The Race For 2024

[Jimmy Higgins]

How a New York lawsuit is helping to fan voter mistrust — on the left

A recent YouGov poll found that 41% of voters who reported casting a ballot for Kamala Harris in 2024 did not believe that Trump “legitimately won the election.”

www.votebeat.org

Donald Trump is leaving little doubt about who’s president right now, but in one corner of the country, a lawsuit is helping to fan skepticism about the results of the 2024 general election.

The case against Rockland County, New York, claims that there were irregularities in the county’s vote tallies, judging in part by what the plaintiffs characterize as statistical anomalies — notably the mismatch in support between Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and the person at the top of the party’s ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris. Gillibrand won the suburban county by about 8,000 votes, while Harris lost to Trump by more than 17,000.

The plaintiffs say it’s a suspicious pattern of ticket-splitting that suggests vote-rigging or errors, an echo of the spurious claims made by Trump allies when he lost several swing states in 2020. They want the court to invalidate the Senate and presidential election results and order the county to redo the election.

A state court dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ requests in March, but Justice Rachel Tanguay is allowing discovery in the case to proceed after the county Board of Elections acknowledged it might amend its response. (The original plaintiffs included a third-party senatorial candidate, two voters, and an activist group that has long opposed some voting machines, though only the activist group remains.) So the case continues for now.

Unlike Trump in 2020, Harris herself hasn’t amplified the lawsuit’s claims about 2024. And many experts say there’s no reason to question the validity of the election results, in Rockland County or elsewhere.

That seems silly to me. It's one of the weaknesses of FPTP voting. It's essentially the same thing that happened in 2000, particularly in FL where Nader got more votes than the margin by which Bush won. Arguably, people who voted for Nader would have preferred Gore to Bush... but that's not how FPTP works.

Trump ally claims were idiotic in 2020. These are just as idiotic now.

I wouldn't say they are "idiotic". It does raise an eyebrow, but in general, exit polling coincided with the results, so as depressing as the results were, there is little reason to question them. The level of conspiracy to have fixed it that broadly are quite outstanding.

Although... maybe we'll finally wise up and start changing how we do voting to something more like ranked choice or condorcet.

You think the GOP is going to push for ranked voting if it benefits the Democrats?

 

[ZiprHead]

How a New York lawsuit is helping to fan voter mistrust — on the left

A recent YouGov poll found that 41% of voters who reported casting a ballot for Kamala Harris in 2024 did not believe that Trump “legitimately won the election.”

www.votebeat.org

Donald Trump is leaving little doubt about who’s president right now, but in one corner of the country, a lawsuit is helping to fan skepticism about the results of the 2024 general election.

The case against Rockland County, New York, claims that there were irregularities in the county’s vote tallies, judging in part by what the plaintiffs characterize as statistical anomalies — notably the mismatch in support between Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and the person at the top of the party’s ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris. Gillibrand won the suburban county by about 8,000 votes, while Harris lost to Trump by more than 17,000.

The plaintiffs say it’s a suspicious pattern of ticket-splitting that suggests vote-rigging or errors, an echo of the spurious claims made by Trump allies when he lost several swing states in 2020. They want the court to invalidate the Senate and presidential election results and order the county to redo the election.

A state court dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ requests in March, but Justice Rachel Tanguay is allowing discovery in the case to proceed after the county Board of Elections acknowledged it might amend its response. (The original plaintiffs included a third-party senatorial candidate, two voters, and an activist group that has long opposed some voting machines, though only the activist group remains.) So the case continues for now.

Unlike Trump in 2020, Harris herself hasn’t amplified the lawsuit’s claims about 2024. And many experts say there’s no reason to question the validity of the election results, in Rockland County or elsewhere.

That seems silly to me. It's one of the weaknesses of FPTP voting.

How would the type of voting matter if some votes are simply not counted?

It's essentially the same thing that happened in 2000, particularly in FL where Nader got more votes than the margin by which Bush won. Arguably, people who voted for Nader would have preferred Gore to Bush... but that's not how FPTP works.

Gore actually won Florida.

 

[Tigers!]

Although... maybe we'll finally wise up and start changing how we do voting to something more like ranked choice or condorcet.

You think the GOP is going to push for ranked voting if it benefits the Democrats?

I suspect the converse is also true - the Democrats will not push for ranked voting if it benefited the Republicans. This is the USA after all.

 

[Elixir]

You think the GOP is going to push for ranked voting if it benefits the Democrats?

