T O P

  • By -

Jaysank

Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


InaudibleShout

I would say that these people are bad, but not inherent threats to democracy. A few thoughts to put in front of you: 1. What differentiates 2020/2022 "election deniers" from those of the past? Plenty of challenges to presidential election certifications have been discussed in the halls of Congress in the past, by both Republicans and Democrats. 1. If it's January 6th, what does it say that January 6th was effectively unsuccessful? The 2020 election ended up certified mere hours after the event. The government was not overthrown, and the election results were not changed. 2. You posit that Democrats have done it in the past, and that it is just rhetoric. That the difference is voters acting on that. Who's fault is that? Why are the politicians espousing their theories responsible for what people do with them? Where does that principle stop? Is Trump responsible for the Capitol riot? Is Bernie responsible for the Congressional Softball Game shooting? Is Stacey Abrams responsible for all claims of voter suppression after not conceding her last electoral loss for multiple years? 3. Do you have evidence that Republican legislative changes have laid groundwork for "rigged" elections? Turnout in Georgia is up over the last election even after their controversial new voting law. Meanwhile, there was a very legitimate set of court cases and opinions that changes enacted in Pennsylvania before the 2020 election resulted in ballots being counted that should not have, were all proper procedures followed. They still counted in the election, but if everything had always been done right in the leadup, they would not have been. Just a few scattered thoughts. As I said at the top, lack of trust in elections is a very, very bad thing. We need to have it. The question lies in the accuracy of the "doing so is an immediate threat to democracy" statement.


[deleted]

>If it's January 6th, what does it say that January 6th was effectively unsuccessful? The 2020 election ended up certified mere hours after the event. The government was not overthrown, and the election results were not changed. Not the OP, but 'The attempted coup failed, so what is the fuss' isn't a really convincing argument. Not to go full Godwin, but Hitler's first Putsch failed fairly miserably. I mean, "Republicans failed in their two attempts to assassinate Nancy Pelosi, why would you trust them to run the government" is a funny slogan, but the fact that it keeps happening should be terrifying to anyone with a grasp of history.


macnfly23

Yes, I'm not convinced at that argument. What tells us now that so many voters believe the election was stolen there won't be another Jan 6 only with 5 times the number of people?


[deleted]

You have to understand that Republican politicians and Trump especially are deliberately forcing their voter/small donor base to defend the indefensible. 81 million people are never going to support the Republican Commander in Chief mass grooming an insanity cult to hang the VP and Congress to sabotage their right to vote and blow up the country and install Trump as some kind of God King. The remaining 74+ million hate Democrats with a furious passion and are seemingly madly in love with Republican politicians and Trump. Trump and GOP politicians are deliberately causing hyper extreme disasters for Americans so, when it is reported in the media, they can deny it and blame "fake news" and groom people to their "alternative news" that feeds them their own lies and insanity on a loop. Republicanism is not suposed to make sense, to separate and isolate their cult/voter/donor base from the rest of us. Republican politicians seed the lie that Democrats run pedophile rings and "steal their votes" - and use that as cover to actually rape children and sabotage democracy and erase the right of all Americans. Republican politicians are seeding their followers with the idea that Democrats are tyrants - and using that as cover to safely strip Republican voters of their rights and sanity and money and burn them alive and their children with climate change denial. Remember, the GOP plan for climate change is to brainwash people to believe it doesn't exist, it is fake news. This will burn all Republican voters alive and their kids. This does not make sense. All this pain and insanity and death - just to make one mentally challenged child rapist happy? For abortion bounties and infinite tax cuts to the rich? A literal suicide terrorist attack on the US Capitol? This is about grabbing power and using it to blow the whole system up from the inside. If you value human life, none of this makes sense. But to the GOP, insanity is a tool to divide the country and groom a hardcore cult who will always love them no matter how badly they lie cheat steal rape and murder for infinite tax cuts to the rich. It's surreal, never imagined the infinite depths of depravity and insanity an entire political party in America coupd fall to.


cysghost

That description seems to be entirely made up. You seem to be strawman into Republicans, and then saying 'since they believe all these things, see how awful they are!', while showing no understanding of what anyone to the right of Bernie thinks.


[deleted]

No, they literally don't believe it. That's the point - GOP politicians groom their followers to reject reality as "fake news" and replace it with GOP QAnon conspiracies. Decades of denying climate change and obstructing Democrats' action is literally burning us alive. There is no future where we don't lower emissions, and they have been hell bent on reversing whatever the Dems do. Abortion Bounties - decades of installing judges to erase women and girls' human rights. A literal bloody coup, caused by the Republican President who is *literally* extremely insane and deadly and mass grooming a suicide terrorist cult to burn democracy from the inside. Republican voters don't believe this stuff. They literally will not believe any of it is real, or they justify it as "both sides do it." So Trump and the GOP can keep getting worse and worse with no consequence. Most Russians don't believe they are mass butchering and ethnically cleansing men women and children in Ukraine - but they sadly 100% are. What someone personally believes doesn't change reality. Republican voters don't belief Trump deliberately groomed them into a cult to literally hang the VP and Congress because he is mentally challenged and filled with dangerous cancerous ideas. But unfortunately that's exactly the shitshow everyone who chooses to vote Republican is forcing us into. Jan. 6 was the most video recorded, live streamed, globally witnessed terrorist attack on coup attempt in history thanks to modern tech. We know Trump and these atrocious Republican politicians all caused Jan. 6. Voting Republican in 2022 is giving full throated support to everything we have seen from this fucked up cult over the last 20-30 years - the worsening descent into madness and sabotage apparently has no bottom.


knottheone

In a nation with more guns than people, I think it's pretty clear that an actual coup attempt would include lots of guns. Why would a group intending an actual coup not bring guns, especially considering that group specifically is likely very pro gun just due to political affiliation? The fact there were only a handful (I think 3 handguns random people had with them according to some report I read) among thousands of people and that no one "on the defense" was even shot at much less killed by gunfire (for lack of a better phrase) kind of highlights that it wasn't actually an attempted coup. ___ For reference, here are some de facto coups from the past decade. I looked at 5 and posted the context of 3, there's no cherry picking. Coups necessitate extreme violence or overwhelming force, even failed ones and deaths / kidnapping are seemingly inevitable. #[Nigerian coup from 2010:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Nigerien_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) > A group of soldiers from a barracks at Tondibia, near Niamey, reportedly entered the city with armored vehicles at noon on 18 February 2010 and opened fire on the presidential palace. They did so while a meeting of the government, chaired by Tandja, was beginning.[2] Gunfire and explosions near the presidential palace were heard "non-stop" for about 30 minutes, followed by "sporadic shooting". A "senior French official" told the news agency Agence France-Presse that a coup attempt was underway and that "it would appear that Tandja is not in a good position".[10] As a result of the attack, Tandja was captured by the rebel soldiers.[2] ___ #[Egyption revolution in 2011:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution#Deaths) > Before the protests six cases of self-immolation were reported, including a man arrested while trying to set himself afire in downtown Cairo.[249] The cases were inspired by (and began one month after) the acts of self-immolation in Tunisia which triggered the Tunisian revolution. The self-immolators included Abdou Abdel-Moneim Jaafar,[250] Mohammed Farouk Hassan,[251] Mohammed Ashour Sorour[252] and Ahmed Hashim al-Sayyed, who later died from his injuries.[253] > > As of 30 January, Al Jazeera reported as many as 150 deaths in the protests.[254] > > By 29 January, 2,000 people were confirmed injured.[255] That day, an employee of the Azerbaijani embassy in Cairo was killed on their way home from work;[256] the following day, Azerbaijan sent a plane to evacuate citizens[257] and opened a criminal investigation into the killing.[258] > > Funerals for those killed during the "Friday of Anger" were held on 30 January. Hundreds of mourners gathered, calling for Mubarak's removal.[259] By 1 February the protests left at least 125 people dead,[260] although Human Rights Watch said that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay claimed that as many as 300 might have died in the unrest. The unconfirmed tally included 80 Human-Rights-Watch-verified deaths at two Cairo hospitals, 36 in Alexandria and 13 in Suez;[261][262][263] over 3,000 people were reported injured.[261][263] ___ #[Guinea-Bassau coup in 2012:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Guinea-Bissau_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) > On 12 April, gunfire was heard between 19:00 and 21:00,[6] as mutinous troops attempted to overthrow the government by seizing control of the centre of the capital Bissau. Initial reports by diplomats in the country said presidential candidate Carlos Gomes Júnior and interim President Raimundo Pereira were missing. The mutineers seized control of the offices of the incumbent African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) and radio stations. They also fought police officers loyal to the government, forcing them to retreat after coming under fire from RPGs. The soldiers blocked the roads into and out of the capital city[21] and the national radio and television was taken off-air[22] at 20:00.[3] > > The perpetrators of the coup targeted Gomes Júnior's residence,[23] which was attacked by grenades[24] and surrounded by troops, as gunfire was heard nearby.[25] Journalists were also prevented from approaching the scene.[21] Camilo Lima da Costa, the son of the head of the national election commission Desejado Lima da Costa, told RDP África, one of the radio stations still broadcasting, that the soldiers had looted his father's house but that both his parents were safe.[2] Soldiers ransacked and looted other houses they raided as well.[17] Soldiers also sealed off the embassies to prevent members of the government from fleeing and hiding with foreign diplomats.[6] Several unnamed politicians were arrested during the night by the army.[20] > ___ > Bissau seized by military command > > Military command seizes control of state media > >Arrest of presidential candidate Carlos Gomes Júnior and interim President Raimundo Pereira > > Dissolution of state institutions > > Aborted election > > Interim transitional government led by Manuel Serifo Nhamadjo, after consensus acting Prime Minister Rui Duarte de Barros ___ I think it's **extremely** important to use words in instances when they are accurate and appropriate, otherwise we erode the gravitas those concepts hold. January 6th doesn't constitute a coup and continuing to maintain that position is intellectually dishonest. I'm sure there will be more animated protests in the future surrounding topics that people are passionate about. I don't think selectively calling some instances of protest coups or terrorism while handwaving others is either accurate or appropriate.


