Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election

[FatPhil]

The House of Representatives and the Senate are also federal; and technically, you're voting for state electors, and not the President.

But the real problem is the electoral system. In no other country is the outcome of an election in doubt where one candidate leads the other by 4.4% in the popular vote, unless it's a banana republic; because no other country uses this system.

No other country I know of uses quite such a baroque system, but other countries have systems which permit the loser to win. Most locally-representative democracies employing first past the post are susceptible. Some have been quite high profile. For example, the UK election in 1951 saw Churchill's 13.7M votes beat Attlee's 13.9M because the parliamentary seats were distributed 321 (absolute majority) to 295. UK Elections in 1910 (two), 1929, and 1974 also shared this loser wins property, but they didn't include an absolute seat majority.

 

[FatPhil]

[...] i am assuming that Barrs pronouncement likely swayed more conservatives like me, who werent jumping to conclusions, as well.

My view from 5000km - as a non-US citizen/resident, and as disinterested as I can practically be - of the stances I've seen expressed in the last couple of months by "conservatives" who have been doubting the election results, was unambiguously that they had arrived at a *conclusion*, which they were firmly stuck at. Most of their routes to that conclusion were common, such as reading news sources with frequently questioned reliability ratings (e.g. The Gateway Pundit, OANN, Big League News), much of the support for their conclusion was common (the "look at the number of lawsuits filed" misdirection, pseudo-mathematical word salad videos by self-proclaimed experts, and things like security analyses by people who can't tell the difference between a line in a log file and an miscounted vote, for instance). Their views of course fall on a spectrum, and I see yours as fitting into that spectrum.

The evidence that has been known for a very long time was certainly strong enough to support the Dems who had come to their conclusions that there's been no widespread (note - I'm not saying "none" here) election fraud, and likewise the disinterested debunkers who also expressed that opinion. That evidence has hardly changed over time, as most of the dynamic has been a gish gallop of misunderstandings that have been rebuffed. So it's worrying that one person, admittedly one in a position of relevant authority, expressing an opinion should make you leave your staunchly-held (I've read the threads for months, that's a fair and non-judgemental characterisation of how you present your case) "non-conclusion" - it wasn't the presentation of new evidence, it was just AG Barr chosing a side that did it. It genuinely looks like you have admitted to being someone who bases their conclusions on things other than evidence. Instead of the AG's pronouncement, what *evidence* would have pushed you towards the conclusion you now seem to have reached?

 

[Mendel]

For example, the UK election in 1951 saw Churchill's 13.7M votes beat Attlee's 13.9M because the parliamentary seats were distributed 321 (absolute majority) to 295.

Yeah, that was 0.8% in 1951; 1929 it was ~1% difference in the popular vote. Still a far cry from over 4%, or the 2.1% that Clinton led by in 2016.

 

[deirdre]

it wasn't the presentation of new evidence, it was just AG Barr chosing a side that did it. It genuinely looks like you have admitted to being someone who bases their conclusions on things other than evidence. Instead of the AG's pronouncement, what *evidence* would have pushed you towards the conclusion you now seem to have reached?

I wanted Biden to win (and even if i didnt politics is boring to me) so I didnt go searching out evidence OR claims. It's easier to wait for someone you trust (and the DOJ has the capability to actually investigate issues vs say the washington post) to tell you what the conclusion is. I do that with FE threads all the time.

If withholding a conclusion on FE claims, until a trusted source tells me they did the work and the claim is wrong, puts me on some "bad spectrum", well.. i guess i'm a bad egg. I'm not gonna lose sleep over your opinion on that.

 

[econ41]

My view from 5000km - as a non-US citizen/resident, and as disinterested as I can practically be - of the stances I've seen expressed in the last couple of months by "conservatives" who have been doubting the election results, was unambiguously that they had arrived at a *conclusion*,

The same issues are clear from 15,798km. I'm not disinterested but I think I'm capable of standing objectively outside the issues. My own two areas of interest:
- immediate is one of concern that I see as a more serious threat to US Democracy than many debaters and
- longer term - "we" Aussies will sooner or later need to change our Constitution. We have a republican movement and a body of opinion - without political "critical mass" at this time. And I certainly don't want to fix most of it which aint broke.

