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

[Paul Lehto]

No I don't really like the term strong arm but I was quoting Rick's
original use of that term to argue that a true election fraud claim is not
strongarming, and to the extent election officials actions might be altered
by a case, that is entirely appropriate and not "strongarming" at all.

A claim of election fraud pays respect to the true will of the people so it
is not properly described as a strong arm unless (as has been the case in
2020) there are circumstances adding the additional elements like
intimidation etc.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021, 9:28 AM Jon Sherman <jsherman at fairelectionscenter.org>
wrote:

> Do you really want to be using the term "strong-armed" right now? We
> should be more careful about language like this.
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:28 AM Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rick, a reasonable hypothesis of fraud, while it may not exist in 2020,
>> places the question of what the democratic will is directly into question.
>> That is, a good faith reasonable hypothesis of fraud *completely
>> respects the democratic will *but says the will of the people has been
>> mistakenly confused and the winning candidate is actually the Loser.
>>
>> In such a case, respect for democracy requires that the claim be heard
>> and that officials actually be "strong-armed" into recognizing that the
>> results must change, all in the name of respect for democracy.
>>
>> As a result, using the example of 2020 elections sets up a straw man in
>> the form of a weak or empty fraud claim and then - to the extent your
>> comments apply beyond the narrow example of 2020, begs the question of what
>> the will of the voters that ought to be respected is.
>>
>> If you haven't had the time to, when you do have time, which I understand
>> may not be right now, I urge you to read the original post in this thread.
>>
>> That post anchors the claim for first count complete transparency not
>> only in the constitutional right to vote that is preservative of all other
>> rights, but also in the inalienable right to alter our form of government.
>>
>> State constitutions like Massachusetts make clear that nothing can alter
>> the rights to a transparent voting system the public can control, because
>> this control is necessary to guarantee and secure the right to vote even
>> against those election officials who would deny it.
>> Article IV.
>>
>> The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of
>> governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do,
>> and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction,
>> and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly
>> delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.
>> Article V.
>>
>> All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them,
>> the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority,
>> [...] *are at all times accountable to them**.[This most certainly must
>> include voting systems, but without transparency accountability is
>> impossible]*
>> Article VII.
>>
>> Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety,
>> prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or
>> private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore *the
>> people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to
>> institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same*,
>> when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it
>>
>> So on one side of this discussion, we have the need i have outlined
>> already to secure the most important rights we have at the times when they
>> matter the most.
>>
>> On the other side of this equation, as seen by responders in this thread,
>> we have mere administrative convenience concerns like labor, time and long
>> ballots, all of which I have responded to. But if these competing concerns
>> cannot be balanced there is no serious question which concerns must yield
>> to the others. And we have also had a longtime election worker appear to
>> say that the administrative challenges are ones they can handle.
>>
>> Secret or non-transparent vote counting is indefensible.  Essentially,
>> only fully transparent vote counting systems meet the minimum basic
>> qualifications for preserving our rights. As such, it is irrelevant if some
>> other system like electronic voting provides administrative convenience
>> because they do not qualify as systems that secure public rights to
>> accountability and transparency in voting.
>>
>> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021, 8:08 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well put. The principal problem is not primarily in how elections are
>>> run (although that is part of the problem). The problem is one of stoking
>>> passions through false accusations of election regularities and attempts to
>>> strongarm those with a formal role in the vote tabulating and counting
>>> process  to reverse the democratic will.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
>>> behalf of Margaret Groarke <margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 6:44 PM
>>> *To: *Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>, Virginia Martin <
>>> virginiamartin2010 at gmail.com>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [EL] The Root Cause of Election Unrest is
>>> Non-transparency (Allowing People to Imagine Whatever They Will)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have found it interesting that, after a presidential election in which
>>> states had to figure out how to run an election in a pandemic (and did an
>>> admirable job), and there were 60 lawsuits brought challenging the results,
>>> and in which two months after the election we have the losing candidate
>>> still not conceding and instigating an invasion of the Capitol building,
>>> there was very little traffic on this list. When I explained to people that
>>> Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani's allegations of various things were false,
>>> I would sometimes note that, on a list of election law professors and other
>>> elections experts, which runs the gamut politically, there were no reports
>>> of fraud or other wrongdoing discussed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And now, the day after the invasion, there's a debate about whether we
>>> should hand count paper ballots. More amazing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I read Rick Hasen's *Election Meltdown* this summer, and I've been
>>> thinking in particular about the chapter on overblown rhetoric, which I
>>> think is closer to the real problem here. Counting huge piles of paper
>>> ballots by hand will not eliminate the distrust of the election system.