The Founding Fathers didn’t create the Electoral College so all kinds of black and brown people could run things! When they were talking about “we the people” they were referring to a few landed gentry from Jolly Olde England who had a beef with The King getting his royal fingers too deep in “their” pie.
Those chickens are coming home to roost - if they ever left.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Although... maybe we'll finally wise up and start changing how we do voting to something more like ranked choice or condorcet.

You think the GOP is going to push for ranked voting if it benefits the Democrats?

I suspect the converse is also true - the Democrats will not push for ranked voting if it benefited the Republicans. This is the USA after all.

Quite possible, but if you look at a map, mainly blue states which are already blue states are adopting it.

Ranked-choice voting in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Harry Bosch]

Although... maybe we'll finally wise up and start changing how we do voting to something more like ranked choice or condorcet.

You think the GOP is going to push for ranked voting if it benefits the Democrats?

I suspect the converse is also true - the Democrats will not push for ranked voting if it benefited the Republicans. This is the USA after all.

It would benefit dems far more than republicans. Conservatives are far smarter than left. They are far more willing to vote for the lessor evil than the dems. For this reason, they have enormous political power, despite having fewer numbers.

 

[Emily Lake]

Although... maybe we'll finally wise up and start changing how we do voting to something more like ranked choice or condorcet.

You think the GOP is going to push for ranked voting if it benefits the Democrats?

Lol, no. "We" is the citizens, not either party. "We" certainly isn't the GOP, since I'm not part of it.

Neither party will advocate for it, because it will weaken their stranglehold. If it's going to change, it's going to have to come from the populace as a whole.

 

[Emily Lake]

How would the type of voting matter if some votes are simply not counted?

So you believe the claim of voter fraud then?

 

[ZiprHead]

How would the type of voting matter if some votes are simply not counted?

So you believe the claim of voter fraud then?

Did I say that???

 

[Emily Lake]

How would the type of voting matter if some votes are simply not counted?

So you believe the claim of voter fraud then?

Did I say that???

Asserting without evidence that selective votes just aren't counted?

 

[ZiprHead]

How would the type of voting matter if some votes are simply not counted?

So you believe the claim of voter fraud then?

Did I say that???

Asserting without evidence that selective votes just aren't counted?

You responded to a report about an organization that wants to get permission to examine the ballots in a certain location because the outcome from the machine tally they felt was unlikely because they feel many Kamala votes didn't get counted.

You responded with "That seems silly to me. It's one of the weaknesses of FPTP voting."

Again, I responded with

How would the type of voting matter if some votes are simply not counted?

Your response about FPTP voting was a non sequitor.

How is FPTP applicable if votes are not counted at all?

 

[Emily Lake]

How would the type of voting matter if some votes are simply not counted?

So you believe the claim of voter fraud then?

Did I say that???

Asserting without evidence that selective votes just aren't counted?

You responded to a report about an organization that wants to get permission to examine the ballots in a certain location because the outcome from the machine tally they felt was unlikely because they feel many Kamala votes didn't get counted.

You responded with "That seems silly to me. It's one of the weaknesses of FPTP voting."

Again, I responded with

How would the type of voting matter if some votes are simply not counted?

Your response about FPTP voting was a non sequitor.

How is FPTP applicable if votes are not counted at all?

My response wasn't clear. I was responding to this part:

notably the mismatch in support between Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and the person at the top of the party’s ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris. Gillibrand won the suburban county by about 8,000 votes, while Harris lost to Trump by more than 17,000.

The same kind of argument has been made by republicans and democrats in prior elections when things didn't go their way, and some geography voted for what is perceived to be a second-tier candidate. It ends up being "Oh, that lesser person got more votes in this specific area than our fave, it must be wrong!" And that's usually followed by an assertion of fraud or error - that votes weren't counted, were discarded, or something else that would benefit the first-tier candidate who lost to the opposition party.

But it's not at all unlikely, and it's absolutely a weakness of FPTP voting. FPTP devolves to a two-party system based on strategic voting - and in the end, almost nobody ever gets a president that they actually like and want, because most people end up voting against the person they like least rather than for the person they like most. And when there's a third candidate that pulls votes in a close race, the effect of that is to weaken whatever party they're most similar to. So greens and socialists pull votes from dems, libertarians and constitutionalists pull votes from republicans.

