Why are people here always posting underhanded digs at people's motives without any explanation?

I think the OP makes a good point. I think Democrats need to be a bit more nuanced in calling out Trump's attempts to delegitimize the election. Obviously, what he is doing is dangerous and undermines confidence in the election without justification, but I am afraid Democrats criticizing him for it are not doing enough to distinguish what he is doing from Bush v. Gore or other legitimate efforts in the past or the future to contest voter suppression and failure to count every vote.

The night I posted this I was surprised, and disturbed, to find the response was 100% negative. I thought I had entered some sort of alternative DU universe. It's nice to see that there are some others who share a concern -- a concern that I didn't think would be at all controversial.

All I'm saying is that committing to accept results unconditionally is a mistake.

If you read what I'd love to hear her say, you will see that it shoots down Trumps "voter fraud" crap and sends a warning about his poll watching thugs.

1. We'll wait and see if I accept them.
2. I'll accept them barring an election so close that a recount is in order.

1. is the bullshit Trump is spewing.
2. is the right answer.

Gore did 2. If you, and others, can't see the difference between what Gore did and what Trump is saying, then there really isn't much hope for you, and others.

If there are no clear results, then there's no decision.

There will always be results because people vote and polls close. As history has shown, there may not be a clear decision.

Regardless, I understand the OP's concern but I think Clinton had to make that promise if for no other reason than it highlights Trump's ridiculous behavior.

... to make a blanket statement in the debate. I would just like to see some "post-debate" clarification along the lines of what I proposed. Clarifying statements that:

-- refute Trump's "voter fraud" claims (it is simply not a concern, as demonstrated by the fact that, no matter how hard they look, they can only come up with a handful of examples of it having happened in the past.)

-- acknowledge that systematic voter suppression is a concern, and has resulted in the disenfranchisement of substantial numbers in the past;

-- declare a commitment to prevent such disenfranchisement in this election;

-- warn Trump "poll watching" thugs that there will be consequences if they disrupt orderly voting processes;

-- commit to demanding a remedy (contesting) if flawed processes -- whether intentional or not -- deny people their right to cast their ballot, or have that ballot counted.

These things don't need to be said in a single statement, but they need to be said, and it needs to come from the top (from Hillary).

Of course, you are right, it's completely understandable that she would make a blanket statement, and leave it at that in the context of the debate. But, since then, their exchange on the subject is getting an enormous amount of attention -- and the sort of statements I'm hearing are dangerous in that they are promoting the meme "contesting = bad thing."

Perhaps enough people will turn out for her that she'll still win, even if significant numbers are denied their voting rights. But, past experiences tells us that instances of systematic voter suppression are likely to occur, and if they do, it could put the results of ticket races in doubt. It may be necessary for some to refuse to concede; to contest results. We don't need statements out there that can be used to condemn those who do contest as hypocrites or "sore losers."

accepted. The consequences of not accepting it over minor problems will lead to tragedy.

Last edited Thu Oct 20, 2016, 02:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Unbelievable.

They should have stood and fought to preserve our democracy --- fought to see that the electors appointed pursuant to the hopelessly corrupt 2000 Florida election were tossed out; fought to see that the electors appointed pursuant to the hopelessly corrupt Ohio election were tossed out.

Unfortunately, we are where we are today because they did not. They fell victim to some topsy turvy notion that "accepting results" meant that the legitimate winner should actually concede.

I think the election of 2000 was within the margin of error and there is no way to tell who won. SCOTUS should have stayed out of it, but they are the top court and when they ruled it was over. You simply have to accept election results...Gore would not have been in this position except for the Greens and that tool Nader. It sounds like you agree with Trump...I don't.

The fact of incompleteness is all the "proof" required. It is an undeniable fact. SCOTUS stopped the count and in so doing rendered the election unlawful under Florida law.

Electors appointed pursuant to an unlawful election are themselves unlawfully appointed. Stephen Breyer made it clear in his dissent to Bush v. Gore what the law requires be done about that.

The Electoral Count Act makes it the duty of Congress to ultimately resolve such a situation. In quoting the legislative history, he cites that:

They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes…

And further that:

The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government." Bush v. Gore, J. Breyer dissent (11) December 12, 2000

Had Congress tossed out the FL electors as the law required, Gore would have had the majority of the counted electors and have been sworn in.

Congress failed in its duty. They failed to "preserve the government" and the price we, and people around the world, are paying for that failure is incalculable.

And to add insult to injury, they failed again when they, having already stood by and watched Bush/Cheney steal the election in plain sight, watched the Bush administration torture in plain sight and refused to impeach.

the highest court in the land...it became the law...and that was that...you don't like our system? Then change it, but until that time we have to abide by it.