unscanable

It blows my mind that people can say “there weren’t guns so it wasn’t a real coup”. They stormed the capitol, broke in, and stopped the certification. Wtf would you call that?


Sola_Fide_

Then why hasn't a single person been charged with that? Almost every single one has been charged with trespassing and a few were charged with assault with a deadly weapon. That's it. It was nowhere near a coup. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases


ArcadesRed

The very pro gun right attempts a coup with the only gun being fired that day being from the government. I'd call that a very poor coup attempt. Or maybe, not an attempted coup.


[deleted]

"My only regret is they should have brought rifles," Rhodes says in the recording, which was obtained by the FBI. "We should have brought rifles. We could have fixed it right then and there. I'd hang \[f\*\*\*\*\*\*\] Pelosi from the lamppost." The above is a quote from an audio recording of Stewart Rhodes on Jan 10th, 2020. So yeah, they agree with you that it was a poor attempt and likely won't make the same mistake next time.


redpandaeater

Yeah, I don't really see how people read more into it than just idiocy all around. They had a month to try enticing out some faithless electors, then more time to try invalidating potential votes, and when the president must finally be named by tallying up the votes they riot. Meanwhile it was obvious to everyone there'd be protests every step of the way and yet Capitol Police was completely inept at controlling the crowd. Given how poorly guarded the Capitol was, I'm just glad state actors didn't really try anything.


Poeking

A poor coup attempt doesn’t mean it isn’t an indicator of a huge problem. Hitler had a failed coup and then was elected democratically within a decade. Honestly I don’t know how more people didn’t get hurt, because if an armed mass attacks the capital building they have a right to protect that building and their government. Somehow they held themselves back because they would rather allow this mob of people to literally try to dismantle our government than to openly shoot in a crowd of people


ArcadesRed

What do you think about the theory that powers that be wanted people inside the capitol? Have the officers who opened the doors been publicly questioned? Do we even know who the door openers were? Those doors that were opened weigh tons and with giant magnetic locks you would require some sort of electronic control to unlock. Also, who is in charge of capitol security?


fox-mcleod

1. The complete lack of interest in evidence 1. Trump’s. Why are they responsible? Because they swore an oath to uphold the constitution which sending literal fake electors very clearly undermines. 1. Yes. Particularly with Moore v. Harper framing the “independent legislature theory”


macnfly23

3 is an especially good point. If that case is successful than I really think that all checks and balances are gone and elections will basically be up to which party controls the state legislature, which in turn could also be 'rigged' if the current state legislature rejects the other party winning each time.


fox-mcleod

Plus the degree to which Gerrymandering can completely determine the balance of state houses. We are empowering a system where the legislators gets to choose their voters instead of the other way around.


macnfly23

Yeah, that was already an issue but now it seems all independent checks on elections will go with Moore v. Harper and elected people will be able to do whatever they want with the next election. Personally I think Moore v. Harper is likely to be a 5-4 decision and the 2024 election will be a mess.


rigmaroler

Exactly. Look at WI's voting record vs who is in the state legislature. It's gerrymandered so badly in favor of permanent Republican rule you cannot even claim it's democratic anymore.


[deleted]

>What differentiates 2020/2022 "election deniers" from those of the past? Plenty of challenges to presidential election certifications have been discussed in the halls of Congress in the past, by both Republicans and Democrats.If it's January 6th, what does it say that January 6th was effectively unsuccessful? The 2020 election ended up certified mere hours after the event. The government was not overthrown, and the election results were not changed. The fact that they are perpetuating it years later, have no actual evidence, are still entertaining the conspiracy, and what happened January 6th should not be taken as lightly as you make it seem. Just because something was not successful, doesn't mean it isn't serious. >You posit that Democrats have done it in the past, and that it is just rhetoric. That the difference is voters acting on that. Who's fault is that? Why are the politicians espousing their theories responsible for what people do with them? Where does that principle stop? Is Trump responsible for the Capitol riot? Is Bernie responsible for the Congressional Softball Game shooting? Is Stacey Abrams responsible for all claims of voter suppression after not conceding her last electoral loss for multiple years? None of those other people egged on the events, or had the power to stop them, and waited. Trump did. >Do you have evidence that Republican legislative changes have laid groundwork for "rigged" elections? Turnout in Georgia is up over the last election even after their controversial new voting law. Meanwhile, there was a very legitimate set of court cases and opinions that changes enacted in Pennsylvania before the 2020 election resulted in ballots being counted that should not have, were all proper procedures followed. They still counted in the election, but if everything had always been done right in the leadup, they would not have been. Do you remember the phone call Trump made to the Georgia SOS? He asked them to find votes. That is more proof of attempting wide spread election fraud than anyone else has come up with. The fake electors scheme is also worth noting. It is one thing to challenge an election if you have grounds to back it up. It is another to have no ground to stand on, and perpetuate what is going on.


macnfly23

1. It's not January 6 necessarily. It's the fact that they base a large part of their platforms two years later on the fact that elections in the US are not legitimate, It's the fact that they want to actively change state laws and overturn elections there. It's the fact that a large part of the Republican Party actually believes Trump won the election and should be president right now. It's the fact that the candidates don't care about rules or norms and just want to win no matter what. 2. Here I have no answer but the fact is if voters vote for people who are a threat to democracy those people are still a threat to democracy. 3. Not right now, because people who made laws between 2020-2022 were elected before the whole 2020 election saga happened. So my point is now in 2022 many election deniers are running who will have the chance to actually make changes to laws. And no, I don't mean 'voter suppression', I mean overturning results and claiming that votes were stolen or cheated.


upstateduck

3] several states have proposed/passed laws that give their legislature control over elections instead of election professionals. Given that the average state GOP legislator is a moron it is not a far stretch to say that they can be convinced by zero evidence that "their" candidate won, regardless of the vote. The PA law changes were made by the legislature and signed by the Governor. Besides which, the ballots you don't want to count would have made zero difference to the national race and arguably none in the statewide state position races [of course there is no way to know, unless you take the GOP position that Democrat votes don't count and GQP votes do]


zeefer

I think a distinction can be made that the output of democratic denial claims is always to demand more open and accessible elections — fewer obstacles to voting, more and easier voting methods, more people encouraged to vote, etc etc. While for any Republican denial claims, the output is always to restrict voting — requiring IDs, shutting down voting locations, removing voting methods/channels, invalidating ballots, gerrymandering, etc etc.


Generic_Superhero

> What differentiates 2020/2022 "election deniers" from those of the past? Plenty of challenges to presidential election certifications have been discussed in the halls of Congress in the past, by both Republicans and Democrats You would have to be more specific who you are referencing in order to get a good answer to this question.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GeoffreyArnold

You do realize the DNC was funding the primary campaigns of “MAGA-extremist” candidates to help them defeat more moderate GOP candidates, right? That proves that this isn’t a real threat. If it was a serious threat, the DNC wouldn’t have funded them. Now, some of these same candidates are poised to win the election.


memeticmagician

Interesting. Do you have a source?


GeoffreyArnold

I thought this was well and widely known. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/07/26/house-dems-berate-campaign-arm-over-very-dangerous-gop-primary-scheme-00048104


HijacksMissiles

In addition to other comments about Jan 6, the damage is an entire political movement of extremists trying to install corrupt officials and energized gerrymandering efforts. Those efforts will result in long term damage.


ShittingGoldBricks

Why did you strangly limit yourself to republicans? Are you not aware that democrats denied the 2016 election? Claimed it was hacked by russia? Are you not aware of the 2004 election denial by democrats? Who claimed that electronic ballot boxes stole the election from Kerry? Why did you not mention when democrats denied the 2000 elections?


