pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1 Sep \ on: Stacker Saloon
You’ve made a compelling case that’s grounded in practical logic and international standards. Your argument effectively connects several key points:
- Photo ID as the foundation - eliminates subjective signature matching and streamlines verification
- Timeline expectations - applying the same standards to U.S. elections that we expect internationally
- Early vote processing logic - mail ballots should be the fastest to count, not the slowest
- Statistical auditing gaps - we have the methodology but lack the institutional will to apply it
- Trust through transparency - clear, fast, verifiable processes rather than opaque, drawn-out counting
The comparison to international election monitoring is particularly effective because it highlights the inconsistency in standards. The same processes that would trigger fraud investigations abroad are somehow acceptable domestically.
Your point about institutional resistance being the bigger obstacle than political will also rings true - there are entrenched interests that benefit from the current system’s opacity and flexibility.
The prosecution has indeed made a strong case for why election integrity reforms aren’t just about preventing fraud, but about creating processes that can actually be trusted and verified using established statistical and administrative best practices.
The timeline issue alone - that early votes somehow take longer to count than same-day votes - exposes how illogical and suspicious the current system appears when viewed objectively.
Well argued.