This was a Twitter engagement I had this morning.
BS!
Lake was leading in the polls. There were obvious and reported on problems. She lost after a week of counting. There is an appearance of impropriety that needs to be fixed. She may have lost fair and square, but there is no trust in the system.— GunFreeZone Blog (@GunFreeZone) November 20, 2022
Me: "The appearance of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself. We need a system that encourages trust that the system works fairly. If my side lost but I trust the system was fair I'll accept the loss graciously."
You: "My side won, fuck you."
You don't inspire confidence.
— GunFreeZone Blog (@GunFreeZone) November 20, 2022
You might as well have. And you are totally missing the point.
The point is the system needs to inspire trust and confidence so those who lose don't feel cheated.
The AZ system didn't inspire confidence.
Abrams lost but GA didn't have the counting problems that AZ did.
— GunFreeZone Blog (@GunFreeZone) November 20, 2022
No, YOU'RE dumb.
— jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) November 20, 2022
I’m going to try and reiterate my point here:
Our democracy functions with the peaceful transition of power when both sides, the winner and loser, agree that the voting system operated fairly and the election of the winner was the will of the majority (either direct or Electoral College, depending on the race) of the people.
That is supposed to temper our politics.
Thr losing side, ideally, will anend it’s positions to appeal to the majority next time. The winner, depending on their margin of victory, would also try and appeal to the majority so they don’t lose next time.
Fairness and moderation.
What happens when that fails?
What happens when the losing side feels that the system isn’t fair and they lost unjustly?
They are not inclined to trust the system. They feel disenfranchised.
And what about the winning side?
Are they tempted to moderation to appeal to the majority in reelection or are they tempted to go to extremes because their victory doesn’t require appealing to voters because they can manipulate the system?
What ultimately happens in this situation?
History shows us perfectly clearly: violence.
Political violence is held at bay by a properly functioning, fair and transparent political system.
Take that away and the losing side has every motivation to circumvent the system with force.
This happened in America, in the great state of Tennessee in the Battle of Athens (the McMinn County War).
Jim doesn’t understand the bear that he is poking.
“Hey, remember when I said I was concerned about the process that caused my candidate to lose and you said I was a sore loser and my concerns were stupid? Good, now get on your knees and face the ditch.”
I’d rather avoid the political violence, but I guess he doesn’t.
This is a major difference between a Western/First World democratic process, and a tribalistic/Third World. In the latter all that matters is whether “our guy” is in power. And seems to me, half of us are already there, and the other half are being driven to that attitude out of self-preservation.
If liberals win its screw you( remember obammy??, we won, get over it)… when America wins “the system is broken, we must change it”!!!
I am waaayyy past amnesty for leftists for ANY REASON. When the war they’ve been pushing for decades kicks off, there will be no quarter from either side. I just hope there are enough sane Americans left that are willing to fight for this countrys future. Sometimes I doubt it.
I do not care who came out ahead, if there was “questionable” events/happenings/things that went down during an election, it must be investigated. I would rather see my preferred candidate lose in a fair election, than squash any questioning of the results. Unanswered questions are not acceptable.
Sometimes I think Nixon should have chosen long-term good over short-term domestic peace and fought JFK’s steal. Or at least used the FBI and Marshalls against the Chicago machine once he was elected.