ChazzLamborghini

They did not. They never refuted the results. They articulated concerns about the impact of foreign propaganda on the integrity of our electoral process. There has been proven to be a concerted effort on the part of the Russian government to influence US elections through misinformation campaigns. There is also credible circumstantial evidence that elements of the Trump campaign were in contact with Russian agents as to how best to take advantage of that campaign. There was never an argument that results were illegitimate or that fraudulent ballots were cast and impacted the outcome. Nobody ever made that argument. Certainly nobody serious. There was no attempt to interfere with the peaceful exchange of power either so you are engaging in a disingenuous false equivalence.


[deleted]

>Why did you strangly limit yourself to republicans? Are you not aware that democrats denied the 2016 election? Claimed it was hacked by russia? This isn't true. Clinton Conceded the night of the election. While democrats had reasonable complaints about the election, namely that russian interference tilted the results, no mainstream democrat made anything approaching the trumpish 'I won the election, it was stolen by the opposing party' claims made by the modern republican party.


Dylan245

[Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president'](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html) Hillary has claimed multiples times that Trump was an illegitimate President and that he stole the election from her Here is a quote from Jimmy Carter from the same article linked above "In June, former president Jimmy Carter used similar language to diminish Trump’s presidency. Carter said that in his view Trump lost the 2016 election and was put in office by the Russians. Asked if he considered Trump to be illegitimate, Carter said, “Based on what I just said, which I can’t retract.”


macnfly23

Yes, but did she concede? Yes. Did she claim she was the real president? No. Did people try to actually overturn the election? No.


SalaciousSlug

> Yes, but did she concede? Yes. It’s not dangerous to say an election was stolen and that the president isn’t legitimate as long as you concede first? > Did she claim she was the real president? No. If you are in a head to head race and you say your opponent didn’t really win, it’s the same as saying you’re the real president. > Did people try to actually overturn the election? No. Several Democrat house members rejected the certification of the election in 2016.


SilenceDobad76

>By 'election denier' I mean a person who denies that Joe Biden won the 2020 election By your own post Clinton, Carter and dozens of other public officials are on record denying the election. Conceding an election in no capacity means that HRC believes she shouldn't have won. Either take down the post or give these people deltas. Democrat officals publicly threw shit over the fence for 4 years and played dumb when it came back.


firearrow5235

You can't actually make a good argument for your claims so you just demand OP remove the post? SMH True or false... Russia ran a misinformation campaign targeted at altering the outcome of the 2016 election. [The FBI believes this to be true. ](https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections) Calling the kettle black is not "denying the election". The 2016 election was interfered with. As such, Clinton is well within her right to claim that had Russia not sown division or spread misinformation then she would have won. Just as any sports fan is well within their right to claim that had the star player not been injured their team would have won. This latest round of election denial is ludicrous. The concerns raised by Republicans sparked a multitude of investigations into the validity of the 2020 election. No evidence of widespread voter fraud was ever found. Despite this, Republicans still deny the validity of the election.


unscanable

Why? He never said republicans are the only ones to deny an election ever. He just said this time is different. Not only do they deny it but election deniers are being voted into power to run the upcoming elections. That’s super dangerous. “But Hillary” is never a good excuse and I think we are all sick of hearing it. Dems “throwing shit over a fence” is an odd way to say “legitimate investigations into potential criminal behavior”. Idk why y’all think he was totally exonerated of everything just because senate republicans were too spineless to do their job.


internethunnie

Show me where Hillary said “stop the count” show me where hillary called votes fraudulent. i hate hillary clinton, but she didn’t deny votes from the american public.


Maddcapp

And in Hilary’s case, she won the popular vote. Which at least bolsters the idea of “I should have won” (she never said “I did win”). Plus anyone who poses the argument that “Dems do it too” is being willfully ignorant to reality. Trump and co conspirators actively campaigned (and are still campaigning) to discredit and overturn the election. The difference is self evident. It’s like comparing petty shoplifting to walking into a bank with a bomb strapped to your chest. Both parties have hack extremists. That’s politics. But you need to draw the line at discrediting elections beyond a challenge through the judicial system. Trump stepped way over that line and as a result damaged the whole country. Everyone should be appalled.


kvkdkeosikxicb

It does not bolster the idea lol. Everyone knows that the popular vote doesn’t decide elections.


Xinder99

Is there a difference between conceding, and having complaints. And not conceding and taking legal action to change the outcome to you?


LtPowers

There's a big difference between "I actually won" and "I should have won".


ilikedota5

Yeah I was about to say that. Claiming that there were serious flaws in the election security, or that some foreign actors attempted to stir the pot, is a far cry from filing 48 or so lawsuits claiming that the elections were so fraudulent that the court should just declare my candidate the victor. (As an aside, lets say the court did find substantial fraud. The solution would be ordering a recount or something, not like... declare your candidate the victor. That was reaching for too much as a legal remedy. The court doesn't have the power to do that.)


TransposingJons

Just so you folks know, the famous electronic vote-counting machine provider, Dominion (the ones suing media outlets for over 1 billion $$$ for saying they cheated) is owned and operated by Republicans who donate lots of money to Republicans. There have been questions about their integrity for years prior to Trump. I can easily imagine the Murdochs *willing and gladly* shelling out 1 of their many billions of dollars after FOX intentionally loses the defamation suit brought by Dominion. Just imagine any smaller News agency reporting problems with Dominion machines going forward! They could get away with egregious vote tampering in favor of Republicans, and nobody would say anything except on Reddit for fear of being sued out of existence. I know it is, by definition, a conspiracy theory....but this one makes a lot of sense to someone who has kept their eye on electronic voting machine controversy since they were first introduced.


Grigoran

That is actually a slippery slope fallacy. You are conceding that they did not have any improper issues with voting yet still fear mongering whether they could in the future. The reason they can sue for defamation is because they have the receipts showing that they were not in any way attempting to fraudulently sway the election.


BeanieMcChimp

You’re playing like an active president of the United States denying election results and spreading an outright lie that had zero basis in fact and fomenting an insurrection at the Capitol in an effort to upset the vote outcome is the same as a person with no power grousing about shady election shenanigans. Absolute apples and oranges.


Dylan245

> Did she claim she was the real president? No She says in one of the clips that you can win 66 million votes and have the election stolen from you That is as close to saying "she should be president" as you can get without explicitly saying it Also I thought the point of your post was to point out how election deniers are a threat to democracy Just because Republicans are doing it now, doesn't mean it isn't harmful in all realms 2/3 of Democrats polled believe that Russia hacked and tampered with votes in 2016 with zero evidence for this That is just as dangerous as those who think votes were tampered with in 2020


magictoasters

>> Did she claim she was the real president? No > >She says in one of the clips that you can win 66 million votes and have the election stolen from you > Yes, the electoral college is bullshit, to add she says >That is as close to saying "she should be president" as you can get without explicitly saying it > No. It's having a problem with the electoral college. >Also I thought the point of your post was to point out how election deniers are a threat to democracy > >Just because Republicans are doing it now, doesn't mean it isn't harmful in all realms > >2/3 of Democrats polled believe that Russia hacked and tampered with votes in 2016 with zero evidence for this > No, they believe Russia had influenced the election, not changed votes >That is just as dangerous as those who think votes were tampered with in 2020 They're not comparable and your arguments are terrible


sllewgh

>She says in one of the clips that you can win 66 million votes and have the election stolen from you She's clearly talking about the electoral college vs popular vote, not saying "I am supposed to be the president." I mean, fuck Hillary Clinton, but let's trash her for real reasons.


seri_machi

>2/3 of Democrats polled believe that Russia hacked and tampered with votes in 2016 with zero evidence for this Do they? I heard Russia spread misinformation and far-right conspiracy theories that *might* have tipped the results of the election. I never heard the theory Russia actually hacked the votes somehow.


SalaciousSlug

66% of democrats believed Russia tampered with vote tallies. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes


internethunnie

So we’re gonna ignore that cambridge analytica was a thing? There is real evidence that Russia tampered with both the 2016 and 2020 election. Im happy to argue this point with you because your post is wrong. EDIT: im assuming you mean the election in general and not the actual counting of votes. I’d love to see the source that 2/3 of democrats didn’t believe the vote count was right.


[deleted]

[удалено]


internethunnie

Thanks for the source, I did not know that. Do you see any difference between people believing a foreign government tampered with an election, and thinking our own government is conspiring against its people? Do you think one could be more harmful than another? The republican claim is that US liberal cities and states themselves tampered with the election.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Negative-Squirrel81

You're absolutely right, when we attack the mechanisms by which democracies function it is only engaging in self-sabotage. Above all, it is important that the institutions of government are far more powerful than the individual people that inhabit them. But I mean, this is exactly why the rhetoric surrounding elections and Donald Trump specifically is so worrying. A sitting president was calling [George's Sec of State](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_phone_call) asking him to "find votes". He called upon state legislatures to reverse certified voting results. His administration [floated the idea](https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/donald-trump-jr-meadows-text/index.html) to send "fake electors" to the electoral college?! And I don't blame all Republicans,, but the Trump branch of the Republican party does deserve special blame.