Electoral Count Act. THAT is the law.

All SCOTUS did was stop the count and thereby render the Florida election unlawful under Florida law -- and render the electors appointed pursuant to the unlawful election void.

See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2528271

The whole "tanks in the street" propaganda is just that -- propaganda.

No "fight' would have been involved had Congress fulfilled the duty which the law assigns to it. Simply application of the law. Peaceful and LEGITMATE transition of power. The destructive force of the immoral and illegal installation of Bush has inflicted damage from which this nation -- and the middle east -- may never recover.

I was upset at first when Kerry conceded, but overall I believe he did the right thing. Even though there were legitimate challenges he could have brought, he lost the nationwide popular vote and the vote wasn't nearly as close in Ohio as it was in Florida in 2000. Had Kerry mounted a protracted challenge to the results of the first presidential election after 2000, it might have made that the new normal and either undermined confidence in the system and/or made the Democratic Party look like a party of sore losers.

That said, many many votes were suppressed in 2004, in Ohio and elsewhere. Kerry's concession meant that nobody fought for provisional votes that should have been counted to be counted.

It goes without saying the type of fraud Trump is whining about almost never happens and that what he is doing is dangerous. But there are legitimate concerns about vote rigging, which may take the form of voter suppression, voter intimidation, hacking the voter registration databases to remove registered voters, refusal to count provisional votes, improper purges, or even tampering with the voting machines themselves (highly unlikely on a national scale but not impossible at the individual precinct level).

I think the OP is right that Clinton and other Democrats, while calling Trump out for his reckless conduct, should be more nuanced in distinguishing between legitimate election challenges and bogus efforts to undermine confidence in the result without basis. It is a fine line, because even legitimate challenges can have the effect of undermining confidence.

looks like you are in the wrong blog.....FreeRepublic would suit you better.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4522713/objection-ohios-electoral-votes

nm

'wait and see'...and it would hurt her. Why would you suggest such a thing?

Principles matter.

The Supreme court is the highest court in the land...and has the final say. What you are suggesting is anarchy. I am against flouting laws...change laws if needed but you can't have a lawless society.

...assigns the duty to Congress. All SCOTUS did when the stopped the count was render the Florida election incomplete and therefore unlawful. The Electoral Count Act assigns Congress the duty to judge the legality of the electors, and reject those appointed pursuant to unlawful elections. Their duty was absolutely clear. There was absolutely NO question that that Florida election was, by definition, incomplete and therefore unlawful.

Justice Stephen Breyer set forth the requirements. Citations here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2528271

stopped the count but Al Gore accepted the outcome for the good of the country. John Kerry accepted the results of the 2004 election.

Allowing an unlawful result to stand for the "good of the country" is not courageous or right, it is cowardly and wrong.

As Stephen Breyer pointed out in his dissent to Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS had no place in the process. The Electoral Count Act makes it the duty of Congress to ultimately resolve such a situation. In quoting the legislative history, he cites that:

They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes…

And further that:

The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government." Bush v. Gore, J. Breyer dissent (11) December 12, 2000

An election belongs to the voters, not the candidates. The courageous and right thing for Gore to have done for the "good of the country" would have been to fight for the voters and demand that Congress do it's duty and toss out the Electors appointed pursuant to the incomplete, and therefore unlawful, Florida election.

Ditto for Kerry in 2004.

Allowing an election to be stolen in plain sight in 2000 was a critical turning point in our dissent into hell. Had Gore fought to make sure the voters who sent him to victory saw their will made manifest, the world would be a very different -- and I believe far better -- place.

Very well presented! Bravo! K&R

Once upon a time, a vast majority on this board were well aware of the facts -- with a substantial contingent (me included) "on the ground" in DC, lobbying for an objection to the Ohio electors in 2004; fighting to prevent a repeat of 2000.

I'm extremely surprised, and disturbed, the so many current DUer's have fallen victim to the propaganda -- "tanks on the street"and whatnot if Gore had simply called on Congress to do its duty under the law. I've been away for a long time. I'm discovering that DU has changed in a way that scares me.

with his protest it would have put the country in chaos for months or years. Most likely GWB would have been appointed by Congress anyway.

Pointing out the dictates of the electoral count act -- and calling on congress to render judgement as the law requires -- are not actions that would provoke "chaos." The processes are straightforward, and the principles at stake clear. No "tanks on the streets" -- as some pundits at the time asserted would happen if Gore stood up and called for an objection to the unlawful Florida electors.

Potential outcome is irrelevant. Standing up for law and principle is on something as fundamental as the integrity of our elections is a moral imperative.