>>> Distrust of the election results was deliberately birthed and stoked by
>>> elected officials -- people like Kris Kobach, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump
>>> and Ted Cruz. They can use whatever raw material is at hand. If there are
>>> no photos of election workers pulling ballots out of a suitcase (I guess
>>> they would prefer that ballots be left unsecured on a table top), they
>>> would use a photo of an election worker buried behind mile high stacks of
>>> paper ballots. If three people count a pile of ballots by hand and get
>>> slightly different numbers, that will be headline news.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Georgia had paper ballots, which were counted by a machine (and by hand,
>>> actually). Nevertheless, as late as Saturday, as we all know, the president
>>> was continuning to allege that there was malfeasance in the election. I
>>> live in NY, and served as a poll worker for the first time this year (I
>>> thought as a political scientist interested in elections I was long past
>>> due). We use optical scan ballots -- paper ballots, marked by the voter and
>>> counted by a machine. Should you need to do a manual recount it would be
>>> possible, although I doubt it would be more accurate or more transparent
>>> than the scanner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is late, and I am feeling very depressed and worried for our
>>> democracy today, and so I am not going to attempt to propose a solution to
>>> this very serious crisis. But I don't think going back to paper ballots
>>> counted by hand is the solution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:17 PM Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Professor Schultz:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I can speak on behalf of almost all of the leaders of the 2004
>>> elector challenge regarding Obio in Kerry v Bush and say *YES that the
>>> transparency of HCPB would allay all of our concerns *to have a
>>> transparent system of vote counting with good chain of custody.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was personally involved with the Rossi Gregoire hand recount case in
>>> Washington state from 2004 but I know all the people involved on the
>>> presidential side.and i know they favor HCPB but of course i don't
>>> represent them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But Professor Schultz references the Trump 2020 effort which was able to
>>> grow much faster and had a President instigating behind it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the problem, *you will never be able to put the genie back into
>>> the bottle now that tens of millions of people have seen the
>>> nontransparency *and the many procedural dismissals that don't reach
>>> the merits. They may have little evidence or even "no evidence" but their
>>> movement amounts to an emphatic vote of no confidence in the nontransparent
>>> voting system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We speak here of the voting system so within that scope I cannot deal
>>> with ngoing disputes about the Electors Clause for example. That has
>>> nothing to do with voting systems or se. But if there are processes, (as
>>> there are), to have legal claims heard and decided after a full transparent
>>> airing of all arguments, that safety valve of being heard goes a very long
>>> way toward keeping the peace, even if it doesn't settle every dispute.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I took the time to call and talk to one mid-level attorney on the Trump
>>> side. We did not agree on voter ID for example, but we were in complete
>>> agreement on the need for transparency and that both sides could agree on
>>> full transparency and getting rid of the nontransparent machines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What the Trump 2020 movement is, even if stipulated to have zero
>>> evidence, is *an emphatic vote of no confidence *in the current
>>> electronic systems. You don't need evidence per se on a vote of no
>>> confidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Against that complete failure we are supposed to balance the convenience
>>> of some labor avoidance or the inability to wait any more time after a two
>>> year campaign?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021, 5:33 PM Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Professor Schultz,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I appreciate you breaking the mold of "this never would have happened if
>>> we had [campaign finance, election, human nature] reform," but I daresay
>>> you've found something even more quixotic with the alternative.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, no, before you all pile on, I'm with you: let's make eliminating t*he
>>> anxiety about losing one's job* a cornerstone of the regime. No
>>> cost-benefit here. And... Mexico will pay for it. Or something.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:25 PM Schultz, David <dschultz at hamline.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's be real.  Do any of you really think that more transparency  or
>>> other  small fixes like this to the election system  will ease election
>>> unrest?  If you do then you must also think that the fact that widespread
>>> voter fraud does not  exist will convince people that it does not exist.
>>> Whatever you mean by election unrest has deeper sociological and economic
>>> roots than adding more transparency.  Let's begin to think about the gross
>>> economic inequalities that plague our system, or the  shodding  health care
>>> system, or perhaps the anxiety  about losing one's job as the roots for
>>> why  people are politically angry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 7:13 PM Stephanie Singer <
>>> sfsinger at campaignscientific.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 4:54 PM, Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m sorry, but this is just silly.  In a jurisdiction like Los Angeles
>>> County, it would take weeks to count all the ballots for a single
>>> county-wide election, much less for the scores of contests that are on each
>>> primary and election ballot.