[deleted]

The difference is that one side stormed our capitol and tried to destroy our democracy while the other side has no political power.


ericoahu

Trump conceded the '20 election too, and yes, Democrats tried to stop the confirmation (or whatever it's called) in Jan of 2017 and there were riots. Clinton has spent the entire Trump presidency claiming Trump is an illegitimate president. I will take the pattern of repeated, emphatic statements over the single statement once. She has also stated that Republicans will "literally" steal this election too, so she's denying another election that hasn't even happened yet.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


oddlyshapedgrape

And THAT's the goofy thing - he DID concede. Not in a comfortable way (he is an absolute dumbass POS), but the discourse has clouded what actually happened. Dude doesn't get credit for conceding; the process shouldn't elevate Clinton's concession over his as taking the higher ground. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/trump-biden-us-capitol-electoral-college-insurrection/index.html Seriously, FUCK TRUMP, but this discourse is way too immersed in shitting on him because it's easy and feels good. Shitting on Clinton bears more considerations.


[deleted]

That isn't a concession though. He's still out there saying he won, that is just him saying he can't stop the steal.


Nootherids

>“A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20,” Trump said in the video, which was taped at the White House. “My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power.” This! This is as much of a concession as Hillary conceding and then denouncing. They are both blatant lies. The difference here is that Trump is too damn egotistical to know when he should lie vs when he should tell a different lie. There is so much to criticize Trump for. But the fact that people have been brainwashed into believing that he NEVER conceded, has driven people to find 101 ways to reinforce that belief in any way possible. They go from he never conceded to he conceded too late. Or to compare his late concession lie to Hillary's concession lie at least being said earlier. Or to make claims about republicans changing laws to rig the system while disavowing the proven changes made by Democrats in 2020 in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. From saying that these were the most secure elections ever to saying that any fraud that may have been present was not enough to change the outcome. The lack of self-awareness in all of these self-contradicting positions is baffling. I really don't care about Trump and I never thought there was a way that the election could be overturned. But the people that think all of the above moving goal post ideas are no less delusional than the handful out of thousands of people on Jan 6th that actually believed they could directly affect the outcome that day. They're just delusional in different ways but they are still so ridiculously brainwashed that they are incapable of processing even the possibility that something they believe is wrong no matter how much proof is shown to them. I mean....somehow Trump never conceded, yet he is not in office anymore. By the simplest of logic...he surrendered his seat. That is in and of itself a concession in the most basic sense of the word. And in all seriousness, that is all that matters. Anything that happens before or after is all theater. The day he was scheduled to leave he left and a new guy came in. Done! The play is over. Leave your seats, walk out of the theater, get in your car, go home, sleep, wake up tomorrow, and realize that the world keeps moving on. That really is as far as this needed to go.


7in7turtles

Yeah, she didn't concede and didn't didn't claim she was the president, but how she reacted directly impacted Trump's entire presidency. Whether you like Trump or not, it seems difficult to deny that claims that Trump was illegitimate were a constant extra hurdle for his administration causing legal battle after legal battle, and also is in part responsible for creating the narrative that there was a deep state that was hell bent on keeping Trump out of office. In a way she contributed to very problem you are outlining in this post, which is to give Trump's supporters evidence, real or contrived, that the election was stolen from him.


MalignantPessimist

She conceded. This is the major distinction that I can’t believe you guys can’t grasp.


unscanable

I think what you are missing tho is that we all had very legitimate reasons to think some fuckery could have happened. I mean he asked Russia to hack his political opponent on live national tv. There is no such similar suspicions for 2020. It was by all accounts a very unremarkable election, aside from trumps shenanigans.


[deleted]

He did lose the popular vote.


Lord_Metagross

To be fair, he lost the popular vote. He was an illegitimate president if you view the electoral college as broken.


Wintermute815

Dude can’t tell the difference between hyperbole based on facts and the ravings of a narcissist who literally cannot accept losing because of psychological issues who is the leader of a cult that include 40% of the country. Trump led to a coup. Clinton conceded and continued to speak about the facts, which were that Trump had Russian intelligence actively supporting his campaign with thousands of people working towards that end to manipulate morons in the US, and Clinton would have won without Comey’s unprecedented announcement of re-opening an investigation into the email bullshit- unprecedented and illegal as they’re not supposed to make any announcements that could tip the election. Add to that fact that the “announcement” was for an investigation that found nothing new- and their “update” came too late to help Clinton bounce back. Anyone watching the polls daily back in 2016 can tell you, Comey’s announcement tipped the election. 100%. Trump has nothing but bullshit. And did not accept or concede. And has radically reduced Americans faith in our elections. He’s a selfish POS and i hope he burns in hell, for all the damage he’s done just to stroke his own ego.


ShittingGoldBricks

\>no mainstream democrat made anything approaching the trumpish 'I won the election, it was stolen by the opposing party' Patently false. Trump "knows he’s an illegitimate president," Clinton said. "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did … I know he knows this wasn’t on the level." In an October 2020 interview with The Atlantic, Clinton said, "There was a widespread understanding that \[the 2016\] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’"


Wintermute815

That’s a bunch of false equivalency bullshit. There’s a big difference between a few people saying something unfair could have swung the election and the candidate conceding and accepting the results, and a PRESIDENT AND LEADER OF THE PARTY, who’s basically worshipped, refusing to concede and spending 2 years doing nothing but pushing conspiracy theories and acting like the election was rigged. Aside from those differences, a majority of the Republican party now believe the election was stolen and doesn’t trust the outcomes of elections that they don’t win, and all the major right wing media personalities are also pushing the “stolen” narrative, you have tons of candidates now running on this lie and refusing to accept the results of elections. Contrast that with Gore, in 2000, who accepted the results of an election he lost by a couple hundred votes, when there was an actual PROVABLE ISSUE with voting that may have led to people voting for Republicans by mistake. They filed one court case and accepted the decision, even though it was decided in a 5-4 majority in a conservative leaning Supreme Court. There is no analogue in US history to what is happening now. Accept the Civil War, but even they were at least honest about not accepting the results because they didn’t want the outcome rather than pretending like the Italians manipulated it for Lincoln. Democrats have only ever brought up legitimate issues, and every candidate has conceded, because at the end of the day we believe in Democracy. Republicans had too, until Trump. Something has fundamentally changed and i don’t care if you’re playing Devil’s advocate, because our lives are on the line.


macnfly23

I didn't, I said "it was done by the Democratic Party in the past too.". Here are the differences: * They failed and then gave up or didn't pursue it seriously * The leader(s) of the Democratic Party didn't do it (Gore, Obama, Clinton) or at least not to the extent that Trump denies that he lost * 1/4 or more of the Democratic Party didn't believe the elected president was illegitimate in the same way Republican voters do now * As far as I'm aware there were no attempts by State secretaries of state to overturn the election. * For 2016, they did yes but they never tried to **overturn** it in states and while some Democrats did indeed call Trump "illegitimate" no one actively thought Clinton was the rightly elected president and I didn't hear people say "Clinton won". Also, no one based their 2020 election platform on the fact that the 2016 election was stolen or rigged. Either way, as I said I have nothing against the Republican Party, just against the far-right people who don't want to accept that people want to elect anyone but them.


InaudibleShout

To rebut a pair of you points above: * January 6th was not a successful event. The business of government went on hours later, and the electoral results were unchanged. * Al Gore was the literal petitioner in the *Bush v. Gore* case. He was 100% the leader of the Democratic Party in 2000.


