Re: Question for John McAdams

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:00:31 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 5:16:02 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 11:04:17 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 8:34:21 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > > On 23 Feb 2021 18:03:33 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > >On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:19:35 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > > >> On 21 Feb 2021 23:48:43 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >> >John, we've discussed the subject of voter suppression before. I would 
> > > > >> >think you know about these last GOP proposals in Georgia. 
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> >So, would you agree that prohibit voting on Sundays and make absentee 
> > > > >> >ballots more restricted is, in fact, measures to reduce voter 
> > > > >> >participation in Georgia? Would you agree that the targets of those 
> > > > >> >measures are pretty clear? 
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> >Do you think that these proposals, if decided, benefits US democracy? 
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> You really should understand identity politics, since you certainly 
> > > > >> have plenty in Scandinavia. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Or perhaps it's so pervasive you don't even recognize it. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> People on the left see a racist behind every bush and under every bed. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Republicans, of course, see all resistance to ballot security as 
> > > > >> evidence that the Democrats want to cheat. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Here is an (oddly) fairly unbiased article on Georgia: 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/02/sweeping-georgia-election-law-changes-proposed-state-gop-senate-bills-voter-id-absentee-monitors/4360423001/ 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> There is, of course, a trade-off between ballot security and making 
> > > > >> voting easy. If you make it super easy to vote, you make it 
> > > > >> super-easy to cheat. 
> > > > > 
> > > > >What's this? I'm not talking about "super easy" or not. I'm talking about 
> > > > >free and fair elections where everyone who want to vote is, in fact, able 
> > > > >to vote. You either have this ambition or you don't. You know, just like 
> > > > >"Scandinavia" and the rest of Western Europe have organized their 
> > > > >ambitions of inclusion of **all voters** in their democracies. 
> > > > Are people in Europe required to show ID when voting? 
> > > > 
> > > > Are people allowed to mail in ballots? 
> > > > 
> > > > Is "ballot harvesting" allowed? That is, can somebody go into a 
> > > > nursing home, get all the residents to sign ballots for the favorite 
> > > > candidates of the harvesters, and then submit those? 
> > > > > 
> > > > >If Europe can do this, the US certainly can. If the will is there, the 
> > > > >resources are there and the ambition to have a democracy of inclusion is 
> > > > >there, in the first place. You either do this and have this ambition or 
> > > > >you don't. Not a relative thing, this. And certainly no rocket science at 
> > > > >all. 
> > > > > 
> > > > What you call "democracy of inclusion," if taken to the extreme, 
> > > > allows fraud. There needs to be reasonable safeguards. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Thus Democrats have opposed voter ID rules, in spite of the fact 
> > that 
> > > > >> you have to have an ID to drive, get a library card, open a bank 
> > > > >> account and even collect welfare! 
> > > > >> 
> > > > No response? 
> > > > >> Note that in the article some election officials complained about 
> > > > >> being overwhelmed by mail-in an drop-off absentee ballots. 
> > > > > 
> > > > >So why wasn't the proper resources to deal with these highly expected high 
> > > > >numbers of absentee ballots allocated to the districts? 
> > > > > 
> > > > The COVID thing his a few months before the election, and you can't 
> > > > instantly ramp up. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Keep in mind that elections should not merely *be* honest, but they 
> > > > >> should *appear* honest. There were plenty of irregularities in 2020 
> > > > >> that the Trump people could point to. I don't think they add up to 
> > > > >> any sort of "stolen" election, but irregularities undermine confidence 
> > > > >> in the system. 
> > > > > 
> > > > >You don't think?? What evidence are you aware of that election officials 
> > > > >around the US are not? Election officials from both camps and courts with 
> > > > >judges appointed by both R's and D's? I'd be interested in hearing about 
> > > > >the evidence for this? You're an expert in distinguishing evidence from 
> > > > >fantasies and bs, as I recall. 
> > > > > 
> > > > You are just arguing that the election was not stolen. 
> > > > 
> > > > I'm pointing out that irregularities allow people to believe that the 
> > > > election was stolen. Or even just doubt the legitimacy of the system. 
> > > > 
> > > > Again: elections should not merely *be* fair and honest, they should 
> > > > *appear* to be fair and honest. 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> So maybe you should be just a bit skeptical of politically correct 
> > > > >> identity politics, eh? 
> > > > > 
> > > > >Yes, sure. Once you, perhaps, consider the fact that every single district 
> > > > >in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Georgia and Arizona where the GOP 
> > > > >wanted to throw out millions of votes are districts overwhelmingly 
> > > > >dominated by non-white voters. Huh? 
> > > > > 
> > > > Those districts had Democrat election officials who would be prone to 
> > > > cheat to help the Democrats. 
> > > 
> > > As a court has just found in Michigan... 
> > > 
> > > https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2021/03/16/mi-court-michigan-secretary-of-states-absentee-ballot-order-broke-law-vindicating-trump-claim/ 
> > > 
> > > > It's obvious you a knee deep in identity politics. I'm sure that 
> > > > makes you fell great about yourself, but it's a way of avoiding real 
> > > > issues. 
> > > > 
> > > > .John 
> > > > ----------------------- 
> > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm 
> > There is no doubt election laws were broken in a number of key states. In 
> > Pennsylvania the state legislature determined that mail in ballots had to 
> > arrive by election day in order to be counted. The courts overruled that 
> > by allowing those ballots to be collected for up to three days after the 
> > election. The Constitution gives state legislatures the sole power to 
> > determine how the electors are chosen. The courts illegally usurped that 
> > power.
> The Pennsylvania SC allowed this, yes. And the US SC wouldn't allow the 
> case to be considered. 
> 

SCOTUS split 4-4 whether to hear the case. Roberts joined with the three 
liberals. SCOTUS never ruled on merits of the case.

> This is the single one of all the sixty-five cases that went to the 
> courts. The rest were without merits. And this one had nothing to do with 
> voter fraud, per se. The approximately ten thousand votes that were 
> removed would not have changed the outcome.
> > There is also no doubt the disregarding of state laws worked to the 
> > advantage of the Democrats. Donald Trump won the same day voting. It was 
> > the mail in balloting that tipped the scales in five key states.
> Indeed. An why? Because Trump had told everyone that for months that mail 
> in balloting "was bad". As he knew the pandemic would make people use this 
> option in large numbers, which the Democrats supported all along. And he 
> was right. People did. Trumps theatrics on election eve about this was 
> comical. "What happened? As far as I'm concerned we did win the election". 
> Fully aware, of course that mail in votes would come in later - and be bad 
> for him.

Democrats knew the mail in vote would go heavily for them. I wonder how 
they knew that.

> > Relaxing of state laws regarding these ballots resulted in more of them being 
> > counted than should have been allowed under the law. 
> 
> > We will never know if adherence to state laws would have flipped enough of these five states to 
> > change the outcome of the election but there can be no doubt the rules 
> > were bent to help the Democrats.
> Where did those bent rules occur? To only benefit Democrats? 

Yes.

> And why did 
> state election officials from both parties certify the results in those 
> states?

Election officials jobs are to count the votes. They were simply following 
the order of the courts.