The incredible Willful Ignorance of 1/6 denyers

[Shadowy Man]

Wasn’t there a county recently that tried hand counting all their ballots and found that it was going extremely slowly and that the various counters all got different results?

 

[Ford]

Voting and democracy should both be

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Because they take a long time and a lot of effort to count as accurately as the machines do.

And it’s extremely rare, if at all, that the machines miscount in a way that makes a difference in an election.

We have some experience with this in Arizona. There was a forensic audit of the 2020 results, a hand recount, and then a company run by a guy who believed the results were fraudulent was hired by a few state Senate nut jobs who also believed the results were fraudulent, and after a lot of work and a rather large amount of tax dollars wasted discovered that - by their estimation - the ballots were indeed off by a little.

And Biden actually won by even more votes. It didn't change the outcome, and wouldn't have changed it even if all those "incorrect" ballots went for Trump, but it was nonetheless amusing.

 

[bilby]

Voting and democracy should both be

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Because they take a long time and a lot of effort to count as accurately as the machines do.

And heaven forbid that time and effort should be expended on something as trivial as ensuring that elections are both fair, and seen to be fair.

 

[jonatha]

seen to be fair.

Won't help. First time the results don't go the "right" way there'll be all sorts of Soros conspiracy theories cropping up.

 

[Tigers!]

Voting and democracy should both be

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Because they take a long time and a lot of effort to count as accurately as the machines do.

And it’s extremely rare, if at all, that the machines miscount in a way that makes a difference in an election.

Manually takes more time and effort. So what? What does it matter if you do not know on the day of the election who won?
3 guarantees on any election night
1. The sun will rise the next morning.
2. The country/state will continue to operate (maybe better without a government).
3. Your mother will still love you.

The pollies and their staff wish to know who if they have a job as their pay is dependent upon it. Apart from them it matters not if the result is not known for a few days.

 

[Tigers!]

seen to be fair.

Won't help. First time the results don't go the "right" way there'll be all sorts of Soros conspiracy theories cropping up.

Ironic coming from a country with chads in a court.

 

[Tigers!]

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Think on the amount of people the AEC uses in a state or federal election. Think of all the people hired to count and check the votes because we use paper. Now multiply that number of people to hire by 6 because that's roughly the amount more of people that vote in a US General election. Write that number down. It should be roughly 600,000

Now go find the nearest MAGA hat wearing voter and explain to them the US Federal Government would need to hire at least 600,000 federal employees to ensure a free election and see what reaction you get. These people shit their pants because Biden wants to replace the 80,000 tax agents who have retired since W Bush was President.

Perhaps the yanks should consider hiring the AEC to run their elections.

 

[Patooka]

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Think on the amount of people the AEC uses in a state or federal election. Think of all the people hired to count and check the votes because we use paper. Now multiply that number of people to hire by 6 because that's roughly the amount more of people that vote in a US General election. Write that number down. It should be roughly 600,000

Now go find the nearest MAGA hat wearing voter and explain to them the US Federal Government would need to hire at least 600,000 federal employees to ensure a free election and see what reaction you get. These people shit their pants because Biden wants to replace the 80,000 tax agents who have retired since W Bush was President.

Perhaps the yanks should consider hiring the AEC to run their elections.

Sure, but consider the premise of this thread and the wilful ignorance some Americans have. You're suggesting sane rational solutions to a group of people who believe Hugo Chavez stole the election for Biden using Italian satellites and ballots made from bamboo, so the only organisation they trust is a group calling themselves "The Cyber Ninjas".


The more intelligent and sensible your solution, the harder Trump supporters will push back.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Voting and democracy should both be

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Because they take a long time and a lot of effort to count as accurately as the machines do.

And it’s extremely rare, if at all, that the machines miscount in a way that makes a difference in an election.

Manually takes more time and effort. So what? What does it matter if you do not know on the day of the election who won?
3 guarantees on any election night
1. The sun will rise the next morning.
2. The country/state will continue to operate (maybe better without a government).
3. Your mother will still love you.

The pollies and their staff wish to know who if they have a job as their pay is dependent upon it. Apart from them it matters not if the result is not known for a few days.

Could you please explain how you think a person doing a manual recount and entering that information is going to be error free?

From experience I can guarantee you that five different persons each recording the results of 250,000 ballots will have different totals for every candidate even though they counted and recorded the exact same ballots. That's simply human error and it happens all the time. It's essentially a human inspection process that persons working in manufacturing environments are all too familiar with.

