When does an election result change because of fraud are my thoughts about election fraud in a general consideration, and applied to what is happening today.
Table of Contents
Election Fraud Exists
First of all, there is election fraud, there has always been fraud, and there will be election fraud in the future. Moreover, the framers of the constitution, the founding fathers, took that in to consideration in the way they made the rules of the country. In a single voting county, there may be people working fraud. But because of the difficulty in general of anybody doing fraud on a large scale, a single precinct that has its organizers and administrators of the election are many people, and the American way is to have all parties running in the election to be able to have poll watchers, people of the candidate’s choosing, to stand in the poll and the counting of the ballots while everything is going on, and the ability to challenge a ballot at any time.
Challenging the Ballot
This has been around for a very long time, and it is simply that the poll watcher doesn’t agree with allowing a ballot to be “normal.” This “challenge” set the ballot aside to be discerned as whether it is to be counted or not at a later time with higher people of both parties than are typically at the poll. So challenging a ballot happens when casting a ballot and also when counting the ballots. In order to challenge a ballot at the casting of the ballot, the poll watchers need to be able to see the book, the person’s ID, especially his voter registration card. If these watchers are restricted at the curve outside the building, it is the same as no poll watchers. Also in the counting process at the end of the day, the watchers need to be everywhere and without restrict as far as examining things. No, they cannot move things around or disturb the counting process, but their work requires that they see everything. Moreover, seeing and examining is not enough. Poll watchers must understand the process, and every counting situation, how things are counted. Those doing the counting need to explain to them anything they see as doubtful.
The process of challenging a ballot reveals that the Poll Watcher must be close to observe what is going on. Periodically they must actually examine the voter registration, his/her signature, etc.
You have to validate that the voter is who he/she says they are. You must validate that the voter is registered to vote in this election and at this polling station. You also validate that they are given a valid ballot. In counting, you must validate the travel of the ballots from the voting station to the counting station. There should be a chain of accountability throughout the process of people swearing that nothing happened to those ballots. (Some ballots may be torn up if they didn’t vote for who the person in the car wanted. But that should be protected against by two or more people in the car with the ballots, and usually one from each party.
The element of poll watchers during the entire day and especially at the counting makes the election results acceptable by both parties even though the losing side does like those results. They cannot complain because they saw with their own eyes that every vote was counted as it should be.
Restricting or Disturbing Poll Watchers invalidates an Election
Blocking, restricting, or otherwise disturbing the poll watchers is grounds to invalidate an election, and at times, elections results have been overturned because of this. Both sides want equal access to things of their own poll watchers, and both sides should be accommodated. That appeases both sides that the election was fair. Fairness is a high noble element that we want to preserve in elections, but fairness does not address which side wins. All sides are treated fairly, equally in the matter of every element of the election.
So let be clear here. The people that “put on an election” in primaries are their own party people. For the general election, the political body involved, cities, counties, states, etc. select people to run the election. The people choosing who these people that “run the election” have a party orientation as well as the actual people managing and administrating the election have party affiliations. You cannot get around this problem, and you have to deal with it.
For the Washington Post, undermining the integrity of the election is bad again
The way you deal with it is to order and enforce a set of rules that allow all parties in an election to view the election and view the counting. Again “viewing” includes the discerning before voting if the person is lawfully to vote in that voter place, the actual casting of the ballots, and the counting of the ballets, as well as the transportation of the ballots from casting site to counting site.
- Poll watchers represent the candidates and must be allow to view the entire process from beginning to end.
- They must be able to challenge elements of the day.
- Their challenges must have some “teeth” in them, i.e. a challenge or complaint must be discussed at a higher level, and the ballot must be possibly not counted (or counted if the workers challenged it incorrectly, or refused the person from voting).
- The entire election must possibly be done over again if there is a high level of fraud.
The last point needs to be examined more.
At what point of fraud should the election be done over again?
Let’s be real. Elections cost somebody a lot of money. That somebody are the people. But there are no voter taxes raised to pay for an election. That comes from regular taxation. So a state has an election, and they control the election process. They allow voter fraud in “their” election. The process has to have “teeth” in it if that state government that holds the election allows their party to cheat, or even if they are just lazy about these requirements.
The “teeth” here is that they are made to redo the entire election, costing them a lot of money. That has to be the club held over their heads so that they do things right the first time.
But what do we have in the 2020 election? Quite frankly, everybody and everything has been completely without fairness. There is wide spread fraud, and the media pressure is to accept the results they want and go on. That is not how things are when it is supposed to be “fair.”
Moreover, if there was wide spread fraud in an election, what would it look like? You get that idea of wide spread fraud and compare it to the 2020 presidential election, and they would line up very close, very similar.
How Fraud Restriction Works
When an election is held, and all candidates “accept” the results, then the general public has faith in their elections. No candidate should be pressed to “accept the results” before the election happens. That simply is ridiculous. How can you accept what goes on until it is over. It is like going to a dentist and he forces you to sign a paper saying you are happy with your new crown, but before he does any work on you. How can you give a summary report which has to be after the experience but give it before the experience?
But all of this generates valid trust by the general population in their elections. When does an election result change because of fraud.