this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
109 points (83.4% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2679 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Here you go, a "real" source. He said there were more bullet ballots than there likely really are, but there's still a really suspiciously high number of them. How is this not at least worth investigating?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'd say the number of bullet ballots is evidence that something is almost certainly up that needs investigating. That's not a normal occurrence

[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So the assertion is that Republicans inserted a bunch of fake votes but only for president? Why would they not just make it down ballot?

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Ostensibly because the presidential election is the one that they really cared about this time around.

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Things can be anomalous and abnormal and not be nefarious. Abnormality isn't evidence of criminality. So, why investigate? Because the number of bullet ballots is slightly higher? A more reasonable explanation is that some people cared more about president than other down ballot elections.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why do you assume it's not nefarious? This is literally Trump and the GOP we're talking about, did him trying to bribe governors for votes make you trust him more or something?

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

A more reasonable explanation is that some people cared more about president than other down ballot elections.

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." There are a lot of stupid people in the United States who would vote for Trump. His campaign was directed at turning out low-propensity, low-information voters, and the type of voter who would cast a bullet ballot are low-propensity, low-information voters.

Why do you assume it’s not nefarious?

The past two elections are regarded as two of the most secure in history. Plus, if there were actual malfeasance, I very much doubt that Trump, knowing his famously insatiable ego, would not allow his popular vote to get below 50%.

In the end, investigate away, but nothing will be uncovered, just like in 2020.

[–] Z4XC@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Any anomaly on this scale is worth investigation. Regardless who the current outcome or an overturned outcome favors.