You make my point. Lauding Gore's cowardly and unprincipled concession as a good thing, and countering Trumps unfounded "rigged" assertions with unconditional statements that leave no room for the fact that elections can be corrupted by systematic disenfranchisement, is a problem. The unequivocal and unconditional statements will be used to attack any who have legitimate reasons to contest. They are a denial of reality that sets the stage for future stolen elections. It doesn't take much to effectively counter Trumps BS without making such unequivocal statements. What I propose is pretty simple. The negative response it the OP, and the support of concession being expressed here, even when it is obvious that the results are illegitimate, as they were in 2000, is shocking.

Clogged this site for a year or more.

Ohio 2004 results were scrutinized and attacked here largely based on the overboard hype toward Kerry's chances.

Interview with Stephanie Tubbs Jones

It is an established fact that Ohio electors in 2004 were appointed pursuit to a hopelessly corrupt election. Principle demanded they be objected to, and rejected. Passionate and principled people lobbied, and succeeded in getting Barbara Boxer to join in the objection. The truth about the theft of Ohio is on the Congressional record and forever stains the Bush presidency.

And then there's 2000. Gore betrayed us when he conceded to the unlawfully appointed Florida electors. In his dissent, Stephen Breyer told Gore, and Congress, exactly what needed to happen.

Unlike 2004, when we were able to bring a Senator on board, the pleas from Members of Congress fell on deaf ears.

There was suppression in Ohio but nothing on the scale to overcome Bush's margin.

This site was preconditioned to attack the result. The Election Reform forum began under good intentions but it turned into mostly looney tune paranoia, partially saved in later years only by two fantastic posters named OnTheOtherHand and Febble.

The facts refute your assertion that the suppression was "nothing on the scale to overcome Bush's margin."

http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/what-went-wrong-in-ohio-products-9780897335355.php

we lost about 600,000 dead for it.

... there would be "tanks in the streets" if Gore didn't concede.

Utter crap. We have a process for dealing with corrupt state elections. As Stephen Breyer pointed out in his dissent to Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS had no place in the process. The Electoral Count Act makes it the duty of Congress to ultimately resolve such a situation. In quoting the legislative history, he cites that:

They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes…

And further that:

The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government." Bush v. Gore, J. Breyer dissent (11) December 12, 2000

An election belongs to the voters, not the candidates. The courageous and right thing for Gore to have done for the "good of the country" would have been to fight for the voters and demand that Congress do it's duty and toss out the Electors appointed pursuant to the incomplete, and therefore unlawful, Florida election.

And if Congress had done it's duty and rejected the Florida electors, Gore would have been sworn in and that would be that. No civil war. No "tanks in the streets."

would not have supported Gore and instead would have installed Bush

... stand and fight for law and principle against the odds. Silly to ask. MLK should have stayed home too. And what the hell was Ghandi thinking?

no matter how close or how many issues come up. It means accepting the whole process, including the contesting process and any court cases that result. It means accepting the final decision of the election office and/or the courts.

Which is why a statement along the lines of what I proposed needs to be said.

I don't know why you are being so strenuously attacked for it.

I'm surprised, and distressed, by the number, and vigor, of the negative responses. The night I posted it, it was 100% attack. I thought I had entered some sort of DU alternate universe. The next morning, and today, it's been nice to get a little validation -- it gives me some hope to find that there are at least some people here who share my concerns.

He could have said that under some extreme or infrequent circumstances, he might not accept the results... but instead, he's clearly trying to imply that the election is rigged against him if he doesn't win (and it will still be rigged against him even if he does win). He's trying to undermine our election system, there's no reason to make excuses for him.

We just need make it clear that, unlike the non-existent "voter fraud" problem, systematic voter suppression has been a serious problem in the past. It's legitimate to challenge results when systematic suppression is in evidence.

Clinton's response, and the things many others are saying, surprise me because the statements are so "black v. white." Acceptance=good v. Contest = bad. The rhetoric effectively closes off the notion that there are instances in which acceptance must be reserved pending investigation. Perhaps "everybody knows" this, but when taking the words I'm hearing at face value (and that is how they'll be thrown back at us) there are no caveats or possible exceptions.

Trump is making excuses before he loses pretending that millions of dead people are voting democrat.

I understand the points that you are trying to make, but your point isn't at all Trump's point.

Last edited Thu Oct 20, 2016, 06:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Never said it was.

If you read what I wrote in the OP, it should be pretty clear that I recognize the difference between voter suppression and voter fraud. (And BTW, "election fraud" does not equal "voter fraud.&quot .

