Shane, didn't allege "voter fraud." I said "election fraud." The fact that Katie Hobbs did not recuse herself, despite repeated requests, from overseeing the election is prime facie evidence of election fraud. We are not obligated to accept the legitimacy of an election on your say so. The mere appearance of corruption negates the outcome.
Oh and that and the endless counting, the endless ballot "drops." That too, invalidates the outcome, whether you like it or not.
Now you have heard something "legitimate" about this topic. Your welcome!
Good evening! Though you did say "election" and not "voter"--my error--I am not obliged to accept the word "fraud" on your say-so, either.
Endless counting? That it is taking forever is evidence of nothing---AZ's count system, which routinely elects Republicans, is clanky and growing moss from age. But it is not fraudulent. It only means it takes a lot of extra time to count ballots. In this election, so many were drop-boxed on Election Day---by Lake AND Hobbs voters, BTW---they said it might take weeks to count everything. They were correct.
I agree Hobbs should have recused herself from overseeing the governor's race. But how she would separate that race from the general election, for which she was responsible, you tell me. Want to pass a law saying that election supervisors need to step aside from the election count system if they are a candidate? Fine by me, done. We can include it in the package that says Supreme Court justices have to recuse themselves from rulings in which they have a conflict of interest. Clean it all up at the same time.
"Mere appearance of corruption" is not a standard, because every election from dogcatcher to president can have a "mere appearance" if one looks hard enough. The Republicans in my state would be screaming bloody murder if there was any molecule of actual fraud, whether election or voter, and they aren't. Just the usual complaints from the side that lost.
Kari Lake lost, Katie Hobbs won, we move on. You're welcome back!
Shane, anytime it takes more than a day or so to count the ballots, the fraud door is wide open. Maintaining faith in the electoral process is not a legal proceeding. The mere appearance of corruption is enough to taint the process. Don't care which side it may or may not benefit, a drop box laden, multi-week counting process is bogus. As is any election in which the person in charge of counting the ballot is on the ballot. Again, does not matter which party.
But it is encouraging that you do acknowledge that the Arizona voting process is a serious shit-show in need of reform. In so doing you implicitly admit that this past election (and others before it) were not wholly "legitimate." A step in the right direction.
No, I didn't admit, implicitly or otherwise, that this and past elections were not "wholly legitimate." That's your view, not mine. I believe they were perfectly legitimate, and even the Ballot Ninja goofs paid to ferret out Arizona "corruption" in 2020 found none.
Slow-count of ballots is not fraudulent, but should be fixed for other reasons. Drop-box and mail-in ballots are not fraudulent, either, if the voter is required to request one, not have it arrive as part of a mass mailing. I had to request one here in AZ.
I see no evidence that Katie Hobbs did anything to corrupt the AZ election or the count, but we do agree she had no business supervising her own results. That should have been handed off to an independent party--perhaps a retired judge--before Election Week.
And by the way: what about those Maricopa County voting tabulators that did not work at (20% or more of the precincts) on election day? What's your story re: that?
At some point, we have to learn to discuss these issues in a fairminded, non-partisan way.
Yes, what about them? Faulty printer heads made 20 percent of the ballots in some parts of Maricopa County too light for tabulators to read. The affected voters were given a choice: they could go elsewhere to vote, or their light-but-human-readable ballots would be sent to election central to be tabulated manually. Every vote cast in every polling place was counted, and nobody was denied their right to vote.
Discuss this issue fairly and without partisan views? I already am. To reiterate:
--Arizona's vote counting system is outdated. It needs to be modernized so we have final election results in a reasonable number of days, not weeks.
--That the system moves slow does not make it (a) inaccurate or (b) fraudulent.
--This same system was used in the 2020 election. The losing candidate shouted "fraud" and demanded an investigation. Arizona obliged. Examiners found no evidence of fraud. Cyber Ninjas, hired by the Arizona GOP to ferret out and find election fraud, reported none. State and federal judges agreed no proof of fraud existed. The system worked fine.
--This time around, deeming an election fraudulent because a Democrat won the governorship is irrational. Republicans won far more offices than Democrats; were they elected fraudulently too? No, they weren't, and no one here suggests otherwise.
--Election law *should* prohibit candidates from supervising their own elections. If that had been the case, Hobbs would have had to turn over her duties to another official. But that is not the law, so she wasn't required to do so. Time to enact such a law.
--Even with her supervising her own race, there is zero evidence Katie Hobbs put her thumb on the scales to win.
Well Shane, your "clanky" and "moss growing" (your words) system of voting in AZ as of this morning has still not finished counting....and Katie Hobbs "had no business supervising her own result"...but hey, it's all good, that's what you're saying.
Oh? How's that? Specifics, please. I live and vote here and have heard nothing legitimate about "voter fraud."