And the need to scare quote "conservative" is only one of the issues. But the whole US spectrum of so called "Left" <> "Right" is way right of most of the rest of us. No way would I call Republicans "conservative" nor Democrats "Left" without being very careful to define my terminology. But "left" and any word with "social.." in it are swear words to many US folk.

But from my perspective one of the biggest issues is the degree to which outright lying and sedition are accepted as the norm for US politics. Then the prevalence of so-called "defences" based on "they do it too" OR "they are worse than us". I drive school buses and if two kids get into punches no way would I accept "He hit me first" OR "he hit me harder than I hit him" as a defence**. It is a confession of wrong doing. IF "they do it as well" is TRUE - then fix the system to constrain the bad behaviour. And I'm well aware of how tightly some of the underlying causes are tied to the constitution.
.
.
** Yes. It could be a plea in mitigation AFTER the offender is found guilty.

 

[deirdre]

But "left" and any word with "social.." in it are swear words to many US folk.

do you mean insults? ive been saying Left because the liberals tell me i am talking about the Left and not the liberals. Have i been swearing on this website this whole time without knowing it ?

IF "they do it as well" is TRUE - then fix the system to constrain the bad behaviour.

we cant even fix our system to send 600$ stimulus checks only to the people that actually NEED them vs couples that make 149,000$ a year! (meaning struggling families need alot more than 600$, that isnt even 1 months rent where i live!

what you are asking the US to fix is way bigger than that problem.

the degree to which outright lying [...?..] are accepted as the norm for US politics

I'm a generation xer. we grew up (decades ago) under the mantra :

Q: How do you know a politician is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

 

[deirdre]

I drive school buses and if two kids get into punches no way would I accept "He hit me first" OR "he hit me harder than I hit him" as a defence**.

It's not a matter of a defense. It's a matter of:

kid A punches kid B in the mouth.
kid B punches kid A back
The newspaper runs a story about how kid B (and only kid B) punched kid A.

(obviously this doesnt apply to the behavior of all conservative or liberals, but since you seem to be trying to insult me personally.. it applies to why i might say those "defenses" on a one sided website.)

 

[econ41]

do you mean insults? ive been saying Left because the liberals tell me i am talking about the Left and not the liberals. Have i been swearing on this website this whole time without knowing it ?

I was primarily referring to the US "left v right" spectrum being further "right" than AU and most other countries I am familiar with. Here in AU we also have a strong bias to two party system. (Except one of the two is a long standing fixed coalition which has no significance for this current discussion). I'm personally uncommitted mostly "central" on the AU spectrum. I can relate to the US Democrats who on my spectrum are only slightly right. We have no major party as hard right as US Republicans. And I'm referring to political philosophies.. not behaviours.

do you mean insults? ive been saying Left because the liberals tell me i am talking about the Left and not the liberals. Have i been swearing on this website this whole time without knowing it ?

Using labels as derogatory comments. The level of so called "ad hom" rather than focus on the actual issue of disagreement.

what you are asking the US to fix is way bigger than that problem.

I've been specifically trying to avoid "asking" and definitely avoiding "telling". I'm well aware of both the seriousness of the problems at at least two levels and the difficulties of resolution arising from how much detailed admin is both tied to the Constitution and locked into 230 years of cultural evolution. I've been suggesting that there is a need to finda ways forward and mostly been ignored or patronised. Most of the discussion seems to accept that status quo must remain because it cannot be changed.

I'm a generation xer. we grew up (decades ago) under the mantra :

Q: How do you know a politician is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

The trick is to know WHEN "he" is lying and how serious. Not assume everything is lies which is a cop out. As we should both know from years of debating with conspiracy thoerists. Where far too many from either "side" make false generalisations.

 

[econ41]

.... but since you seem to be trying to insult me personally..

