Matt BlazeFeb 26

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.

https://wapo.st/3N5cpEn

Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency

Activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a draft executive order that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.

The Washington Post
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 26
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.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 26
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.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 26
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.
Show threadMatt BlazeFeb 26
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.)
Show threadHoward Chu @ SymasFeb 26

@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."

Show threadHoward Chu @ SymasFeb 26

@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.

Show threadMatt Blaze
@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.
Feb 26 at 9:20pmWeb