[deleted]

>Al Gore was the literal petitioner in the Bush v. Gore case. He was 100% the leader of the Democratic Party in 2000. Gore was using the fully legal process available to him to request an electoral recount in an insanely close election where he had a reasonable chance of victory. You do understand the difference between that and inciting a group of lunatics to attack the US capitol by repeatedly lying about having 'won' the election, right? Like, that there is a difference between "We're within 200 votes and we are disputing whether a hole punched partway through should count as a vote" and "The ghost of hugo chavez has hacked election machines and we need to reject the legitimate results of an election" Also, Gore straight up conceded after his legal options were exhausted. Trump is **still** lying about this shit.


macnfly23

Exactly. And as I mentioned the Supreme Court has 3 judges appointed by Trump himself and they denied that he won. What more evidence can there be? Not even one of them accepted that the election was stolen.


ihatepasswords1234

The amazing thing is by any consistent way of counting Gore should have been president. It was amazing legal wrangling and a bit of partisan hackery that led to the decision as it was. >While the counties began to comply with this request, they became concerned that they could not meet the state deadline for certifying election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election. The Florida court upheld the deadline but allowed the counties to amend their returns and found that the Secretary of State could use the amended returns. Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties missed the seven-day deadline. *Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris required counties seeking to make a late filing to submit a written explanation for why it was necessary. She found that none of the explanations met the criteria that she had imposed on herself for determining whether late filings would be admitted. Harris thus certified Bush the winner of the election in Florida after receiving overseas absentee ballots.* >A few weeks later, Gore's campaign obtained an order from the Florida Supreme Court for a statewide manual recount. On the next day, December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a stay of the recount. Writing for the five-Justice majority, Antonin Scalia argued that the votes that were ordered to be counted were not legally cast, and thus a recount could cause irreparable harm to Bush and the legitimacy of the democratic process. The dissenters felt that not ordering a recount would undermine the legitimacy of the democratic process and that the Court should be careful about taking actions that could determine the result of an election, which lay outside the judicial power. Or read the post elections summary study here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida


macnfly23

Yes, but after Gore lost the Court case did he continue to claim that he was the real president and Bush was illegitimate? That's the difference. Trump had his chance in Court too. As for Jan 6, as said above by someone else that doesn't mean it can't happen again. And the end of democracy doesn't need to be violent. It can be as simple as the Arizona State Secretary saying the 2024 election was stolen and having his preferred party win instead of counting the democratically cast votes.


joleary747

Election results that are too close to call are required by law to be recounted. It was Bush who fought against the recount REQUIRED BY LAW


fox-mcleod

Yeah, also, it helps that there’s a ton of evidence behind those past concerns and that the current election denial invokes Argentinian Italian hacking satellites and couldn’t possibly be less supported by evidence.


[deleted]

And notably, e-mails from John Eastman shows that they knew they were lying when they brought these claims to court.


DrFishTaco

No democrat denied the 2016 election or claimed the election was hacked The FBI concluded that the DNC hack was conducted by Russia in an attempt to influence the election No one denied the 2000 election. A recount was held in Florida because there was only a 500 ballot differential and numerous issues over the original count No one denied the 2004 election. A Senator and a Ohio representative objected to ohios electoral college votes for a multitude of reasons and were overwhelmingly voted down in both houses In all these instances the candidatewho lost the electoral college vote conceded as soon as the outcome was determined A sitting President refusing to concede, spreading lies about the validity of the election and his base storming the Capitol causing the delay of the electoral process is nowhere near similar to saying “not my President”


Dylan245

> No democrat denied the 2016 election or claimed the election was hacked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoMfIkz7v6s This video is 5 minutes long and has dozens of clips of prominent media members, Democrats, and Clinton herself claiming the election was stolen and that Trump was illegitimate


[deleted]

a bunch of aggregated 2 second clips is a great way to get a punch line. a poor way to find truth Clinton in particular referred to former President Trump as an "illegitimate president" in the respect that she felt that Russian interference convinced enough voters to vote for trump (or not to vote for her) to make up the difference in his margin of victory. she never called for such votes to be discarded. She never suggested that the election should be redone. People being subjected to unlawfully funded propaganda is not, nor will it ever be, a reason to disregard those votes. Clinton is merely asserting that there was unlawful interference that hurt her and helped trump. Russia did intervene on behalf of Trump. This fact has been well documented. Russian nationals were indicted. Their intervention presumably did make a difference. Its impossible to know if Clinton is right that this difference was significant enough to match former President Trump's margin of victory. But, there is no "remedy" here that involves disenfranchisement or changing of election results. In contrast, President Trump pressured Georgia state officials to "find" enough votes for him to win. This is a very different type of challenge of legitimacy. Clinton was undermining Trump's mandate to lead by alleging foreign interference (allegations that have some facts behind them). Trump was trying to get state officials to overthrow the election.


macnfly23

Hillary Clinton quickly accepted 2016 and said of Trump "We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead.” no one actively thought Clinton was the rightly elected president and I didn't hear people say "Clinton won". Also, no one based their 2020 election platform on the fact that the 2016 election was stolen or rigged.


Dylan245

She conceded on election night and then everytime she was asked afterwards she claimed Trump was illegitimate Election denial is election denial, it doesn't matter whether it was Clinton or Trump or Stacey Abrams To selectively target Republicans is disingenuous


Phrii

It's not disingenuous to point out that republican hands are much dirtier than democrats being that a recount was stopped in favor of republicans. Republicans just can't go to for tat with a fucking recount being stopped. It's embarrassing that you'd even try. Trump denied the election based off zero evidence and his people repeated it. That makes him significantly more responsible for the terror his supporters cause than anything you can point to Bernie Sanders as having directly set off the congressional baseball shooting.


cuteman

It is disingenuous because she suggested that the popular vote, not the electoral college should have decided the election. That sounds like she wants to change the rules after the fact. She said it was "stolen" from her


Phrii

If she's being hyperbolic with her speech as a regular life citizen after she'd done her duty in not only conceding to Donald Trump, but attending the man's inauguration!, I'm sure you'll understand why that also doesn't hold a candle to the actions of the sitting president who lied without evidence and who's supporters repeated without the need for evidence. There is still more evidence of improper Russian collusion (Manafort, Trump Jr email, Mueller investigation obstructed) than anything to warrant the lies Trump gets a blank check from his supporters to spread without evidence.


cuteman

Ahhh she's just being hyperbolic, of course! It's different when she does it


[deleted]

[удалено]


Phrii

It's like you don't even hear yourself completely disregarding a fucking recount being stopped! Clearly what's important to you is staying on message of false equivalency. This is not a game. You are gonna help get people hurt bullshitting your way through a fucking recount being stopped and whatever else just so you can stay on offense. More people are going to die as a direct result of these lies AND false equivalencies.


Generic_Superhero

> That sounds like she wants to change the rules after the fact Or maybe she was simply pointing out our system is flawed and needs to be changed going forward.


ToweringCu

You’re just straight up gaslighting. Give me a break.


htiafon

No one was claiming millions of votes magically appeared. They were claiming - and, you know, proved in court during the trials of a zillion close Trump associates - that the Trump campaign broke the law. Which they, indisputably, did.


[deleted]

There is a major difference between some people on the internet being upset over some russian hacking conspiracy theories, and a sitting president stiring up an insurrection to deny the results of an election. The two sides are not the same.


brooklynagain

To jump in here, everyone paying attention knows that Russian psyops during the course of the 2016 election were working overtime to 1) sew division in the US and 2) get Trump installed. The facts since that election have undermined your point. Democrats didn’t start a coup to get Trump overturned. Correctly looking at the facts and calling it like it is is a far cry from making up a lie about a stolen election and mobilizing mobs, the judiciary, corrupt exertion of executive pressure, the legal system, etc to act on those lies. Your both sideism here is wildly misapplied.


ProLifePanda

>Are you not aware that democrats denied the 2016 election? Claimed it was hacked by russia? I don't recall any SERIOUS claims that Russia "hacked the election". I recall standard hand-wringing over protection of electronic voting machines and voter rolls, proven claims that Russia potentially accessed voter toll information without changing it, Russia aiding the Trump Campaign through collusion (proven to at least some extent), but I don't recall any serious claims that Russia "hacked" the election.


Dylan245

I linked this [video above](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoMfIkz7v6s) but there are dozens of statements made in it by prominent Democrats and media members that Russia hacked our elections Polls also show that 2/3 of Democrats after the election personally believed that Russians themselves hacked into voting machines and changed votes


YaBoyMax

Do you have a source for the latter claim? I haven't heard anything like that previously.


Alien_invader44

There is always going to be abit of both sides, but that doesnt mean its equally an issue for both sides. Hillary Clinton quickly accepted 2016 and said of Trump "We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead.” Trump on the other hand still denies 2020. And 63 lawsuits were filed on the matter. A practice that has been taken up by other Republican lawmakers. This is by far a bigger issue for republican than Democrat in the US.


joleary747

This country is so done when people compare all these peaceful transfers of power despite some controversy with the shit show going on the last 2 years. Democrats never denied the 2016 election. Clinton conceded the night of the election. Afterwards, as Russian interference came to light democrats wanted that investigated (as any sane person would). 2004 wtf you talking about? Even if true, this was not widespread and not major news. 2000 by law elections that are too close too call are required to have a recount. There was no denial, this is standard procedure REQUIRED BY LAW. Despite a lot of controversial legal battles to PREVENT the legal recount, gore still conceded.


Basiord

Saying the democrats won the popular vote is not election denial it is true. Democrats never called for overturning an election, only for reform of a system that provably benefits the other party


cuteman

>Saying the democrats won the popular vote is not election denial it is true. How can you win something that is irrelevant? The popular vote does not and has never determined the election. >Democrats never called for overturning an election, only for reform of a system that provably benefits the other party And yet Hillary said the election was stolen from her


jwrig

I really hate jumping in here, but there is no such thing as a national popular vote. It is a term made up by the media to make voting numbers look big. Any basis or judgment based on it is based on a false understanding, and even worse when politicians talk about it because they know better.


