A couple of things about these claims circulating that the 2024 election was "rigged":
1. The supposed "proof" is essentially the same nonsensical statistical gobbledygook that the MAGA people were claiming about 2020, with the parties reversed.
2. There is no legal mechanism to "recount" an election after the results are certified. None. The ship has sailed.
3. SHOCKINGLY, they need funds to continue their "work"
4. Nope, not linking to it. Not giving them oxygen.
An important difference between this and the 2020 fraud claims is that here, you don't see the supposedly "defrauded" candidate amplifying the BS. Harris wants no part of this.
Also, you don't get a discount on an overpriced pillow for donating.
@mattblaze what do you think about the post facto research on the Florida recount in the 2000 election? Some work by the New Yorker, for instance, suggests that if the recount had continued, Gore would have had more votes.
@evan @mattblaze oh I know, the gore-bush election is what got me into political advocacy, and it was directly responsible for the 2002 Help America Vote Act, among other reforms. I'm an election warden for my town as one indirect result.
The 2000 election has been analyzed for over two decades, and (summarizing) the conventional wisdom was that "if only" Gore had pressed for a complete recount of all the votes, instead a more limited recount, he would have won. The supreme Court decision hinged on the inequity of recounting only partial results. This has the comforting aura of idealism to the liberal listener-- if only Gore had better promoted our American democratic ideals! -- and helped us reconcile the fact of a antidemocratic outcome: the candidate with the most votes didn't win, but at least the judicial process was followed, yay norms and rule of law.
Now, with more recent hindsight, I think it is more broadly recognized as a harbinger of the judicial activism and other traits of the modern right wing movement. From this more cynical viewpoint, I suspect the election would have been thrown in any case, the rationale would just have been different. The same bad actors were working on FL on the Bush campaign who surfaced again as members of the Trump administration.
In any case, it's not news that the 2000 election was stolen. The difference is that post-2000 we focused on election reform to eliminate butterfly ballots, DRE machines, and other misfeatures that surfaced in that campaign. Post-2024 we need to focus on the *other* culprit and reform the judiciary.
Sort of like, it's fine to seek the truth, but the truth now isn't going to deliver the promise being made when asking you to donate money to assist in uncovering the truth.
I understand that finding the truth now won't overturn the certified election. But, *IF* there did end up being proof of actual vote manipulation, the individuals that did so could still be held accountable at least right?
@finner @evan Go for it. But understand a few things:
- the supposed "smoking guns" indicating fraud in 2024, like those put forward in 2020, aren't really anything.
- elections are ultimately human endeavors, run by fallible people, and small but inconsequential "irregularities" are normal and expected. But it's often very easy to make them seem much more sinister and significant than they are.
- versions of almost everything claimed about 2024 were claimed by the MAGA people in 2020.
@finner @evan Another thing to keep in mind: You probably *want* to believe it, and that's very dangerous.
US national elections in recent years are hotly competitive. The country is split across parties pretty evenly. This means that whatever the outcome of a presidential race, there are a *lot* of disappointed people, all primed to be receptive to claims that the outcome they wanted was stolen from them. Beware!
That's exactly the state I'm in. I want to believe it. And I want people to be held accountable. But I've never done anything more than read a handful of articles. I agree I've seen nothing that looks like hard evidence. I just don't know enough about this stuff to have a good opinion about what may or may not be true. So I leave it up to the people that actually study this stuff.
@finner @mattblaze @evan something to keep in mind...
Yes, the outcomes of these elections is hugely impactful, but the fact that these elections are as close as they are, given the stark differences between the candidates, says far more than any cries of fraud.
Exactly right. I truly almost wish there was proven fraud. Because the actual reality is even worse.
@MaierAmsden @finner @evan There's more work to do, to be sure, but it's simply incorrect to suggest that nothing has been done to improve elections in recent years. Over the last 15 years we
(1) developed the formal requirement of "software independence" in elections
(2) Invented risk-limited audits, which achieve (1)
(3) have greatly diminished the use of paperless "DRE" (touchscreen) voting terminals, which are now considered obsolete because of (1) and (2).
There's been huge progress.
@MaierAmsden @finner @evan An essential, and perhaps unavoidable, irony here is that as all this progress has been made - as US elections become more secure - public confidence in the integrity of our elections seems to be at an all-time low.
This is partly because the progress is driven by (and produces) public awareness of the threats and risks elections face. This awareness is generally good - knowledge is power! - but it can lead to this perverse inversion between reality and perception.
@MaierAmsden @finner @evan I said what I said, and it's all I've got.
I can't prove the election wasn't tampered with. I don't think it was, for the reasons I mentioned. If you've got evidence it was, go for it.
I know that's not satisfying. But I'm not holding back on you.
@MaierAmsden @finner @evan I know I must seem like some kind of jerk here, like I'm refusing to reveal or admit some basic truth that would make all this clearer.
But the fact is, it's just messy. There's been great progress. But also still uncertainty.
- There are vulnerabilities. They're real!
- But there's thus far been no credible evidence that they've actually been used to alter an election outcome.
You casts your vote and you makes your choice.
No, in 2024 risk-limiting audits were required in only five states — Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Virginia, so two of the swing states.
Below is a chart of the laws in the swing states, regarding audits and recounts. trump won them all, but none of the conditions that trigger an audit or recount occurred in any of the swing states in 2024.
@evan @MaierAmsden @finner This is what drives me nuts about a lot of these discussions. People confidently assert “The election was stolen! They rigged the voting machines!” But when you dig a liittle, they have no idea about rigged voting machines and are upset (often reasonably) about the electoral college, gerrymandering, PAC money, or whatever.
That’s a legit discussion to have! But I wish people would just start there instead of pretending it’s about hacking.
Heartening. DEFCON 2017 with the voting village was a real wake-up call for me.
I agree actually that there most likely might not be anything there, which is why I was putting a big IF there.
I was just trying to clarify the point you were trying to make, but it's two fold I guess. Not just that they are promising an outcome that isn't possible, but that the plausibility of actually finding some smoking gun is just far too low. Therefore, don't waste money and time with it at all.
If I recall correctly, the Miami Herald had a good article and web app that answered that question.
And the answer was.... it depends.
If the recount had continued, who would have won depended on what you counted as a vote. Is it a vote if the person blacked an area that included one candidate but was mostly outside the circle? What about if the person made a slash somewhere near one candidate's box? Et cetera.
Different definitions of what counts for a vote gave different results.
@mattblaze why would anyone need to donate money to this? From what I understand a couple states have initiated some type of action, that doesn’t require a regular person to collect donations.
Also, what does it matter at this point? Both Elon and Trump have admitted out loud that Elon fixed the votes for him. Nobody cares and even if it was true and could be proven he’s not going to get out of the White House. Biden welcomed him home with a grin on his face like he was welcoming home a new baby grandchild. Establishment democrats wanted to lose they’re not coming back to fight now.
I was just about to lodge a deep and serious complaint about your misuse of the word "couple " but my lawyer talked me out of it.
Matt Blaze
Dave C.
Evan Prodromou
C. Scott Ananian (he/him)
SP⟁CED GO⟁T
Chris Samuel
Maier Amsden
Parker Morse
BronMason
Rich Stein (he/him)
Mᴀʀᴋ VᴀɴᴅᴇWᴇᴛᴛᴇʀɪɴɢ
Norman Wilson
Denton Gentry
peter alvaro
Todd Knarr
aardvark
Pete Gontier
Chip Unicorn
Maggie Maybe
D2
tom jennings
Vinay ಕಶ್ಯಪ್ (Mr./Dr.)
tonnydourado