I believe we need to clarify the rhetoric coming out of "our side" -- acknowledge actual problems, while exposing Trump's phony "fraud" claims for what they are.

Not a radical notion.

I'm shocked at the negative response to my OP. All I'm suggesting is that we be more explicit about reality -- about the fact that there are circumstances in which contesting results is not just a legitimate thing to do, it is a moral responsibility. Doing so doesn't legitimize anything that Trump is saying in any way. And if you read what I proposed as a "clarification" it should be pretty clear that such clarifying statements present an opportunity to challenge Trump BS.

I suggest you listen to the way pundits, politicos, DUer's, and others are talking about the whole "Trump sez "wait and see" vs. Hillary's unconditional commitment to accept results. I think you may begin to see the problem -- that many of the statements from "the good guys" leave no room for legitimate contest. They seem to go out of their way to ignore the existence of any problems -- even very real ones like systematic voter suppression.

Too many people appear to be operating under the misapprehension that if we acknowledge real problems, we are somehow legitimizing Trump's "rigged" claims. That's simply not the case. The real problems involve efforts, largely on the part of Republican controlled state and local governments, to defund elections, cut polling places that serve disadvantaged, minority and student populations, and take other measures to create barriers for people believed to more likely to vote democratic. Pointing out these problems does feed into Trumps narrative. It undermines it. Stating that we are determined to see that any voter who was unable to vote because of long lines on election day (whether caused by trump "poll watchers" or anything else) is afforded an opportunity to vote after the fact does not feed into Trumps narrative. It is a simple commitment to protect our democratic process.

Bottom line. If our words don't explicitly leave room for legitimate contest, then those words will be used against us if circumstances call on us to contest results of any of our local, state, or federal elections.

However, an unconditional commitment NOT to accept the results is equally as bad.

If Trump falls out of an airplane without a parachute, he may not accept what gravity has in mind for him, either, but the laws of physics will take the decision out of his hands in short order. He can decline to accept the results of the election, too, but the laws of the United States will take decision out of his hands in short order, as well.

Wallace said in his question about peaceful transference of power and acceptance once that is done is the way I took it.

An explicit acknowledgement that the process can, legitimately, involve contest.

I'd just like to see her make a clarifying statement that challenges Trump's "voter fraud" bullshit, acknowledges the reality of voter suppression, and the need to be vigilant to prevent it, and warns about the danger of Trump's poll watching thugs. (Something along the lines of what I put in the OP.)

A blanket assertion that our elections are fine and dandy is one way to refute Trump's "rigged" assertion, but it's a very problematic way. It's not that simple, and pretending it is creates problems.

Nov 8 won't be fine and dandy if Trump thugs are out in force making unnecessary challenges and creating insane lines that could disenfranchise enough people to allow Repubs to hold onto seats in the House and Senate they would otherwise lose. With an unconditional "contesting = bad" meme firmly in place, candidates down ticket are less likely to challenge questionable results from effed up elections. And if there are instances of systematic suppression, if we aren't careful, our own words about whiny Trump will be thrown back at us when we raise those issues.

I realize that many assume there are caveats behind what she said, and have a clear picture of what they are, but when those caveats are unvoiced, the "face value" statement "I'll accept whatever the results are" can become a weapon against us.

To not accept the results and instead create a shadow government is unconscionable.

Really?

The only thing I am pointing out in the original post is that Hillary's answer leaves no room for legitimate contest. That omission is a serious error. It creates problems.

The OP doesn't say anything that can remotely be interpreted as any sort of endorsement of Trump's contentions about "rigging" and "voter fraud" (and in fact, the clarification I suggest Clinton could make explicitly shoots down Trump's "voter fraud" bullshit and warns against his "poll watching" thugs.)

And it doesn't say anything that could possibly be construed as an endorsement of creating a "shadow government."

It's never happened before and it is borderline treasonous.

Trump's lawyers will let him know of this quite readily after he loses by double digits.

Please, please, let him call the result illegitimate and cause mass protests by his supporters.

He will never see the light of day again.

And she should do no such thing.

http://www.fairvote.org/american_elections_ranked_worst_among_older_democracies_here_s_why

Founding fathers and mothers. So the U.S. does NOT have the oldest democracy on the planet. Sorry to burst your bubble there.

Accepting the results of an election doesn't mean you don't contest a suspicious loss or legitimate questions. But, sooner or later the system resolves those legitimate questions, and like it or not you accept the results. After the Supremes rules against Gore, he accepted the results, even though many of us were suspicious. After JFK won, the Republicans questioned vote tallies in 11 different states. But, in both cases, in the end they accepted the results of the election in the interests of the smooth transition of power and thus helped preserve the democracy and the democratic traditions. A candidate for President needs to work according to the rules of the system. They are running to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. If Gore had ignored the Supremes, then he's not respecting the Constitution. If there needs to be a struggle after that, that's not up to the candidate, it's up to the people.

