Are American elections free and fair?

[historia]

According to Pew, the percentage of Americans expressing confidence that our elections will be run well has dropped from four years ago (2018), especially among voters who support Republican candidates (-30%).

Question for debate: Are elections in the United States free and fair?

[AgnosticBoy]

I named an instance where tampering would be easy, there is no oversight, and those measures wouldn't matter: If partisan mailmen decide to throw away ballots. I don't think this happened this time and I think Trump is just being pissy, but it easily could happen and no one would know. And that's a problem.

Again, that mailman would be committing multiple crimes, which means there are laws in place designed to prevent this imaginary scenario from occurring.

The law would not prevent that scenario from occurring, just as the posted speed limit would not prevent me from driving faster. If the mailman is caught, then sure, he or she will be held accountable.

[historia]

If partisan mailmen decide to throw away ballots . . . it easily could happen and no one would know.

Until some of the mail-in voters check the status of their ballot via their county or state website -- as many do -- and then the scheme would be exposed.

[Jose Fly]

I named an instance where tampering would be easy, there is no oversight, and those measures wouldn't matter: If partisan mailmen decide to throw away ballots. I don't think this happened this time and I think Trump is just being pissy, but it easily could happen and no one would know. And that's a problem.

Again, that mailman would be committing multiple crimes, which means there are laws in place designed to prevent this imaginary scenario from occurring.

I don't agree with the view that the law would prevent that scenario from occurring, any more than a speed limit would prevent me from driving faster. If the mailman is caught, then sure, he or she will be held accountable.

I said the laws are "designed to prevent" the crimes from occurring. But if this conversation is going to descend into "Yeah but people can always break laws", that takes us into "why have any laws at all" territory, which I'm frankly not interested in.

[AgnosticBoy]

I said the laws are "designed to prevent" the crimes from occurring. But if this conversation is going to descend into "Yeah but people can always break laws", that takes us into "why have any laws at all" territory, which I'm frankly not interested in.

[emphasis added]

Well, that would not be my point. My response would be to have security in place in the form of monitoring, systems where voters can check on their ballots throughout the entire process, oversight, and/or even observers in place to keep an eye on those things. That way the mailmen would not only know the law, but he'd also know he's being watched or that there's a way for his actions to be tracked.

Think of my speeding analogy and my point about extra security/monitoring. I can always drive faster than the posted speed limit and get away with it if not caught. But if extra monitoring devices were put on my car, then the officials can always know my speed limit.

[Purple Knight]

If partisan mailmen decide to throw away ballots . . . it easily could happen and no one would know.

Until some of the mail-in voters check the status of their ballot via their county or state website -- as many do -- and then the scheme would be exposed.

Why would it be exposed? We would have to prove fraud, wouldn't we? All it would prove if my ballot was not counted is that it was not counted. Perhaps it was simply lost. It does not prove the mailman threw it away, even if he did. Certainly not with the burden of proof necessary to prove a crime occurred.

This is why it's insufficient to reduce any unfairness to the specific crime of voter fraud and claim that unless a crime not only occurred, but is proven to the extreme burden of proof required to punish someone, then elections are free and fair. That doesn't follow. We have an unreasonable burden of proof for crimes and it works because we're willing to let 9 criminals go to provide insurance to the 1 innocent person with a lot of circumstantial evidence against him that he definitely won't be punished falsely (and even then it still happens). But in this case the innocent in need of erring on the side of their protection are the voters, not the potential fraudsters.

I said the laws are "designed to prevent" the crimes from occurring. But if this conversation is going to descend into "Yeah but people can always break laws", that takes us into "why have any laws at all" territory, which I'm frankly not interested in.

You don't have to be interested in it for the facts to be that everybody speeds despite there being a law and at least some enforcement.

[Jose Fly]

I said the laws are "designed to prevent" the crimes from occurring. But if this conversation is going to descend into "Yeah but people can always break laws", that takes us into "why have any laws at all" territory, which I'm frankly not interested in.

[emphasis added]

Well, that would not be my point. My response would be to have security in place in the form of monitoring, systems where voters can check on their ballots throughout the entire process, oversight, and/or even observers in place to keep an eye on those things. That way the mailmen would not only know the law, but he'd also know he's being watched or that there's a way for his actions to be tracked.

Think of my speeding analogy and my point about extra security/monitoring. I can always drive faster than the posted speed limit and get away with it if not caught. But if extra monitoring devices were put on my car, then the officials can always know my speed limit.

Well most of those things are already in place. And if we don't have a rash of criminal mail carriers throwing away ballots, I don't see the need for additional monitoring of them. That would be a solution in search of a problem.

[Jose Fly]

If partisan mailmen decide to throw away ballots . . . it easily could happen and no one would know.

Until some of the mail-in voters check the status of their ballot via their county or state website -- as many do -- and then the scheme would be exposed.

Why would it be exposed? We would have to prove fraud, wouldn't we? All it would prove if my ballot was not counted is that it was not counted. Perhaps it was simply lost. It does not prove the mailman threw it away, even if he did. Certainly not with the burden of proof necessary to prove a crime occurred.

This is why it's insufficient to reduce any unfairness to the specific crime of voter fraud and claim that unless a crime not only occurred, but is proven to the extreme burden of proof required to punish someone, then elections are free and fair. That doesn't follow. We have an unreasonable burden of proof for crimes and it works because we're willing to let 9 criminals go to provide insurance to the 1 innocent person with a lot of circumstantial evidence against him that he definitely won't be punished falsely (and even then it still happens). But in this case the innocent in need of erring on the side of their protection are the voters, not the potential fraudsters.

I said the laws are "designed to prevent" the crimes from occurring. But if this conversation is going to descend into "Yeah but people can always break laws", that takes us into "why have any laws at all" territory, which I'm frankly not interested in.

You don't have to be interested in it for the facts to be that everybody speeds despite there being a law and at least some enforcement.

The fact that in this thread all anyone can point to are completely imaginary, made-up, elaborate schemes that are already illegal is a very good indication that our voting systems work extremely well.

If there were any actual real problems, y'all would've pointed them out a while ago.

[historia]

If partisan mailmen decide to throw away ballots . . . it easily could happen and no one would know.

Until some of the mail-in voters check the status of their ballot via their county or state website -- as many do -- and then the scheme would be exposed.

Why would it be exposed? We would have to prove fraud, wouldn't we?

Well, yeah, law enforcement would have to investigate why the ballots didn't get delivered, and that investigation would likely expose the scheme.

The fact that both election officials and voters are respectively tracking the outbound and inbound delivers of mail ballots means it wouldn't be "easy" for rogue mail carriers to just discard mail-in ballots and get away with it, as you asserted.

[AgnosticBoy]

Well most of those things are already in place. And if we don't have a rash of criminal mail carriers throwing away ballots, I don't see the need for additional monitoring of them. That would be a solution in search of a problem.

Well, yes, extra security could serve as a means to search for problems. As Purple Knight brings up, the voter should have that certainty. The good thing is that there's nothing wrong with that if you have nothing to hide. Smart security should also be proactive, instead of just being reactive. The latter usually acts after the damage is done.

[Jose Fly]

Well, yes, extra security could serve as a means to search for problems.

And since we do have means in place to see if such problems exist and since they've not revealed the existence of them, there's no reason to devote time, money, and other resources to extra security.

As Purple Knight brings up, the voter should have that certainty.

As explained earlier, they do.

The good thing is that there's nothing wrong with that if you have nothing to hide. Smart security should also be proactive, instead of just being reactive. The latter usually acts after the damage is done.

Then let's hire full time security monitors to watch every person in the country. After all, what do you have to hide?