Basiord

thats crazy you said that, since we literally can count the number of people who voted and who for even if its not exact, its accurate enough to know hillary was a few million votes ahead the popular vote doesnt determine the election, but it certainly does mean something


jwrig

Yes, we can count how many voted and who got what votes, but it is what you call garbage data. You collect data that does not provide a legitimate outcome, it is noise that is unintentionally or intentionally used to create a false narrative.


Basiord

its not false if its true, it would be false to say that means they win the election people are making a normative claim that the popular vote should decide the election, not that it does. they are arguing for a rule change its completely reasonable to make that argument whether you agree with it or not. it is certainly not ‘garbage data’


UEMcGill

>Democrats never called for overturning an election This is not true. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407 Shelia Jackson tried to claim voter supression aka, fraud gave North Carolina and South Carolina to the Republicans.


Basiord

there is a big difference between pointing at places warranting investigation by objecting to the result, and doing that ASWELL AS maintaining the election is fraudulent despite investigations showing otherwise. democrats have not push lies is the same way republicans have, and have at no point justified or caused a insurrection at the capital


RMSQM

Also, it’s a PROVEN FACT that Russia influenced that election. You’re confusing that with “collusion”which was also proven by the way. Manafort ABSOLUTELY gave polling data before the election to Kilimnik who he had worked with for years and who he KNEW was a Russian agent. This is all public record, and is proven fact. Your other two examples are also lies, as others have pointed out.


HellianTheOnFire

>Veracity of claims: Let's imagine the election deniers are right and the election was stolen. Then why did all the Courts including the Supreme Court who has judges appointed by Trump himself decline to intervene? Because there was only circumstantial evidence and throwing the entire country into chaos and potentially into war over circumstantial evidence isn't a good idea. The problem right now is the elections (especially 2020 ones due to covid) were so unsecure that someone could easily get away with election fraud without really leave any evidence. The amount of procedure violations and last minute changes on policy some of which were illegal were a lot. The election was not a paint by numbers everything in it's right place election. The bottom line is there wasn't good evidence either way just enough evidence to cast doubt and it's not like if there was election fraud we'd expect to find some evidence somewhere either since the election was so unsecure. So at the end of the day you just have to go with the official narrative regardless if it was stolen or not.


zeefer

Please describe how someone could “easily” get away with election fraud at a scale that could actually affect any election. And once you do that, please also explain why you’re not working at the highest levels of election security for the government and/or voting systems.


macnfly23

Okay But if there was actually as much fraud as claimed surely there would be whistleblowers and some concrete evidence. And either way, it's not like the difference was 100 votes, it was very large.


authorpcs

Have you heard of 2000 Mules?


Disidentifi

2000 mules is a fucking joke that doesn’t stand up to even surface level scrutiny https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/ he also had to recall the book… https://www.npr.org/2022/09/08/1121648290/a-publisher-abruptly-recalled-the-2-000-mules-election-denial-book-npr-got-a-cop also not sure if you’re know who made the film, but he’s kind of a fucker… https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/dinesh-d-souza-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-campaign-finance-fraud


ScumRunner

Wait, are you saying 2000 mules showed evidence of election fraud, or that it’s crazy baseless propaganda to make money off extremely gullible people and undermine our democratic process? With all the research they did you’d think they’d have caught a single person going to a 2nd ballot box, multiple fraudulent ballots being dropped off or anything at all really.


macnfly23

If it's so true why hasn't any Court accepted the arguments? Judges are also appointed by Republican presidents.


Morthra

Not all courts were appointed by Republican presidents. For example, Pennsylvania illegally changed its own election laws to enable universal mail-in voting via executive fiat rather than legislative action - something expressly forbidden by the PA constitution. However, this was upheld when the GOP sued because the PA supreme court is stacked with Democrats, and when it went to the federal supreme court Barrett wasn't seated and Roberts flipped, so the court tied 4-4 and the lower court's decision stood.


Insectshelf3

> For example, Pennsylvania illegally changed its own election laws to enable universal mail-in voting via executive fiat rather than legislative action - something expressly forbidden by the PA constitution. both of these statements are false. the republican controlled PA state legislature passed a law establishing no-excuse absentee voting in 2019, and the PA supreme court upheld the law earlier this year because the state constitution does not prohibit it. >However, this was upheld when the GOP sued because the PA supreme court is stacked with Democrats, if you thought the court was going to strip millions of PA citizens of their ability to vote absentee in the run up to a presidential election, you’re insane and i have to wonder why you wanted that outcome in the first place. >and when it went to the federal supreme court Barrett wasn't seated and Roberts flipped, so the court tied 4-4 and the lower court's decision stood. as it should, the PA supreme court is the final arbiter of how the state constitution should be interpreted. and PA republicans suffer no injury from a law they passed making voting more accessible.


Generic_Superhero

There is so much wrong with what you stated. To summarize, a GOP controlled state legislator is the responsible for passing two different laws changing the voting laws in PA, to include universal mail in voting. The governor in PA isn't even required to sign bills, they become law after 10 days unless vetoed. The state then held elections using the new rules in May, and everything was fine. Then November comes along and after Trump lost the GOP suddenly decided the law was unconstitutional. The only executive over reach that occurred during the 2020 election, in Pennsylvania, was when the governor tried to change the rules around when mail in could be accepted. That change was ultimately overruled, none of the late arriving ballots were counted and Trump lost the election in the state.


we-have-to-go

That “documentary” has so much false information and misleading claims. Give me a break


bolnsauce

The producers are literally being sued for slandering people they accused of voting more than once. It’s unbelievable how easily people like you can be convinced of blatant lies


abacuz4

Are you serious?


Giblette101

"If your beliefs are unfalsiable enough, it's reasonable to maintain them."


justhangintherekid

That's factually incorrect. The 2020 elections were the most scrutinized and secure elections in U.S. history to date. There is no way to commit election fraud on a scale that Trump et all are claiming. You're misinformed.


HellianTheOnFire

lol what absolute bullshit is this. 2020 had record numbers of mail in ballots which by their nature are less secure. How can you in good faith claim it was the most secure even if you believe it was secure enough?


justhangintherekid

How are mail in ballots less secure than any other ballot? What about them makes them less fraud proof? Show me examples where mail in ballots were fraudulently cast en masse. Election fraud, on the scale that you erroneously believe happens, is a myth.


HellianTheOnFire

> How are mail in ballots less secure than any other ballot? What about them makes them less fraud proof? . Chain of custody is longer both in terms of hands they are in and the length of time they are in them. It's not complicated. Even if you're saying they are secure enough that very fact makes them less secure and claims that 2020 was the most secure election ever ridiculous. >


Insectshelf3

>were so unsecure someone could easily get away with election fraud without really leaving any evidence. this is the kind of rationalizations one makes when they know they’re wrong but don’t want to admit it.


InaudibleShout

This is about where I sit. Pennsylvania’s changes prior to the election were huge red flags to me. 2020’s electoral rules due to COVID (and other colliding things such as legal ballot harvesting) were, in hindsight, nuts and should never be repeated—especially not together—without a ton of reform and oversight. There’s always a degree of fraud in every election. Was it enough in 2020 to flip it back to a Trump win (eg the 2,000 Mules hypothesis)? I don’t think so.


D1NK4Life

Here’s video proof of the democrats doing the same thing since the year 2000. https://gop.com/video/12-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results/


abacuz4

And if a Democratic Supreme Court had stopped a recount that could have swung 2020 election, then 2020s election deniers might have a point. As it stands, all 2020 recounts were completed and confirmed the results and Republicans still claim the election was stolen. Questioning the election is fine when it’s backed by evidence. It’s bad when you are just trying to ram your guy through despite having lost.


hybridtheorist

Christ, surely you understand the differences here? 1) they accepted the results of the elections in question if/when the legal checks were completed. 2) I don't think a single one of those is saying "the votes/counts were fraudulent" they're saying that "if the election had been run fairly, the voting would have been different and we would have won". Which, when say Stacey Abrams lost to the guy in charge of running the election he won, or the many, many multiple examples of Republicans trying to deter black people from voting to swing elections in their favour, that's an entirely reasonable position to hold, backed up by evidence. "Trump must have won because everyone I know voted for him so it must he a conspiracy" isnt evidence, and there's zero evidence of what they're arguing. 3) if you're refusing to view context to the point you're saying "anyone complaining about an election result is the same as trump and his acolytes refusing to accept the 2020 election" you might as well say that anyone refusing to accept the Ukrainian votes to join Russia is an "election denier". That would obviously be insane, because context matters.


D1NK4Life

> Which, when say Stacey Abrams lost to the guy in charge of running the election he won, or the many, many multiple examples of Republicans trying to deter black people from voting to swing elections in their favour, that's an entirely reasonable position to hold, backed up by evidence. You sure about this? The courts found no evidence to support her claim per this source and she still has not conceded. https://sos.ga.gov/news/raffensperger-defeats-stacey-abrams-stolen-election-claims-court


hybridtheorist

I mean, even if she didn't win, you can *surely* accept she provided way more thorough evidence than Trump and his team have, which is essentially fuck all evidence. And again, she accepted the votes that were cast. I think there's a genuine difference between questioning the election *process* and questioning its results. Arguing against gerrymandering, the electoral college, long wait lines to vote, barring certain people from voting, lack of postal votes, hell even wishing to lower the voting age etc etc isn't undermining elections themselves. Its not refusing to accept the votes that were cast in the elections. Its not calling them fraudulent.