>>>
>>> It depends on the level of involvement by citizens. The number of
>>> ballots is directly proportional to the number of voters.
>>>
>>>  And the result would be less accurate than a machine count.
>>>
>>> Now that more and more jurisdictions are doing risk-limiting tabulation
>>> audits, we are starting to have more data about accuracy. Without that kind
>>> of check, the best we can say is that machines more reliably get the same
>>> answer each time than people using the hash method. That’s at best a
>>> statement about precision, not accuracy
>>> <https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-accuracy-and-precision-609328>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We already have a transparent system:  If the election is close enough
>>> (and even if it’s not), you can do a manual recount of the ballots and
>>> check the results against the machine count.
>>>
>>> Depends on who “you” are, and what state you’re in. And depends on what
>>> your state means by “manual recount”. In a Florida “manual recount", the
>>> paper records people get to hold in their hands and evaluate with their
>>> eyes are only the ones identified by the computers as having an undervote
>>> or overvote.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And do really think having the votes counted by multiple people with
>>> clickers is going to yield a uniform outcome that will convince the people
>>> who listen to Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and the Krakens that the vote
>>> count was accurate when their preferred candidate loses?
>>>
>>> Depends on the level of involvement. If there were a culture of serving
>>> and observing, there’s no reason to think we’d be worse off than we are
>>> now. There’s nothing like taking part in a bit of election administration
>>> to wake people up to the complexities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fredric D. Woocher
>>>
>>> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>>>
>>> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>>>
>>> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>>>
>>> fwoocher at strumwooch.com
>>>
>>> (310) 576-1233 x105
>>>
>>> Direct: (310) 933-5739
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *IMPORTANT NOTICE**:* Pursuant to the Governor’s “Stay at Home” Order,
>>> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.  *Packages requiring
>>> signatures will be returned undelivered – do not serve papers by this
>>> method.*  While our office is closed, *Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>>> consents to electronic service in all of its matters*.  Please serve by
>>> electronic mail to *fwoocher at strumwooch.com <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>* AND
>>> to our Senior Legal Assistant, LaKeitha Oliver, at
>>> loliver at strumwooch.com.  We reserve the right to object to any notice
>>> or delivery of any kind if not actually received by counsel before all
>>> statutory deadlines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Law-election [
>>> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Paul
>>> Lehto
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 7, 2021 3:53 PM
>>> *To:* John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>; Virginia Martin <
>>> virginiamartin2010 at gmail.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] The Root Cause of Election Unrest is
>>> Non-transparency (Allowing People to Imagine Whatever They Will)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So on one side we have nontransparency in the voting system which breeds
>>> distrust which is then amplified by every partisan hope, fear, or piece of
>>> evidence, all the way up to an insurrection on ONE SIDE,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...And on the other side we have some 75 year old who might be groggy.
>>> And more hours to count.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The balancing isn't even close, and I could add much more to the first
>>> paragraph but recent events are enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The nontransparency is a fatal flaw in the current system, and a
>>> transparent system in the form of hand counted ballots is required to
>>> secure and guarantee the right to vote vis-a-vis situations of corrupt
>>> election officials, power outages and so on, and having tens of thousands
>>> of summonses workers nationwide who can personally attest based on their
>>> own observation and experience would restore public confidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021, 3:43 PM John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did you wakes up the 75 year old participants at 4 or 5 am and have them
>>> work for 12 hours?   On a ballot with 30+ offices and ballot measures?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 6:38 PM, Stephanie Singer <
>>> sfsinger at campaignscientific.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I took part in a demo of the clicker method. I don’t know of any
>>> academic research, but from my experience the clicker method is far better.