I'm not. I try to rigorously follow the old rule - "Attack the argument - not the person" If anything looks like intended personal insult draw my attention to it and I will clarify meaning. But remembe "If the cap fits" i.e. If I perceive an argument is flawed and I need to counter it and I think I can prove it....

 

[deirdre]

I've been suggesting that there is a need to finda ways forward and mostly been ignored or patronised.

i absolutely agree with the need. that would be lovely. i dont think i ever responded to you, but if i did i doubt i meant to sound patronizing. and if i ignored you it was only because i wasnt really understanding what you were trying to get at (and couldnt understand how taking advice from foreigners on the issue would help America at all, so that added to my confusion regarding what you were wanting to discuss )

But i dont think the way forward is attacking people and philosophies you dont agree with.

Using labels as derogatory comments. The level of so called "ad hom" rather than focus on the actual issue of disagreement.

That's true. i wish we had better labels, even i dont know when im supposed to use what word. its kind a like the conspiracy theory label. it fits so its needed, but sometimes it just means conspiracy theorist and sometimes its an insult.. and its hard to tell the difference.

The trick is to know WHEN "he" is lying and how serious. Not assume everything is lies which is a cop out. As we should both know from years of debating with conspiracy thoerists. Where far too many from either "side" make false generalisations.

just sharing a very popular American idiom. I think it is meant more as a reminder that both sides are exactly the same. Because they really are. THAT is the big thing America has forgotten in recent years. Thats why i primarily read news sources that critique both political sides.. because in my day that is what journalism was about. keeping a check on our politicians. the Party was irrelevant.

I'm not. I try to rigorously follow the old rule - "Attack the argument - not the person" If anything looks like intended personal insult draw my attention to it and I will clarify meaning. But remembe "If the cap fits" i.e. If I perceive an argument is flawed and I need to counter it and I think I can prove it....

Its fine. my conservative friends and family get all pissed off at me when i defend/(debunk repubs) the liberals too. I'm a debunker (or critiquer... sp?) . everyone hates me.

 

[Mendel]

. I think it is meant more as a reminder that both sides are exactly the same. Because they really are.

Citation needed.

 

[econ41]

i absolutely agree with the need. that would be lovely.1 i dont think i ever responded to you, but if i did i doubt i meant to sound patronizing.2 and if i ignored you it was only because i wasnt really understanding what you were trying to get at3 (and couldnt understand how taking advice from foreigners on the issue would help America at all4, so that added to my confusion regarding what you were wanting to discuss )

But i dont think the way forward is attacking people and philosophies you dont agree with.5

Thanks for your considered response. I'll take it paragraph at a time:

1 And that is a starting point we agree on
2 You didn't as far as I can recall
3 I was aware of the difficulty - several vastly different persons contributing to the thread
4 A point I disagree on tho I recognised the difficulty - explicitly addressed it several times. Put it this way I'm looking at amendments of the AU constitution and I would be derelict if I did not compare/contrast US experience. If you recognise issues in the US why not look elsewhere and see why others don't (or do) have the same problems.
5 None of my comments in these threads are "attacking". Never for people and may attack unsound arguments BUT haven't done so in these resent threads about US politics.

THEN take it that I appreciate and am in substantial agreement with your other paragraphs. We could discuss "both sides ARE exactly" Whether that is currently true or not "Both sides SHOULD BE exactly >> but I'll leave that issue for now.

That's true. i wish we had better labels, even i dont know when im supposed to use what word. its kind a like the conspiracy theory label. it fits so its needed, but sometimes it just means conspiracy theorist and sometimes its an insult.. and its hard to tell the difference.


just sharing a very popular American idiom. I think it is meant more as a reminder that both sides are exactly the same. Because they really are. THAT is the big thing America has forgotten in recent years. Thats why i primarily read news sources that critique both political sides.. because in my day that is what journalism was about. keeping a check on our politicians. the Party was irrelevant.


Its fine. my conservative friends and family get all pissed off at me when i defend/(debunk repubs) the liberals too. I'm a debunker (or critiquer... sp?) . everyone hates me.