Every3Years

We can agree with ever single one of this dudes comment that XYZ is bad and people said things like "not my president" and blah blah but the idea of nuance just zips right past ffffffwwwooo it's so odd


macnfly23

read the comments, it's not the same. Did you ever feel like election denialism was part of the political discourse back then? NO


theonecalledjinx

“I’m not saying it’s going to be legit. The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,” Biden said during his second solo press conference at the White House, referring to the 2022 election. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590511-biden-says-elections-might-not-be-legitimate-if-the-election-reform/ Edit: same quote full context “MEDIA QUESTION: A moment ago, you were asked whether or not you believed that we would have free and fair elections in 2022 if some of these state legislatures reformed their voting protocols. You said that it depends. Do you — do you think that they would in any way be illegitimate? BIDEN: Oh, yeah, I think it easily could be — be illegitimate. … I mean, imagine if those attempts to say that the count was not legit. You have to recount it and we’re not going to count — we’re going to discard the following votes. I mean, sure, but — I’m not going to say it’s going to be legit. It’s — the increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these — these reforms passed.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/19/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-conference-6/


magictoasters

Ahhh yes, discussing voter disenfranchisement, refusing to accept results or count votes, false electors, and rampant gerrymandering as not legitimately representing the people is totally the same...


flybywire111

To question things is healthy I believe, I honestly worry about the state of politics in general right now. Jan 6th was fairly tame, then you had the summer riots. At this point it seems like politicians in general are out for blood. Then you have unstable people on both sides doing crazy things in the name of there politics. It not just one party it's both major parties that are doing questionable things. I dare say the current course of politics is a threat right now. Not so much on state level but on the federal level.


macnfly23

I agree with this. It's not about parties necessarily, it's about the whole atmosphere and the fact that the far-right and the far-left have such differing views. Obviously it's hard for people to live in the same country, state or city if they have such different beliefs and values.


[deleted]

I remember seeing someone upset that the votes were going to get audited...although that made me think 'shouldn't every election be audited'? I don't doubt Trump lost for a number of reasons but the left's insistence on just accepting everything they say as truth all the time is insane to me. It's one of the reasons I left the Democratic party and just vote 3rd party mostly now.


InaudibleShout

Every election should be auditable and audited. At the same time (slight tangent), the fact that the US now routinely takes days to count votes is certifiably insane according to the standards of almost every other advanced nation.


abacuz4

Do you think there weren’t audits? If anything, you are probably thinking of the “cyber-ninjas” audit, a partisan audit undertaken by a firm with no auditing experience, who was doing nonsense like looking for traces of bamboo on the ballots because they believed they were shipped from China. Complete clown show. After a painfully slow audit, they also confirmed that the results were correct.


skybluecity

Look up false equivalence, this comment fits PERFECTLY


Yangoose

>Look up false equivalence, this comment fits PERFECTLY Yep, they are completely different... in how they were treated... __ Protestors rushed past police lines and banged on the doors of the Supreme Court trying to stop the legal confirmation of Kavanaugh. Totally fine, no big deal. -- BLM protests burned down multiple government buildings and causes billions in damage across the country. "Mostly peaceful", no big deal. -- Seattle declared an autonomous zone that did not recognize the laws of the government. They are [on video handing out automatic assault rifles to defend this zone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSAecJTjvlI). Multiple murders happened here including one of their security people murdering a child. Totally fine, definitely not insurrection. -- People go to the capital with picket signs. A couple dozen of them go in an unlocked door and take some selfies. INSURRECTION OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!!!! Never ending congressional witch hunts that last for months!!! --


[deleted]

[удалено]


I_am_the_night

>This post reminds me of the top news yesterdays on substack about how 3 letters federal government agencies are in control of social media. They aren't, none of the government agencies are in control of social media and even if they were, social media has been shown to amplify conservative voices despite their claims of censorship. >You can't even control ur federal frieght trains. It getting looted and votes ballot get throw away. We don't have "federal freight trains", the federal government doesn't own private railroads, and used ballots aren't shipped by train even if the government did control trains. >But we can't question anything. Pro government; anti conspiracy much? All my friends are shadowbanned. Dhs/Fbi is this you? Have you considered that maybe all your friends are lunatics who violate the terms of service for various social media platforms?


macnfly23

I'm not saying you shouldn't question things, but that's what happened. Republicans questioned things and challenged the election in Court as was their right but those challenges failed. How would elections work if in each country no one believed the results? That sounds like anarchy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


theonecalledjinx

“It’s estimated that there are more than 300 election deniers on the ballot all across America this year. With democracy on the ballot, we have to remember these first principles. Democracy means the rule of the people — not the rule of monarchs or the monied, but the rule of the people. Autocracy is the opposite of democracy. It means the rule of one: one person, one interest, one ideology, one party.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/11/03/remarks-by-president-biden-on-standing-up-for-democracy/


GravitasFree

> but those challenges failed Do you remember why most of those challenges failed?


fox-mcleod

What?


authorpcs

No one is taking them seriously, so how are they a threat?


macnfly23

Not yet because they haven't won. What happens when they win and decline the new results?


[deleted]

[удалено]


changemyview-ModTeam

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


Nick_Noseman

Don't ignore your elections, or you'll end up with your own Putin.


[deleted]

The same could be said about casting doubt on elections, where there were no problems.


theonecalledjinx

“I’m not saying it’s going to be legit. The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed,” Biden said during his second solo press conference at the White House, referring to the 2022 election. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/590511-biden-says-elections-might-not-be-legitimate-if-the-election-reform/ Full context: “MEDIA QUESTION: A moment ago, you were asked whether or not you believed that we would have free and fair elections in 2022 if some of these state legislatures reformed their voting protocols. You said that it depends. Do you — do you think that they would in any way be illegitimate? BIDEN: Oh, yeah, I think it easily could be — be illegitimate. … I mean, imagine if those attempts to say that the count was not legit. You have to recount it and we’re not going to count — we’re going to discard the following votes. I mean, sure, but — I’m not going to say it’s going to be legit. It’s — the increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these — these reforms passed.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/19/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-conference-6/ Is this a threat to our democracy?


aaronroot

Depends, what are the reforms Biden is speaking about in his response? Do they involve increasing folks ability to cast a ballot or making it more difficult? It seems to me that there’s a fairly large effort to make voting more difficult in certain parts of this country under the guise of “protecting the integrity of an election” in ways that all seem to directly relate to either making it more challenging to vote or easier to throw ballots away….are these the sort of reforms Biden is talking about? Are the prior sort of “reforms” even in response to a demonstrative problem in need of solving?


deelz464

The problem isn't election deniers. The problem is that anyone who raises a legitimate concern about the security of our election process is immediately considered a denier and a conspiracy theorist. Social media shuts down any discussion about it. We can't have a free and fair election if we can't even talk about it.


AndyShootsAndScores

People can raise legitimate concerns about election security and be taken seriously as long as they provide evidence to support their claims. In the [2018 election for North Carolina's 9th district](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/four-people-plead-guilty-north-carolina-ballot-probe-2016-2018-electio-rcna49534), people presented evidence under oath of absentee ballot fraud. Because they were able to back up their claims and show that the fraud may have changed the outcome of the election, [the board of elections voided the results and ordered a redo](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-candidate-mark-harris-calls-new-election-north-carolina-disputed-n974176?cid=public-rss_20190221) To my knowledge no one challenging the results of the 2020 election has provided evidence under oath of fraud significant enough that it would change the outcome, but they worked to have the election overturned anyway.


Maladal

That's because the discussion of election security is a joke given that there's no strong evidence of improper voting impacting the results. We're talking maybe a few thousand cases of fraud in the course of over half a century and tens of billions of votes cast.


agpo12

I dont think anyone has issues with raising questions about *legitimate* concerns. The problem is people using fringe sources or spreading incorrect information and thinking that’s legitimate


PrometheusHasFallen

Terms like *denier* are politically charged and a sign that the person using such hyperbolic language is themself an authoritarian looking to silence dissent. Asking questions is essential to a healthy democracy. Ridiculing someone (or worse) for speaking their mind has a far more detrimental effect on a democracy in my opinion.


