'Stop whining' about U.S. elections being rigged'

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
Obama casts his bait at Trump. How long until he takes it?


U.S. President Barack Obama urged Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to "stop whining" about the Nov. 8 election being rigged, saying no serious person could suggest U.S. elections could be manipulated because of their decentralized nature.

"I have never seen in my lifetime, or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place. It's unprecedented," the Democratic president said.

"I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining, and go try to make his case to get votes," Obama said at a joint White House news conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-italy-onama-trump-idUSKCN12I256?il=0
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,338
29,950
Catskill Mountains
DNC election was rigged...............
Ai that canard again. The DNC had the right to deploy superdelegates according to its own party rules. Everyone concedes the DNC leaned to Clinton but she won the popular vote and its delegate allocations and her nomination was not rigged. If it had been then Bernie Sanders would not have supported her now. Ask Sanders.

If the GOP had had half the sense to deploy better superdelegate rules in 2016 the Republicans would have put up a candidate that could have won the general election.

Instead they put up Trump, the one candidate the Dems' admittedly (imo) poor choice could actually beat in November.

So if it makes you feel better that somebody rigged something, the Republicans rigged their own primaries to elect Hillary Clinton in the fall; :eek: nice going.
 

thermodynamic

Suspended
May 3, 2009
1,336
1,175
USA
So Republicans were never accused of rigging elections in the past or sending people to vote to the wrong location or on the wrong day? Or Democrats? Do a web search: "2014 election rigged" Replace the year with 2012, 2010, and previous ones. People to this day still say 1980 was rigged thanks to some hostages... nobody tells them to stop whining and it's been 36 frigging years now...
[doublepost=1476810419][/doublepost]
Ai that canard again. The DNC had the right to deploy superdelegates according to its own party rules. Everyone concedes the DNC leaned to Clinton but she won the popular vote and its delegate allocations and her nomination was not rigged. If it had been then Bernie Sanders would not have supported her now. Ask Sanders.

If the GOP had had half the sense to deploy better superdelegate rules in 2016 the Republicans would have put up a candidate that could have won the general election.

Instead they put up Trump, the one candidate the Dems' admittedly (imo) poor choice could actually beat in November.

So if it makes you feel better that somebody rigged something, the Republicans rigged their own primaries to elect Hillary Clinton in the fall; :eek: nice going.
Wait, who put up Trump? Surely not the voters, they voted him because they believe he's not owned or paid for by anybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: webbuzz and jkcerda

ActionableMango

macrumors G3
Sep 21, 2010
9,267
6,253
"no serious person could suggest U.S. elections could be manipulated because of their decentralized nature"
Was Obama saying that back when Democrats were claiming it was rigged for Bush in 2004?

To say it cannot be rigged because of the decentralized nature is absurd. Presidents aren't elected by nationwide popular vote, they are elected by a handful of swing states, or even swing districts in those states. The Democratic party's complaint in 2004 is the perfect example of this, as it was specifically about Ohio turning the entire election results around.

On the other hand, it's hard for me to take Trump seriously. It sounds like his usual populist blustering. Is there any evidence? I have not heard of any.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
829
15,204
On the other hand, it's hard for me to take Trump seriously. It sounds like his usual populist blustering. Is there any evidence? I have not heard of any.
There isn't any to hear. Not just because there is very little voter fraud to begin with, but also because early voting has barely started in some places and in others there is no such thing. How can one claim an election is rigged that most voters haven't even voted in yet?

Obama was right, Trump needs to stop whining. It's immature and not presidential. Sniffles is unfit for the job. But this is about Trump saving face. He can never admit that he is a "loser" and "choked". So it has to be someone else's fault. Like a child, he didn't break things, his invisible friend did!
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
How funny this thread has become. But let's throw some brevity into this.

This just in from those who have rigged elections (and served their time in prison for it):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-election-rigged_us_580548c8e4b0dd54ce34b492

The People Who Know How To Actually Rig An Election Say Trump Is Wrong
“The stuff he is talking about, it is ridiculous.”
10/17/2016 06:56 pm ET | Updated 3 hours ago
By Sam Stein

Allen Raymond wrote the book on rigging elections. Literally.

It’s called How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative. And in it, he explored the dirty tricks that occur in the dark corners of American democracy, including the one he engineered in the 2002 New Hampshire Senate election that landed him in prison for three months. So if anyone knows whether there’s a kernel of truth to Donald Trump’s assertion that the current election is being rigged for Hillary Clinton, he does.

“It’s impossible,” Raymond said of rigging a presidential election. “The stuff he is talking about, it is ridiculous ― if it wasn’t so dangerous.” But Trump’s claims are dangerous: They’re “an existential threat to the republic.”