The proven solution is to remove the human element from the inspection process and audit the mechanical inspection process. It gives far more consistent and accurate results, takes far less time and costs far less money. The important question is how MAGAtards don't know this. What is it about the MAGAtard experience, or more likely lack of experience in life, that makes them think their results will be perfect compared to a machine?

And that's a rhetorical question because we all know that MAGAtards don't mistrust the mechanical process. Rather, they just don't like losing and so invent a train of excuses because they are butthurt whenever their pride takes a hit because they lost. Maybe MAGAtards just didn't play enough sports when they were kids.

 

[laughing dog]

Voting and democracy should both be

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Because they take a long time and a lot of effort to count as accurately as the machines do.

And heaven forbid that time and effort should be expended on something as trivial as ensuring that elections are both fair, and seen to be fair.

Fair is in the eye of the beholder. There is no rational reason to believe that paper balloting is fairer than electronic balloting. Any form of balloting is open to error, fraud and corruption.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Think on the amount of people the AEC uses in a state or federal election. Think of all the people hired to count and check the votes because we use paper. Now multiply that number of people to hire by 6 because that's roughly the amount more of people that vote in a US General election. Write that number down. It should be roughly 600,000

Now go find the nearest MAGA hat wearing voter and explain to them the US Federal Government would need to hire at least 600,000 federal employees to ensure a free election and see what reaction you get. These people shit their pants because Biden wants to replace the 80,000 tax agents who have retired since W Bush was President.

Perhaps the yanks should consider hiring the AEC to run their elections.

The elections are fine, half of one party is the problem.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... open to error, fraud and corruption.

It's a damn interesting thing that election deniers are calling for human recounts. Machines do not commit fraud and machines are not corrupt. And any error that is found in a machine is a human error. Republican election deniers just can't take losing. Fraud, corruption and machine error are all red herrings and should not be taken seriously. Obviously the courts agree because they have repeatedly tossed these disproven claims.

It seems to me that republican losers want more control of the voting process so that they can commit fraud, the same thing they are doing with their changes across the country to voting laws. Republican losers are always going to scream that the game is rigged or the officials cheated whenever they are butthurt, which is pretty much all the time. These crybabies need to grow up. The only thing rigged in presidential elections is the EC. It's rigged to give right wing crybabies a head start because they can't stand to find out they are unpopular. It's why modern day republican crybabies don't win presidential elections based on vote count anymore. What a bunch of weenies.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Voting and democracy should both be

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Because they take a long time and a lot of effort to count as accurately as the machines do.

And heaven forbid that time and effort should be expended on something as trivial as ensuring that elections are both fair, and seen to be fair.

So, a less accurate count that takes longer and has more humans involved (potentially more bias, manipulation, and error) will be more fair?

And even if it will *seem* more fair to those simpletons who don’t understand how fair the current system is, that will be traded with those who see it as less fair.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Voting and democracy should both be

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Because they take a long time and a lot of effort to count as accurately as the machines do.

And heaven forbid that time and effort should be expended on something as trivial as ensuring that elections are both fair, and seen to be fair.

So, a less accurate count that takes longer and has more humans involved (potentially more bias, manipulation, and error) will be more fair?

And even if it will *seem* more fair to those simpletons who don’t understand how fair the current system is, that will be traded with those who see it as less fair.

Well the bilby's out there are unaware of just how many things are voted on in American elections. They are right though that the desire for immediate finality is ridiculous.

The problem America has with elections is that 25+% believe there is a problem when they are actually very accurate. Trump was complaining about fraud when he won!

 

[dbz]

• They are impervious to reasoning.

If brain studies mean anything people are persuaded into thinking differently. They aren't just reasoned into it. Persuasion. So in the interests of persuading people rather than continually following up on what seems to me to be a dead end with my opponents I simply try a different tact. People can claim what they want to about how I roll. It's just that I can better persuade my opponents by using several different ways of seeing the same truth rather than following them down the rabbit hole where we will not agree in the end anyway.

We see things differently. I know this. Others don't seem to. That's the difference with me. For me it's not always about more detailed arguments and time consuming reasoning. It's about helping those who disagree with me see things my way. It takes a conversion, a new way of seeing the evidence, much like a lawyer who becomes a prosecutor in the midst of the same trial.