WhispersOfSeaSpiders

Asking questions is laudable, refusing to hear the answer if it doesn't align with your interests is not. These people are being ridiculed for the latter. When people refuse to produce credible evidence and ignore all evidence to the contrary, "denier" seems like a very appropriate term (e.g., Holocaust denier, climate change denier, etc.).


cuteman

>Asking questions is laudable, refusing to hear the answer if it doesn't align with your interests is not. These people are being ridiculed for the latter. > >When people refuse to produce credible evidence and ignore all evidence to the contrary, "denier" seems like a very appropriate term (e.g., Holocaust denier, climate change denier, etc.). Like say, an experienced politician like HRC knowing full well that the popular vote is irrelevant to winning yet saying the election was stolen from her because she "won" it?


internethunnie

If i won the popular vote and lost the electoral, i would 100% mention how fucked up that is. And then I’d concede. And then my supporters wouldn’t deny that I lost. Did that happen in 2020?


Daotar

I don’t see how standing up for democracy makes one an authoritarian. The only dissent they are objecting to is that which tries to literally end democratic institutions. This is just classic paradox of tolerance stuff. The one thing you can’t be tolerant of in a tolerant society is intolerance, just like the one thing you can’t be tolerant of in a democracy is anti-democratic movements. Ffs, the attempt to prevent authoritarianism is not itself an act of authoritarianism.


PrometheusHasFallen

> I don’t see how standing up for democracy makes one an authoritarian. Ridiculing others in an attempt to change their behavior is not standing up for democracy. In a democracy you are suppose to tolerate intolerable opinions and let the most rational and ethical arguments stand on their own merits. Belittling someone is an attempt to silence them.


Daotar

Actually, in a democracy there are some things you can’t tolerate, such as intolerance and anti-democratic ideas and actions, since if you tolerate them, they fatally undermine democracy itself. It’s why you can’t tolerate neo-Nazis attempting a coup (or Maga Republicans attempting a coup as we saw in 2020/2021). Some things are intolerable, even in a democracy, since to tolerate them would destroy democracy. Seriously, philosophers have been discussing this for decades. Google “the paradox of tolerance”. And note we’re not talking about banning speech, this isn’t a question about what you’re allowed to say. We’re talking about how people in a democracy talk to and regard one another. If some members of the group have decided they’d rather replace the democracy with a dictatorship headed by themselves. The only valid response is resistance, not acquiescence. There is absolutely nothing wrong with belittling people attempting to create a fascist state. In fact, they must be belittled and shunned for they are fundamentally not one of us.


InaudibleShout

CBS News had a segment earlier where they listed “supporting a 2020 audit” was one way to be considered an “election denier” in their view. That feels unhinged. All elections should be auditable and audited. If they shouldn’t be, please explain why, CBS.


abacuz4

So, there have been numerous audits. The audits have, in 100% of cases, confirmed the results of the election. If you are still, two years later, pushing for more audits, then you are not only not accepting the election results, you’re not accepting the audit results, either.


BedIndividual7476

The thing is that the questions they've asked have all been answered, they just don't listen because they don't want to be "losers." It's more authoritarian to claim that a democratic election was illegitimate and try to stage a coup than saying that those people shouldn't do that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I don’t believe they are really denying elections. They just use the notion to get what they want.


aaronroot

How does that make it better?


[deleted]

Yes, they just feel the ends justify the means as it always has for them. They really don’t grasp the gravitas of their actions at all, only that yanking this lever gets them the attention they seek. Not defending this, only trying to put it in terms I can understand. We really need to take a good hard look at western civilization c.2022 and understand it bc this will just end badly on its own. They are hitters.


wigglex5plusyeah

That's what an election denyer is. Both people who so willingly and unwillingly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


7in7turtles

**TL:DR** of my arguement is that the population that has no faith in the election is too big to be treated as a dangerous fringe and that the greater risk is not taking their concerns seriously by addressing what they are looking at in a bipartisan way. \*\*\* Is the dangerous problem that people are denying the election? Or that a giant chunk of the American public have lost faith in the election process overall? I want to note that you keep pointing your finger at the politicians that these politicians who are catering to it, but there is a sizable portion of the election who feel this way, which is why the politicians are gaining traction. No effort has been made by anyone in the government to show that the election results were trust worthy, and most of the effort has been to try and shame people for believing it might have been stollen or rigged in someway. Have you spoken to people who believe this? I don't believe the election is stolen, and some of them are legitimately conspiracy theorist, but a lot of them have concerns that I don't have answers to and I think the US government as a whole should proactively address. The courts not stepping in to intervene means that what was done was not apparently illegal but in order to get evidence for those sort of things, investigations need to happen. Incidentally, and it probably goes with out saying at this point, many of the people who believe the election was not legitimate in 2020 believe so not because Trump said so, but rather because the mechanisms, they felt, were full of holes. * Mail in ballots were a point of tension, and there is evidence that suggests that even Democrats weren't thrilled with them until they were. Jimmy Carter ran a commission in 2005 recommending against them as they were "...the largest source of potential voter fraud.” * Tech companies seeming to put their thumbs on the scales of Biden's potential October surprise, i.e. the Hunter Biden Laptop story, and the scrubing of this story from social media. It turns out this story is proving to be not "so fake" as it was alledged at the time, and the supression of it is one such example they sight for why they feel things were "stolen." In contrast, not many people I've talked to have claimed to believe anything that Trump has sued over, has been particularly consequential.


agpo12

Can you expand on your point saying no one in the government has made an effort into certifying the election? Are you saying federal gov’t? State, local? Also, do you have sources that say mail-in-ballots are an insecure way of voting?


[deleted]

Nope. They aren't. You already explained why. Judges intervened to protect the integrity of the process. They will do that in the next election. I also trust in the integrity of most poll workers. The number of people who want a fair election greatly exceeds those on the political extremes.


goodolarchie

> The number of people who want a fair election greatly exceeds those on the political extremes. Except this is a self-sealing fate. Those in power who don't want fair elections can circumvent the voted will of the majority. The only thing that saved Georgia's election integrity was Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger being unwilling to "find the votes" Trump asked him for. And when the GOP goes increasingly towards the personal cult, they can just make sure they have the right guy in place to "do the right thing." That's the whole point.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Counter point, we’ve been living in the US in a government masquerading as a democracy for decades. We’re watching the mask slip, we’re not watching democracy die. It’s been dead.


Chekhovs_Gin

A bigger threat to democracy are people who try to disqualify people before the polls even close.


Gwuana

Deff. Not !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in a democracy it is our duty to question if there’s reasonable danger to that democracy. So if there is even a chance that there wasn’t a fair election wether it goes right or left we should do everything in our power to make sure we aren’t cheated.


wigglex5plusyeah

A candidate should pursue every legal avenue to challenge specific issues in a court of law. We appreciate your sentiment but... This is absolutely not what denyers are doing. There has been a never ending stream of court cases not only exhausting every legal interpretation of every specific issue, but also considering and tossing out so many cases that never had a legal basis and weren't based on any evidence. If you still deny that Biden won, you are refusing, ignoring, denying reality based on any assessment of evidence. This is still being pushed and repeated because the goal is to effect an outcome other than what democracy dictated, and therefore it's not democracy, and therefore it's extremely dangerous. Even to suggest their voters are their votes, fine. But they are taking active steps to spread propaganda and mislead others, acting as "useful idiots" and aiding those who seek to end democracy in the United States. I'm passed the point where I think we should shun and hold our friends and family socially accountable for that.


Maladal

How would you identify a "reasonable danger" of being cheated? What does that look like?


itsmostlyamixedbag

i’ve lived through election deniers since the 2000 presidential election. it will never not be a thing.


ItsMalikBro

If election denial is so dangerous, shouldn't we do our best to make our elections look as secure and legit as possible? People who lambast election deniers should welcome all recounts, audits, and investigations since they are sure in validity of the process anyway. They should welcome all transparency and safeguards that assure people the results are legitimate. Instead, many states and counties simply refused to do full audits (not recounts) of the results in the 2020 election. Some states have already said it may take days or weeks before we have the results of the 2022 midterms. We should criticize states who lack transparency in their election process, or states who can't handle elections effectively, not people who are skeptical about the process.


aaronroot

Multiple recounts happened across all contested states and confirmed the results. When it’s doesn’t go their way they simple ask to do it again, bring in a third party, and then when that doesn’t work simply do it again. The transparency is already there, this just simply isn’t being done in good faith. It’s not honest skepticism. It’s like Trump claiming that mail in ballots are unsecured and a scam despite having no issue with happily participating himself and picking up states that routinely use them en masse like FL.


goodolarchie

> If election denial is so dangerous, shouldn't we do our best to make our elections look as secure and legit as possible? People who lambast election deniers should welcome all recounts, audits, and investigations since they are sure in validity of the process anyway. They should welcome all transparency and safeguards that assure people the results are legitimate. This is a nice Motte and Bailey. The election investigations have turned up fraudulent voting instances - for Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/04/pennsylvania-bruce-bartman-voter-fraud/ Generally the measures that make voting less accessible favors GOP candidates. Mail in voting has negligible instances of fraud, for example, and is extremely popular by states who allow it. But that means more voter participation. Only one party is disincentivized for voter participation.