Mark Braden has worked in the legal trenches during close electoral contests. For a decade, he was chief counsel at the Republican National Committee. He also was chief counsel to the Ohio Elections Commission and election counsel for the Secretary of State in Ohio. So if anyone would know whether Trump has a legal basis for arguing that the election is rigged, he does.

“Nationally to do it, in the sense of trying to do some national conspiracy, is fantasy,” Braden said. “Our system works extremely well, and election fraud, though it occurs, isn’t a significant problem in the United States.”

Braden and Raymond are among a growing number of Republicans who have begun airing concerns with the conspiratorial tone that their party nominee has adopted about the election. It’s a list comprising primarily GOP operatives and lawyers, with only a scattering of lawmakers so far.

Their fear is that Trump’s claims will cause damage that far outlasts his candidacy ― which seems increasingly likely to come to a crashing end on Nov. 8. Trust in the legitimacy of elections is a bedrock of American democracy. What Trump is doing, they fear, is taking a mason’s chipper to it.

“He is doing more damage than he realizes,” said Raymond. “What Donald Trump is doing is he is committing ‘republicide.’ He is killing not just the Republican Party but the republic.”

Braden has a theory on why Trump is going down this road: The real estate mogul has never run for office before. So he is unfamiliar with how elections work and lacks “respect for the system and the institutions.”

To that point, Trump certainly seems to have an antiquated view of what actually happens during elections. Recently, he contradicted his own surrogates ― who have insisted that his talk of a “rigged election” is solely about the overwhelmingly negative media coverage he is facing ― by directly arguing that Democrats will engage in shenanigans “at many polling places.” Before that, he strongly insinuated that voters in inner cities would use illegal methods to get Clinton elected.

“He is in the wrong century,” said Raymond. “This isn’t Boss Tweed. I cut my teeth in New Jersey, and the legends and lore was they would sit back and wait to see what margins they needed in Jersey City and they would make results come in late. ... But that doesn’t happen anymore. It is just not the technology anymore.”

To get a sense of just how hard it would be for a candidate to rig a presidential election, I asked both Braden and Raymond how they would go about it. They came up blank.

As Braden noted, Clinton would have to send a huge number of people to a huge number of counties ― pinpointing in advance where the critical margins might be ― while simultaneously keeping the Trump monitors in the dark and avoiding the type of irregularities that could be detected when the vote was counted. Even then, there could be recourse in the form of a recount.

“The system itself has earned and deserved the trust and belief that it is fair. Because it is. The winners win and the losers usually lose,” Braden said.

Raymond had more of a bare-knuckled operative’s perspective on how an election could be stolen (let’s just say it involved paying people with money and various forms of barter to go and vote). But his advice to Clinton was not to even try, since the votes bought would not be determinative and there were better uses of her cash.

“I would instead just give money to Donald Trump and tell him to tweet more,” Raymond said.

Both men stressed that elections aren’t flawless. There are sporadic errors and attempts at corruption. But those instances happen predominantly at the local level and only rarely have affected state races. Presidential contests in the modern age aren’t the type of thing that can be hacked by one side or the other. And for Trump to argue otherwise is dangerous.

“What I wish is that Donald Trump would focus his campaign on what he is going to do if he gets elected and the bad things that Hillary Clinton would do if she got elected, and not attack the system,” said Braden. “The better angels, I’m hoping, get to his ears about the importance of the system because, in the end, any democratic system is pretty fragile and it is based upon trust.”
And finally, five reasons (and then some) to not worry about a rigged election:

5 Reasons (And Then Some) Not To Worry About A 'Rigged' Election
October 18, 20166:00 AM ET
by Danielle Kurtzleben

Donald Trump is warning that the election will be rigged. He has precisely zero evidence to back up that claim. But he has a remarkably receptive audience.

Around 30 percent of Americans have "little or no confidence" that votes will be counted accurately — and Trump's voters are far less confident about that than Clinton's.

That means that potentially millions of Americans will turn out to vote on Nov. 8, despite apparently believing their votes may not count at all. But to believe the election will be "rigged" is to believe that any number of improbable things will happen.

Here's a handful of reasons not to worry about any "rigging":

1. The election is decentralized

Yes, election-rigging worked on Scandal, when a super-secret cabal of five people (including the first lady AND the White House chief of staff) flipped the election by fiddling with a single voting machine in Ohio.

But then, Campaign 2016 is not a Shonda Rhimes production. Which is to say: Rigging the election would be much, much harder than this. For one, there are a few options of where to try doing that voting-machine fiddling. Where would you begin? Ohio? Florida? Iowa? Arizona?

"Conceivably one could focus on the few states that factor into the Electoral College," Walter Mebane, a political scientist who focuses on voter fraud at the University of Michigan, told NPR in August. "And maybe that turns into a few hundred or a few thousand precincts."