That's the genius of what I do, although for this I am railed against in places. Still I know what I'm doing and I'm making a difference. The facts are the facts. Kick against these goads all you want to. I have a properly basic belief that God doesn't exist. The only thing left is to persuade. ;-)

Or, someone could tell me how to reach brainwashed people. You cannot reason with them for the most part at all. They are impervious to reasoning. They always have an escape clause much like the guy who thought he was dead, was convinced dead men don't bleed, then upon being cut with a knife concluded dead men do bleed after all! All I'm doing is treating the patient in ways appropriate to his illness.

Christians don't like this. I understand that. But then I'm not here to win friends. I've come to the conclusion that many of them cannot be reasoned out of their faith because they were never reasoned into it in the first place.

Sometimes all one can do is be that person in the crowd who yells out, "Hey he doesn't have any clothes on." This is the level at which some Christians are in my judgment. At that point I am no longer interested in arguing with them but in persuading them, challenging them, provoking them to see things differently, to see things my way.

---

---

---

"The Role of Persuasion Rather than Arguments With Brainwashed People"

 

[Elixir]

... open to error, fraud and corruption.

It's a damn interesting thing that election deniers are calling for human recounts. Machines do not commit fraud and machines are not corrupt. And any error that is found in a machine is a human error. Republican election deniers just can't take losing. Fraud, corruption and machine error are all red herrings and should not be taken seriously. Obviously the courts agree because they have repeatedly tossed these disproven claims.

It seems to me that republican losers want more control of the voting process so that they can commit fraud, the same thing they are doing with their changes across the country to voting laws. Republican losers are always going to scream that the game is rigged or the officials cheated whenever they are butthurt, which is pretty much all the time. These crybabies need to grow up. The only thing rigged in presidential elections is the EC. It's rigged to give right wing crybabies a head start because they can't stand to find out they are unpopular. It's why modern day republican crybabies don't win presidential elections based on vote count anymore. What a bunch of weenies.

Yeah, that.
Fuckinmaroons think presidential elections are like selecting a class president in a rural high school. They can't imagine that hiring hundreds of thousands of "election workers" would be a herculean task that would result in enlisting thousands (at best) of cheaters. Fully vetting hundreds of thousands of people to count paper ballots would be an even more difficult task than counting the ballots. You might get a result (a very shaky one) within a few months or a year of election day.
The smart people on the right know that their only hope of winning is to totally fuck up the whole process, so that's what they're doing - in the name of preventing "fraud".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When the foundation of a belief system is "bias", there is a very very very long road to critical reasoning. Especially when one insulates themselves in a media bubble. I was shocked just how radical AM Radio was becoming in the past year or two.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Voting and democracy should both be

Why not just cut out the "middleman" and have paper ballots? One less thing for some to complain about at least.

Because they take a long time and a lot of effort to count as accurately as the machines do.

And heaven forbid that time and effort should be expended on something as trivial as ensuring that elections are both fair, and seen to be fair.

So, a less accurate count that takes longer and has more humans involved (potentially more bias, manipulation, and error) will be more fair?

And even if it will *seem* more fair to those simpletons who don’t understand how fair the current system is, that will be traded with those who see it as less fair.

Well the bilby's out there are unaware of just how many things are voted on in American elections. They are right though that the desire for immediate finality is ridiculous.

The problem America has with elections is that 25+% believe there is a problem when they are actually very accurate. Trump was complaining about fraud when he won!

From an American perspective, It taking longer will definitely not make it seem more fair. There were many complaints about how long it was taking and the fact that vote counts trickled in was used as evidence of fraud by those who Contested the results.

 

[Politesse]

Can't, the party of the GOP seems quite content on eliminating taxes for corporations and the wealthy, making us proles have to work till we die, and forcing newly pregnant women to have to give birth. The GOP has two sides, bat shit insane and religious radicals. They don't care about us.

Trump is not the GOP though, they really don't like him either. Its about the only thing McConnel agrees with Schumer on is they both wish Trump was gone.

That means absolutely nothing if they are unwilling to take even the smallest action against him, or even hold him to any rational limitation of his powers.

 

[Elixir]

Trump is not the GOP though, they really don't like him either.

But they keep doing his bidding because the believe SOMEONE likes him, and that they are under the thumb of whoever that is.

Its about the only thing McConnel agrees with Schumer on is they both wish Trump was gone.

Funny how only one of them is honest enough to say so.