rolls, determining the electoral districts, preparing the booths, conducting the vote, counting the ballots, disseminating the results.
All political parties can appoint scrutineers to observe the process, at all stages.
If there are irregularities which may affect the results then the matter is taken to the Court of Disputed Returns.
That legal process can take as long as it takes and while that is being argued out the government gets on with running the country. You don’t have the highest court in the land shutting down the process by statute so as to ensure you actually do have a government.
If you want some guidance on how to do it, get on the blower and the AEC would be delighted to help … though they probably aren’t going to travel stateside until you get COVID under a semblance of control.
And it’s not a totally zero-sum game.
That all parties in the electoral process have well founded faith in the integrity of the electoral process is more important than the result of any single election.
Your points are well-taken. I suppose what I was thinking but didn’t write was about the path dependency problem. Given our existing rotten system riven with partisanship, how can we install an AEC-like system when each side is certain the other will have infiltrated and suborned it from the start? So since (arguably) we can’t get there from here, there’s no point in discussing such possibilities.
In game-theoretical terms we’ve arrived at a non-optimal Nash equilibrium. There are identifiably better state(s) of play available for all participants. But no path to those better states that doesn’t leave some player worse off at least temporarily.
The US has any number of leading class, global standard institutions. The FDA, a couple of justice departments come to mind. How’d they come about, given most weren’t envisioned by the Founding Fathers?
Are you saying that aspirational “to form a more perfect Union” is dead in it’s tracks?
With great sadness and shame I’m forced to say that yes, that effort is dead in its tracks until we a) stop the poisonous misinformation propaganda and b) age off the people who’ve had their connection to reality destroyed by a).
Once that’s back down to a routine level of disagreement about political style and substance we can try again to move forward as we’ve done for most of our history. Meanwhile our house is on fire and repainting the bedrooms is not a priority. YMMV as always.
This is one of the differences in political thought that I’ve noticed between US posters here and Commonwealth posters.
US posters tend to affirm, like LSLGuy, that everything is political and there’s no such thing as non-partisan in the political system.
Commonwealth posters seem much more likely, in my experience at least, to assert that yes, there can be non-partisan actors, even (and especially!) in activités like running the electoral system, certifying the results, and at the earlier stage of drawing the map.
It’s an interesting distinction. I’m not sure what causes it, but I wonder if it’s because of the combination of primaries and extensive elections to all sorts of offices in the US?
In Canada, since there are no primaries, you can go your entire life without making any public statement of political affiliation. There are also large numbers of public offices that are not elective. We vote for the governments, federal, provincial and municipal, but that’s generally it. Personal partisan affiliation just isn’t so important as it seems to be in the US.
It’s an interesting difference in the political and social cultures.
Stronger reliance on adversarial checks-and-balances between the three branches in the US when compared to a parliamentary system where the executive comes from the legislature? MUCH greater reliance on unwritten rules and norms in Commonwealth nations when compared to the US with its written Constitution?
The latter is of particular importance here because (IMHO) the GOP haven’t in general been directly violating laws and written rules but have been playing absolute havoc with, and making a mockery of, the unwritten rules and norms of US politics. Without playing armchair psychologist too much, I think they justify their actions to themselves by noting that “no law forbids us from X” or “no Senate rule requires Y” while conveniently ignoring that X or Y has been an implicit rule that political actors relied upon until now.
Here’s a reassuring news article:
Officials condemn Trump’s false claims and say election ‘most secure in US history’
And here’s an interesting follow-up to the follow-up. President Trump doesn’t like public officials who do their job and tell the truth, when the truth undercuts the Trumpian “reality”.
So for instance, when Christopher Krebs, the guy in charge of the aforementioned Cybersecrutiy and Infrastructure Security Agency, says that the elections were safe and secure, undercutting the President’s claims of fraud, the natural Trumpian reaction is to have the guy fired, because he’s not backing up the President.
Except, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, apparently found the remnants of a spine, somewhere or other, and refused to fire Krebs.
And there was this little nugget:
Yeah, that Nielsen. Who appointed her anyway? 
And this little dig at Mr Wolf’s surprising decision to stand up to the Prez:
Maybe, but I don’t know if that’s it. Partisanship just seems so much more granular in the US, as far as I can tell from the media and social media (I’m not limiting my sample size just to the SDMB 
), getting right down to individual citizens and to public decision-making that in my personal experience in Canada, are not considered partisan issues. Plus the rejection in the US of the idea that you can have people in public positions that don’t have a partisan background. That’s taken as a given in Canada.
The example that really drove that difference home to me was the 2000 Florida vote-count, where I first learnt that the official responsible for certifying the results of the election was an elected official, the Florida Secretary of State, who was a Republican. That was a “What?!?” moment for me, learning about the US electoral system. Then it came out that in addition to being the Secretary of State, charged with certifying the vote, she was also the co-chair of the Florida George Bush Campaign. “Say whaut?!?” How can the co-chair of the election campaign be the person who certifies the election result, in an election where there is a major dispute about the election results? How can that be considered fair?
A friend of mine took a job in North Dakota several years ago that involved a lot of interaction with the public. He said it was so wearing that everything seemed to be viewed from a partisan lens, even local municipal decisions, and with an underlying mean streak to boot. He came back to Canada, and that was one of the reasons - to get away from the excessive, corrosive partisanship.
Piper, take a look at the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election for even more mystifying great times in US democracy.
Oh my.
You’re referring to this, no doubt:
Oh my.