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

[Paul Lehto]

The short answer is voter-marked and hand counted paper ballots counted in
precincts with results posted at the precincts as well as reported to the
county or state. And also using a summonsing process to guarantee
sufficient labor or add additional independent observers as needed.

This way any group can verify the tabulation by looking at precinct posted
results, and counts in precincts are monitored by all interested political
parties plus individuals drafted by a process similar to jury summonsing.
It is a labor intensive process but *most people would much rather spend a
day counting ballots than spend two weeks in a jury trial. *

If ballot counting is observed by multiple observers adverse to each other
(the system used and assumed by the framers of the 12th amendment) out of a
combination of people we might not trust to count ballots alone, we can
nevertheless achieve a trustable result.

We might also realize that the framers of the 12th amendment presupposed
HCPB, and might come to understand that a joint session is subservient to
the will of the people and *able to make only the objections and
corrections that vote counting clerks are able to make, not relitigate the
entire election*.

More importantly, glitches, errors or frauds create observable evidence
that can be accessed, and inaccuracies are isolated to the precinct level.
Thus, if and when people tell stories about paper ballot fraud, that
actually proves both that fraud can happen and that *the voting system
actually worked to create evidence of the problem and thus allow us to tell
the story today*. It is up to the administrative and legal systems - not
the voting system - to actually prosecute or correct for the fraud or
error. The voting system only needs to be transparent and create clear
indelible evidence of voter intent.

With a fully transparent vote counting process, I find that almost everyone
I talk to is willing to pay the labor and time pricetag for the system,
because of the rational confidence created in the results, and the fact
that it is the best guarantee of our right to vote actually working if and
when a criminal regime is in control of the vote counting process. Given
that voting is our most important right, and given the Declaration of
Independence recites that our government was setup for the purpose of
securing and guaranteeing our rights, this is not too much to ask. The
alternative is to have a voting system that is non-transparent and thus is
vulnerable to failing completely at the very moment we need it the most -
when criminality has invaded the governmental election processes.

The human need for hand counts of valuable things is witnessed every day
when counting our own cash at the bank teller window or at the ATM. There
is just no substitute for hand counting when we deal with something
valuable AND there is incentive for one or more parties to count
inaccurately, as exists in elections.

It would also have the added benefit of bringing statutes back into line
with reality, such as the requirement of a 0.5% lead or less to trigger a
recount. That kind of narrow window makes sense with HCPB, but with
electronic elections if there is fraud it is the same amount of effort to
create a lead outside the recount margin as there is to win by just a few
votes.

And it would also bring back into alignment the call for public confidence
and acceptance of the results. That is a call for rational acceptance of
the results if counts are transparent but is a call for a faith that losers
find hard to develop when counts are nontransparent.

Paul Lehto, J.D.



On Wed, Jan 6, 2021, 2:10 PM David Mason <dmason12 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20210106/8b6dd396/attachment.html>