Shane, didn't allege "voter fraud." I said "election fraud." The fact that Katie Hobbs did not recuse herself, despite repeated requests, from overseeing the election is prime facie evidence of election fraud. We are not obligated to accept the legitimacy of an election on your say so. The mere appearance of corruption negates the outcome.
Oh and that and the endless counting, the endless ballot "drops." That too, invalidates the outcome, whether you like it or not.
Now you have heard something "legitimate" about this topic. Your welcome!
Good evening! Though you did say "election" and not "voter"--my error--I am not obliged to accept the word "fraud" on your say-so, either.
Endless counting? That it is taking forever is evidence of nothing---AZ's count system, which routinely elects Republicans, is clanky and growing moss from age. But it is not fraudulent. It only means it takes a lot of extra time to count ballots. In this election, so many were drop-boxed on Election Day---by Lake AND Hobbs voters, BTW---they said it might take weeks to count everything. They were correct.
I agree Hobbs should have recused herself from overseeing the governor's race. But how she would separate that race from the general election, for which she was responsible, you tell me. Want to pass a law saying that election supervisors need to step aside from the election count system if they are a candidate? Fine by me, done. We can include it in the package that says Supreme Court justices have to recuse themselves from rulings in which they have a conflict of interest. Clean it all up at the same time.
"Mere appearance of corruption" is not a standard, because every election from dogcatcher to president can have a "mere appearance" if one looks hard enough. The Republicans in my state would be screaming bloody murder if there was any molecule of actual fraud, whether election or voter, and they aren't. Just the usual complaints from the side that lost.
Kari Lake lost, Katie Hobbs won, we move on. You're welcome back!
Shane, anytime it takes more than a day or so to count the ballots, the fraud door is wide open. Maintaining faith in the electoral process is not a legal proceeding. The mere appearance of corruption is enough to taint the process. Don't care which side it may or may not benefit, a drop box laden, multi-week counting process is bogus. As is any election in which the person in charge of counting the ballot is on the ballot. Again, does not matter which party.
But it is encouraging that you do acknowledge that the Arizona voting process is a serious shit-show in need of reform. In so doing you implicitly admit that this past election (and others before it) were not wholly "legitimate." A step in the right direction.
No, I didn't admit, implicitly or otherwise, that this and past elections were not "wholly legitimate." That's your view, not mine. I believe they were perfectly legitimate, and even the Ballot Ninja goofs paid to ferret out Arizona "corruption" in 2020 found none.
Slow-count of ballots is not fraudulent, but should be fixed for other reasons. Drop-box and mail-in ballots are not fraudulent, either, if the voter is required to request one, not have it arrive as part of a mass mailing. I had to request one here in AZ.
I see no evidence that Katie Hobbs did anything to corrupt the AZ election or the count, but we do agree she had no business supervising her own results. That should have been handed off to an independent party--perhaps a retired judge--before Election Week.
And by the way: what about those Maricopa County voting tabulators that did not work at (20% or more of the precincts) on election day? What's your story re: that?
At some point, we have to learn to discuss these issues in a fairminded, non-partisan way.
Yes, what about them? Faulty printer heads made 20 percent of the ballots in some parts of Maricopa County too light for tabulators to read. The affected voters were given a choice: they could go elsewhere to vote, or their light-but-human-readable ballots would be sent to election central to be tabulated manually. Every vote cast in every polling place was counted, and nobody was denied their right to vote.
Discuss this issue fairly and without partisan views? I already am. To reiterate:
--Arizona's vote counting system is outdated. It needs to be modernized so we have final election results in a reasonable number of days, not weeks.
--That the system moves slow does not make it (a) inaccurate or (b) fraudulent.
--This same system was used in the 2020 election. The losing candidate shouted "fraud" and demanded an investigation. Arizona obliged. Examiners found no evidence of fraud. Cyber Ninjas, hired by the Arizona GOP to ferret out and find election fraud, reported none. State and federal judges agreed no proof of fraud existed. The system worked fine.
--This time around, deeming an election fraudulent because a Democrat won the governorship is irrational. Republicans won far more offices than Democrats; were they elected fraudulently too? No, they weren't, and no one here suggests otherwise.
--Election law *should* prohibit candidates from supervising their own elections. If that had been the case, Hobbs would have had to turn over her duties to another official. But that is not the law, so she wasn't required to do so. Time to enact such a law.
--Even with her supervising her own race, there is zero evidence Katie Hobbs put her thumb on the scales to win.
Well Shane, your "clanky" and "moss growing" (your words) system of voting in AZ as of this morning has still not finished counting....and Katie Hobbs "had no business supervising her own result"...but hey, it's all good, that's what you're saying.
As Sleepy Joe would say: "C'mon man!"