[EL] The Root Cause of Election Unrest is Non-transparency (Allowing People to Imagine Whatever They Will)

[David Mason]

What sorts of systems, policies, and procedures would you recommend to
achieve this level of transparency?

Dave Mason

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 4:34 PM Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Obviously, things have gotten out of hand, but what is the root of the
> problem?
>
> The problem is that *we do not have a voting system that the LOSERS of
> the election can believe in* based on the transparency of the process. *If
> we want peaceful transitions of power the system needs to lead to results
> trustable by the "sore losers."*
>
> While people need to be held accountable for illegal actions, *going
> forward*, instead of designing our voting systems with gaining the
> consent of the governed among the losing side, we instead demand "public
> confidence" in nontransparent computerized counts on pain of charges of
> undermining democracy.
>
> *This lack of transparency in vote counting is the SEED to which either
> facts or fevered dreams can attach*, and typically our partisan
> affiliations and the media sources we select predetermine what information
> we will receive and what conclusions we will draw.
>
> I have predicted this would eventually happen for over a decade.  I was
> quoted in Politico a couple weeks ago about Trump activists because I was
> active in investigating the 2004 elections after serving as one of Kerry's
> "army" of lawyers (who were actually just assisting people to vote).
> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/19/2004-kerry-election-fraud-2020-448604
> This article sought to find out what those who questioned 2004 thought of
> those who questioned 2020.  A variety of opinions emerged.
>
>  In *Politico *I was quoted as saying the election disputes are the
> equivalent of a religious war where both sides assert their strongly held
> beliefs on the basis of faith rather than on the basis of *knowledge*.
> All people must necessarily have beliefs rather than true personal
> knowledge about the vote count results because the counts themselves are
> nontransparent, being done on computers, so that literally no one has
> personal knowledge the results are correct. Even election officials lack
> the kind of personal knowledge we expect from any admissible affidavit,
> Instead, officials believe them to be correct based on logic and accuracy
> tests and such but they don't really KNOW.  Experts can add numerous
> circumstantial reasons to support that belief, but our opinions remain in
> the territory of trust and confidence rather than hard facts and
> knowledge.
>
> The election results are simply the conclusions.  I've been entitled to
> every data source any expert in court relies upon for his or her
> conclusions, except in election law, where the computers are generally
> deemed inaccessible.
>
> Our present system merely urges public confidence in those conclusory
> results, which is the same as urging trust or faith. As a result, t*he
> opinions on all sides about the election results amount to statements of
> political religious faith*, and thus we have what amounts to a religious
> war in which various sides insult the faith of the other side, eventually
> leading to violence as we see today.
>
> Transparency is strongly effective at getting rid of conspiracy theories
> because when facts are present, no theories, conspiracy or otherwise, are
> necessary or possible.  Transparency would likely not reduce Republican
> support for objections from Rasmussen's 73% released today down to zero,
> but it would critically drop it below fifty percent at the very least.  And
> that is the difference between peaceful transitions of power transitions of
> power that are not peaceful.
>
> Trump supporters may not be able to prove fraud, but the reverse is also
> true: Biden supporters can't prove Biden win, except with a full hand
> recount and good chain of custody and no ballot box stuffing.  The solution
> is to get it right on election night with a transparent counting system
> that the large majority of losers can RATIONALLY trust.  Not faith-based
> elections like we have now.
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> PO Box 2796
> Renton, WA 98056
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210106/be8fceab/attachment.html>