And that would be difficult to do because — let's repeat this again — elections are not federally run. States run them themselves. Trying to twist the results in a bunch of different precincts run by different authorities would be monstrously difficult. And even if one could somehow pull it off, then there's the problem of people's big mouths.

"So, say, 400 precincts in a big conspiracy, and no one will know?" Mebane added. "That's not gonna happen."

2. State officials are on guard

Secretaries of state are charged with administering elections in each state. And on Monday, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican, insisted that rigging won't happen.

"First of all, I can reassure Donald Trump: I am in charge of elections in Ohio, and they're not going to be rigged. I'll make sure of that," he told CNN. "Our institutions, like our election system, is one of the bedrocks of American democracy. We should not question it or the legitimacy of it. It works very well. In places like Ohio, we make it easy to vote and hard to cheat."

And he's no enemy of Trump — Husted, by the way, said later Monday that he will vote for the Republican nominee.

Multiple other secretaries of state have likewise asserted that the elections in their states will not be rigged.

In addition, considering that the cries of election rigging are overwhelmingly coming from the right, there's another reason to be skeptical, as the AP's Nick Riccardi pointed out: Many of the closest states — Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Alaska, Georgia — have Republican governors. That means the rigging would have to take place under Republican administrations — people who would, theoretically, have more reason to want Trump rather than Clinton to win.

3. Clinton is already leading by a lot

With a really close race, there could potentially be more of an argument that "rigging" the election would be possible (with irregularities in particular counties or precincts, which would be challenged and subject to recounts and oversight and courts weighing in).

But the way things look right now, that doesn't seem likely to happen.

"If the polls in November look like they do now, then I don't see much of an issue," Vanderbilt University political science professor Marc Hetherington told NPR in August. "No one will find credible charges of election fraud if it looks like a blowout in advance."

At the time, Clinton was far ahead of Trump — she had an 83 percent chance of winning to his 17, according to FiveThirtyEight. Now, it's looking slightly better for Clinton — 88 percent chance to his 12.

It's true that some states will be close. But if Clinton is far enough ahead in enough states — which is looking increasingly likely — then it wouldn't be necessary to rig the election. (Or you'd have to believe that many polls in many states are rigged, which isn't happening.)

4. Election fraud is rare (and it's not quite "rigging," either)

Multiple analyses have found the problem of voter fraud to be sparse.

According to Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt's comprehensive analysis, there were only 31 incidents of the type of voter fraud that could have been prevented by voter ID laws — that is, voter impersonation — from 2000 through 2014. Another analysis from News21 looked into 2,068 allegations of election fraud and found only 10 cases of impersonation.

And after analyzing multiple studies, the Government Accountability Office said it found "few instances of in-person voter fraud" (though it also acknowledged that in-person voter fraud is difficult to count accurately). So it appears that in-person voter fraud on the scale that it currently happens would have very little chance of swaying the election.

Still, Trump and Pence have told their supporters to head to the polls to make sure people are voting fairly on Election Day. But even then, they could easily miss some cases of fraud, because fraud via absentee ballots is "unfortunately quite real," as Levitt told The Washington Post in 2014.

Furthermore, as election lawyer Chris Ashby pointed out on CNN Monday afternoon (after an epic tweetstorm over the weekend), individual instances of voter fraud aren't exactly "rigging" anyway. This isn't just semantics — yes, voter fraud is a bad thing. However, calling an election "rigged" implies a systematic, coordinated effort to cause one candidate to win.

One more point here is that voter ID laws are the weapon of choice, particularly for politicians on the right, for fighting voter fraud. However, there's evidence that voter ID laws — which are put in place to fight voter fraud — end up swinging elections themselves.

5 (and 6 and 7 and 8 ...). Read Chris Ashby's latest post

We'd be entirely remiss if we didn't point to Ashby's excellent Medium post spelling out a few more reasons to be skeptical of "rigging" allegations. For example:

  1. elections are held in public places and staffed by private citizens;
  2. party officials and lawyers are at the ready to challenge if needed;
  3. voting machines have systems in place to prevent fraud — for example, they are "equipped with multiple interconnected counters that make it impossible to add or remove votes secretly" (sorry, Olivia Pope); and ...
  4. representatives of both candidates and parties observe vote-counting.

And on.

So if someone tells you the election is rigged, it's just not true.
But by all means, Trump supporters; don't let facts get in the way of what you may see on an episode of House of Cards or Scandal stop from clouding your judgment. If not, we can always find a strict, overbearing schoolmarm take one of her paddles and beat it out.. :rolleyes:

BL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadeTheSwitch

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
All you phonies so concerned with voter fraud but have nothing to say over Republican state legislatures suppressing the vote (been proven in courts several times). A far greater danger than a few fraudulent votes.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,199
USA
I think Trump fails to realize that he's not going to win because he has no experience and is not the candidate people want in the white house - it's not a question of rigging.