It's far more likely that Gillibrand won that county because people there preferred her to Harris for whatever reason, than that Harris votes weren't counted. Thus my response that allegations of votes not being counted is silly, because this sort of outcome is absolutely normal in FPTP. So far as I can see, you taking the position that votes were not counted without any actual good reason for it is equivalent to you believing that there was fraud involved. Indeed, your rejoinder that the voting system doesn't matter when votes aren't counted implicitly accepts the premise of fraud.

 

[bilby]

I agree, with one minor quibble:

most people end up voting against the person they like least rather than for the person they like most

That's not a bug; It's a feature.

The system is designed with one purpose and one purpose only: Allow the people to get rid of an unpopular ruler without having to resort to bloody revolt.

That's the defining feature that sets modern democracy apart from the monarchical systems it replaced.

Everything else is a side-effect. Getting a good leader, to replace the one who is so bad as to be intolerable, is nice, but not assured, nor even to be expected.

Of course, by necessity all candidates are egoistic wankers who want to be adored, so the myth is pushed that people are voting for their favourite. But the actual exercise was always one of voting against the candidates most likely to be a total disaster.

Clearly that process is failing badly, likely in large part as a consequence of people's false belief that they are supposed to be picking the best (or at least a good) candidate, and so choosing to sit back and let others vote, while they whinge from the sidelines that no candidate is worthy of their precious vote.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's not a bug; It's a feature.

The system is designed with one purpose and one purpose only: Allow the people to get rid of an unpopular ruler without having to resort to bloody revolt.

Except it doesn't actually accomplish that. It might start out that way, but over time it ends up resulting in people replacing an unpopular ruler with a slightly less unpopular ruler. Voting for the lesser evil still leaves you ruled by an evil.

It's far, far, far inferior to ranked choice or condorcet.

 

[bilby]

That's not a bug; It's a feature.

The system is designed with one purpose and one purpose only: Allow the people to get rid of an unpopular ruler without having to resort to bloody revolt.

Except it doesn't actually accomplish that.

Yes, it does.

It might start out that way, but over time it ends up resulting in people replacing an unpopular ruler with a slightly less unpopular ruler.

That's the way you just said it started out.

Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing? A ruler is unpopular. He is replaced with someone less unpopular. Nobody has to deploy an army, get shot or stabbed, or end up under the guillotine.

Democracy's far from perfect, but it's better for everyone than an old fashioned revolution.

Voting for the lesser evil still leaves you ruled by an evil.

That's just a dumb slogan from the vote suppressor's propaganda playbook.

Voting for the lesser evil gets you less evil. Only if you actually want more evil should you resile from voting for less.

If you are holding out for a candidate who is perfectly aligned with your views on every single issue, there's only one viable way to your goal - run yourself, and let everyone else accuse you of evil.

It's far, far, far inferior to ranked choice or condorcet.

I agree, but as neither of those are used in your country, that's what you have to work with.

You have a simple choice:

1. Vote for the greater evil
2. Don't vote, and let other idiots decide which evil you get, without consideration for your needs, wants, and desires
3. Vote for the lesser evil

Option 3 is obviously the least bad. Assuming that you have the sense not to run yourself.

One of the biggest problems with democracy is that (as Douglas Adams pointed out): "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job".

Nevertheless, it is our duty to pick the least bad from the bad batch of people who have that capability. Dereliction of that duty on the spurious grounds that as all are bad, all are therefore equally bad, is immoral.

 

[Emily Lake]

You have gone off on an odd soapbox here. It's like you have entirely failed to comprehend that FPTP isn't the only possible voting system available, and have instead decided to lecture me on the evils of not voting at all as if that has any relevance to my post.

 

[bilby]

You have gone off on an odd soapbox here.

No, I am just disagreeing with some of the things you said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not a bug; It's a feature.

The system is designed with one purpose and one purpose only: Allow the people to get rid of an unpopular ruler without having to resort to bloody revolt.

Except it doesn't actually accomplish that. It might start out that way, but over time it ends up resulting in people replacing an unpopular ruler with a slightly less unpopular ruler. Voting for the lesser evil still leaves you ruled by an evil.

It's far, far, far inferior to ranked choice or condorcet.

The real problem is the skills to get elected and the skills to govern are very different.

 

[Politesse]

Very much the problem with Vice President Harris. Competent and responsible administrator, terrible campaigner. Running against a pathetic wannabe dictator, who campaigns very well.

 

[Tigers!]

Very much the problem with Vice President Harris. Competent and responsible administrator, terrible campaigner. Running against a pathetic wannabe dictator, who campaigns very well.

The old form vs. substance problem.