>>> It makes sense psychologically — each person is focused on just one
>>> physical spot on the ballot, not needing to look back and forth. And in the
>>> demo we had several people tracking each candidate, and their tallies
>>> matched at the end (or perhaps were occasionally off by one). It was quick
>>> and easy and, with enough people clicking, convincing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stephanie Singer <https://www.pdx.edu/profile/stephanie-singer>
>>>
>>> Research Assistant Professor, Portland State University
>>>
>>> Former Chair, Philadelphia County Board of Elections
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 2:04 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One would think that “mark, mark, ... tally” would avoid differences,
>>> since there’s a check every 5th vote.  One would be wrong.  And then you
>>> have to go back and reconcile to find where the count got off — usually
>>> several tallies back.  I suspect the clicker would be even worse
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 4:42 PM, Stephanie Singer <
>>> sfsinger at campaignscientific.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It’s undeniable that the counting happens at a time when everyone is
>>> exhausted. And thanks for pointing out the difficulties of oversight in
>>> primaries.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At least one better counting method has been developed and tested by
>>> Karen McKim of Wisconsin Election Integrity
>>> <https://wisconsinelectionintegrity.org/>. Each person in a group of
>>> observers has a hand-held clicker-counter (like the ones used to measure
>>> people flowing through turnstiles). The ballots can then be shown one after
>>> another, quite quickly. My understanding is that this is quite accurate and
>>> efficient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The science and engineering of post-election tabulation audits for
>>> ballot scanners is progressing, but I haven’t yet seen a workable proposal
>>> for risk-limiting audits of precinct-counted ballots.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you don’t count at the precinct at the end of the voting period, you
>>> have to solve the ballot custody problem, also quite knotty.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> —Stephanie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 1:26 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree completely that the election process should include at all
>>> levels and locations poll officials and poll watchers appointed by both
>>> major parties — and by all diverse candidates in primaries and nonpartisan
>>> elections (easier said than done).   And posting the results at the polls
>>> and centrally is or used to be common.    But hand counted paper ballots?
>>> I recall monitoring primary elections with hand counted paper ballots at
>>> relatively tiny precincts.  It takes forever, in part because of frequent
>>> differences in the counts  (often resolved by splitting the difference) and
>>> poll workers quitting fit the night and one (1) poll official taking the
>>> materials home to safeguard them.  In one MS primary election, the count
>>> wasn’t completed until Thursday evening , at which point I could finally go
>>> to sleep (after helping polish off some beer the senior attorney had
>>> bought).  There’s are reasons we use machines now.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 1:59 PM, Stephanie Singer <
>>> sfsinger at campaignscientific.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> A big Plus One to what Paul has written.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To move to the kind of resilient system Paul has described, we need to
>>> face head on the downsides of such a system. There are people in this
>>> country who physically cannot mark and review paper ballots without
>>> assistance (either from people or technology). And there are people of this
>>> country who cannot physically get to the polling place on the given day
>>> (e.g., overseas deployed military).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Companies that manufacture and maintain computerized voting systems have
>>> exploited this downside for profit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder what folks on this list think of proxy voting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> —Stephanie
>>>
>>> PS: a relevant piece I wrote was published a few hours before all hell
>>> broke loose yesterday:
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/06/stolen-election-trump-patriot/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Disclaimer*
>>>
>>> The information contained in this communication from the sender is
>>> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others
>>> authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
>>> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in
>>> relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
>>> be unlawful.
>>>
>>> This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been
>>> automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber
>>> resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection,
>>> security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential
>>> capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from
>>> malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the
>>> movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit
>>> our website.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> David Schultz, Distinguished University Professor
>>> Hamline University
>>> Department of Political Science,
>>>
>>> Department of Legal Studies,
>>>
>>> Department of Environmental Studies
>>>
>>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>>>
>>> MS B 1805
>>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
>>> My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
>>>
>>>
>>> https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
>>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Steve Klein
>>>
>>> Attorney
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrklein
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Margaret Groarke*
>>>
>>> *Professor, Political Science*
>>>
>>> *Coordinator, Community Engaged Learning*
>>>
>>> https://jaspercommunityengagement.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> Make an appointment to talk with me
>>> <https://manhattan.starfishsolutions.com/starfish-ops/dl/instructor/serviceCatalog.html?bookmark=connection/13271/schedule>
>>>
>>> Bronx, NY 10471
>>>
>>> Phone: 718-862-7943
>>>
>>> Fax: 718-862-8044
>>>
>>> margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu <name.name at manhattan.edu>
>>>
>>> www.manhattan.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> Jon Sherman
> Senior Counsel
> Fair Elections Center
> 1825 K Street NW, Suite 450
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> Phone: (202) 248-5346
> jsherman at fairelectionscenter.org
> www.fairelectionscenter.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210108/aad5d5b2/attachment.html>