 

[deirdre]

If you recognise issues in the US why not look elsewhere and see why others don't (or do) have the same problems.

i cant really remember what the core issues discussed previously were, when i say "ways forward" the first step ...whatever the problems...has to be to shift the social culture we are currently in. ie. activism over logic and compromise. if by "ways forward" you think i was agreeing with disbanding the electoral college.. i wasnt. i could explain in depth why but its alot of typing and it would just open another door to a bunch of people jumping all over me. The short version is that America is a big ass country with multiple 'cultures' within it. I dont think any other countries are comparable (not that i spend any time at all engrossed in the mechanics of other countries, i'm not a political scientist. and dont want to be)

 

[econ41]

i cant really remember what the core issues discussed previously were, when i say "ways forward" the first step ...whatever the problems...has to be to shift the social culture we are currently in. ie. activism over logic and compromise.

We never even got to the stage of identifying "issues". I see many of them. They intertwine and overlap. I saw the first three steps of discussion as:
1) Agree that there are problems that need to be resolved at the systemic level. i.e.; NOT just the specifics of this election cycle;
I tried to start the discussion and identification by giveing one example. Clearly stating it was an example .. but it became the single issue focus. AND
2) Form a list of issues of concern that need to be addressed. (We never got to that stage because of the "single issue focus") THEN
3) Agree that some will be "too hard" i.e. won't attract critical mass of political support. << And the responses seemed to say "Nothing can be done because everything is tied to the Constitution) (And I fear that may be true - as I hinted several times in previous posts. )

Now I'll take just one example

....you think i was agreeing with disbanding the electoral college.. i wasnt. i could explain in depth why but its alot of typing

I never suggested disbanding the electoral college. I identified that the administration of the electoral college system was one of the causes of delays and associated problems. BUT I recognised that it is so deeply and legitimately embedded in the Constitution that it is pragmatically not going to change. So I asked if it was possible to administratively change the timing delays. Intended as one example as a starting point for discussion.

 

[deirdre]

I never suggested disbanding the electoral college. I identified that the administration of the electoral college system was one of the causes of delays and associated problems.

oh yea. i remember that now. yea i think the delays are a good thing. it allows for due process (so people can be more confident in the process and oversight), allows time limits for recounts and delays etc etc. and as i mentioned before im personally ok with with the 2 1/2 month transition period. This Trump thing is a super unique situation due to a super unique personality. I personally think the set up protects us against personalities like Trump.

This of course is only my laymen take on it. as i said im not a political scientist. But for a good in depth discussion of such issues, i personally believe you are on the wrong website. I think an actual political forum with people (specifically Americans and a DIVERSE set of Americans) who have thought about this stuff alot more and are interested in such in depth discussions might be more satisfactory to you. I do think it is an interesting topic, i'm not belittling your topic at all.

 

[deirdre]

@econ41

ignore if i am still misunderstanding... does this doc give you more data to calculate in? part of "delays" has to do with when congress is in session. ??
2020CongressionalCalendar.pdf (nab.org) https://www.nab.org/documents/advocacy/2020CongressionalCalendar.pdf

and personally yea.. i think that could be fixed easy enough. but they probably want a long christmas holiday break because ... i dont know why

 

[econ41]

i personally believe you are on the wrong website. I think an actual political forum with people (specifically Americans and a DIVERSE set of Americans) who have thought about this stuff alot more and are interested in such in depth discussions might be more satisfactory to you. I do think it is an interesting topic, i'm not belittling your topic at all.

Thanks for your positive comments. I have no doubt that this is the wrong Forum. For ME on this topic. It is the best forum I currently have access to. As you probably remember my introduction to on-line debate was through 9/11 debate of WTC collapses. That topic is mainstream my expertise on several dimensions not just engineering. This is the best still active forum for that topic. But it frustrates me regularly for number of reasons. I admire and respect Mick and fully appreciate his approach and his book. But it is the only serious forum at anywhere near the level I need and which I have access to. And it is more details focused than the strategic "what can we do about it" perspective I would prefer.

Do you have any suggestions as to a legitimate balanced US politics forum which I could watch, observe and consider whether I could have input? Here in thread or PM as you prefer.