What History Teaches Us About Stolen Elections

[AUFAN78 3,890]

Good read about the election of 1876 and what history teaches about stolen elections. Interesting quotes of note:

The scenario is familiar. A presidential election ends with uncertain results. Millions are convinced the election has been stolen. Congress steps in to reassure the nation, picks a president, and opens a wound that just divides the country further.

Consider for a moment what that statement means in the context of 2020, when mainstream Republicans were bullied by the mainstream media into abandoning President Trump and his claims of a stolen election. The lesson is clear: If you think the election was not free and fair, if you think victory was stolen from you, then fight for it with all your might. Don’t let anyone talk you out of it. Don’t surrender because someone told you it was a bad look.

As the Savannah editor wrote in the same edition: “A people who can calmly submit to and acquiesce in such a betrayal of their rights and liberties need give to history no better proof of their unfitness for self-government.”

If Twitter had been around in 1877, however, the Savannah Morning News would have been censored. If there had been an equivalent of the Jan. 6 House select committee, the editor would have been subpoenaed, shamed, and possibly prosecuted. As the mainstream media has essentially told us, when it comes to elections: “If you see something, say nothing.”

The logical fallacy is easy to spot. Only a fool would claim that elections are the one area of human experience that is immune from fraud, corruption, or criminal conspiracy. Because so much is at stake in elections, especially the presidential election, we must posit that they would be a most attractive target for subversion. And the more that election data is stored digitally, whether pertaining to votes or voters, the more likely it is that our elections will be hacked. In the Age of the Data Breach, if you declare an election to be the most secure in human history, you have your head firmly tucked between your digital cheeks.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/28/what_history_teaches_us_about_stolen_elections_147388.html#2

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by AUFAN78

[Leftfield 2,585]

This is a false equivalence.

The main difference is the fact that there has been absolutely no proof of widespread or systemic fraud in the election. Every challenge that has been brought to the courts has basically been laughed out, even by some judges that were Trump appointees. Had there been proven fraud, it would be perfectly understandable if the populace were up-in-arms about the situation, but the simple fact is we have become such a polarized nation that many (on any side) will not accept a fact because it flies in the face of their beliefs. 

The other difference is that Congress did not step in to decide the outcome of the election, as they did in 1876. Congress actually stayed out of it, and a huge number of Trump's supporters were outraged by that.

I am no fan whatsoever of Hillary Clinton, and disagree with those who say she was the legitimate winner of the 2016 election. I do agree that Russian meddling played some part in her defeat, but I don't see that as voter fraud and feel the election should not have been questioned. There are those that believe otherwise, and will not change their position based on any fact. However, their numbers are dwarfed by the number of people that believe the 2020 election was illegitimate, and it's all based on lies, the majority coming from people in their own government, that back their "belief." That is terrifying. As has been said many times, once trust in elections is lost, the country fails.

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Leftfield

[AUFAN78 3,890]

The future of the country rests on the ability of both winners and losers to trust our elections, to make it easy to vote but difficult to cheat, and to have some reasonable level of confidence that voting is conducted privately and without coercion, harvesting, or undue third-party influence.

[Leftfield 2,585]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

The future of the country rests on the ability of both winners and losers to trust our elections, to make it easy to vote but difficult to cheat, and to have some reasonable level of confidence that voting is conducted privately and without coercion, harvesting, or undue third-party influence.

I agree with this.

[AUFAN78 3,890]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I agree with this.

Thank you. As I stated post election, the Democrats simply outworked the Republicans, but we cannot overlook what some view as shady legislative actions nor censorship and that goes directly to the point of confidence in elections.

[Leftfield 2,585]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Thank you. As I stated post election, the Democrats simply outworked the Republicans, but we cannot overlook what some view as shady legislative actions nor censorship and that goes directly to the point of confidence in elections.

I do think that censorship in general is wrong. However, it is also dangerous to provide a platform to those who would promote lies or misinformation. There are clearly many examples of this on both political sides and I do not want to get into a deep list of them, but as to the subject of the thread, it is an existential threat to our country. The press have no legal requirement to give voice to it, and in fact have a moral obligation not to.

[DKW 86 7,411]

Still haven’t seen one thing that would lead me to think even one district would flip, therefore no electors. 
Move on to 2022…

Edited April 3, 2022 by DKW 86

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

 

This article was a mess....so  because there were electoral irregularities in an election 150 years ago that that automatically means Trumpkins are justified in their conspiracies and their endless quest to overturn the 2020 election? 

What was the point that this Trumper (he's authored 3 pro-Trump books) even trying to make here? That If people think the election was stolen then...what? Should they be given access to all ballots and voting machines without restriction? Have endless "re-certifications", analyze all the ballots, do recounts over and over and over until the outcome they desire is accomplished? Should we just automatically have new elections ran until everyone thinks they were fair? 

 

People think Trump, Gini, and people like this author  are idiots because they spout conspiracy theories and accusations that sound crazy and have no evidence, proof, or reasoning behind them. 

 

Eventually you have to "put up or shut up" 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by CoffeeTiger