House of Deliberation- Bernd Reiter
00:00 / 06:17

Voting

I have seen no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. Trump has often been shown to have lied and pressured election officials to 'find votes'. Just one example:

 

".. dead people voted, I think the number is close to 5,000," Trump told Raffensperger. "They went to obituaries. They went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number. A minimum is close to about 5,000."

The actual number was 4.

 

Multiple other lines of evidence-

 

200 Tweet thread directly after the election giving evidence against many of the allegations of fraud from Trump and assoicates

AZ election 

and many more.

 

Time after time, Trump appointed election officials or judges have refuted Trump's claims.

 

I have done some work the last couple of years in the Lubbock County Elections Office. Almost universally, the staff seems to have conducted themselves with integrity. Why are Trump and his defenders only interested in auditing the places he lost? Justice is supposed to be blind.

 

Arrington and others are voting against measures that would make audits better and more universal and mandatory. Many state legislatures are putting in place laws that would make it easier for partisan state legislatures to overturn election results. He (Arrington) refuses to take measures to stop the gerrymandering from both parties- which makes it so these parties can control 'safe' districts.  Pretty much silence from what I can tell.

 

In his letter objecting to certifying the election, Arrington never really specifies what he thinks might be fraudulent, other than to claim that Trump would have won if some of the court cases would have went the other way- which I have seen no evidence of. Just because a bunch of your constituents might think something is true, does not make it so, and you should use the opportunity to educate and not to pander to misinformation.  He had two months to look into the claims brought by Trump before the certification. Has he ever stated a position on whether he thinks the election was 'stolen'? Will any of the local press ever make him take a position?  Will he ever have to explain why he knows (or thought he knew) more than all the Trump appointed election officials and judges?

 

Finally, I'm not against some forms of voter ID, but the fear of being severely punished because of simple errors makes tons of people in certain populations just give up on politics altogether. I don't know how many times in registering voters where people said they are afraid they will get jury duty (largely a myth), are afraid because they used to be in prison, or don't know the rules if they are a college student away from home. None of these problems have to continue if certain rules were changed.  But the party in power has no interest in this. And these problems transfer over from generation to generation.  

We can do better, and there are multiple examples from around the World to look at- 

 

Australia's voting system

Crystal Mason's Story

Probably the best way to end gerrymandering