Accepting the results of an election is an essential part of democracy. Saying you believe that is not giving up your right to contest suspicious results.

...do not express the caveat that "this does not mean I am giving up my right to contest suspicious results."

Some of the statements I've heard would make very good ammunition against a candidate that might consider contesting results.

What I'm saying is pretty simple. Make the caveats/conditions explicit. This is not a radical notion. I'm shocked at the negative response to the OP.

Sure, if contesting results becomes necessary, a candidate could say "Well, I didn't mean we should give up our right to contest and investigate." Nevertheless, if the candidate made the sort of unqualified statements that Trump needs to commit, in advance, to accept whatever the results are that I'm hearing, that statement will be trotted out and used to brand the candidate as a hypocrite.

he or she will accept the result of election. Citizens are not so stupid that they can't respect a candidates commitment to the democratic process while simultaneously understanding that circumstances could arise in which elections results might need to be contested.

For an attorney in court of arguing a case, listing the stipulations under which an election result would be acceptable, may be a good strategy. In a debate between two presidential candidates it is not, particularly if a candidate is suspected of having an authoritarian, anti-democratic streak in his character. Saying "I might not accept the result if I lose" does not help your case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512527769#post29

By our laws...the Supreme Court had the final say. When they ruled it was over, and Gore had no choice. He had to concede. He had lost. There was nothing else to do within the law and his resignation protected our Republic. Donald Trump is scum and threatens our very Democracy. We will from time to time have close elections...and someone has to win and someone has to lose within the system. The reality is that the 2000 election was within the margin of error. 1960 was the same sort of thing. 2016 is no such thing so Trump plans to use dead people on the rolls as an excuse to delegitimize the presidency and our Republic, he is wrong and anyone who adds a 'but' to this solemn duty is wrong.

Actually, in stopping the count, SCOTUS rendered the FL election incomplete, and therefore unlawful under FL law.

Electors appointed pursuant to an unlawful election are themselves unlawfully appointed. Stephen Breyer made it clear in his dissent to Bush v. Gore what the law requires be done about that.

The Electoral Count Act makes it the duty of Congress to ultimately resolve such a situation. In quoting the legislative history, he cites that:

They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes…

And further that:

The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government." Bush v. Gore, J. Breyer dissent (11) December 12, 2000

Had Congress tossed out the FL electors as the law required, Gore would have had the majority of the counted electors and have been sworn in.

Congress failed in its duty. They failed to "preserve the government" and the price we, and people around the world, are paying for that failure is incalculable.

And to add insult to injury, they failed again when they, having already stood by and watched Bush/Cheney steal the election in plain sight, watched the Bush administration torture in plain sight and refused to impeach.

and the election would be determined by the House, which was in republican control, and bush would have been elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/106th_United_States_Congress

12th amendment says nothing about requiring more than half of 270. It calls for a majority -- i.e., a majority of counted votes. Invalid votes don't count by definition.

the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[Note 1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[1]

Votes rejected under the Electoral Count Act cannot be counted. Winner of a majority of the counted votes is President.

This was discussed throughly during the George Wallace 3rd party run, Ross Perot and other times

...your contention.

Under the 12th, the winner is the winner of a majority of the COUNTED electoral votes.

Didn't subtract 20 from 538

Thanks

Breyer dissented...there is no appeal...and if you flout SCOTUS...the consequences for other issues would be dire.

Simple. Moral. Lawful.

See my answers to your other posts.

the nuance you're speaking about was conveyed in the debate or post debate in the media. They have only used it to further concrete the notion that questioning our great democracy is the territory of cry-babies and tin-foil hat wearers like Trump.

That has been and continues to be dangerous to the integrity of our democracy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2528531

There will be no arguing with a landslide.

Local elections, state elections, federal elections... there are a whole bunch of elections on Nov 8 that could potentially be corrupted by systematic suppression. I have little doubt that there will be situations in which contesting results, or demanding investigation of processes, will be necessary to protect the integrity of our elections.

Bottom line: If our words don't explicitly leave room for legitimate contest, then those words will be used against us if circumstances call on us to contest results.

More in an earlier reply:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512527769#post42

of a legitimate election system. The media is practically creaming itself watching a clown like Trump do their work for them. All they have to do is point and say, "crazy, no?"

This kind of shit is so sad. OP is trying to get you to think beyond the terms of this election. You come back with shit about Trump, which truly misses the point.

Better luck next time.

He's been bandying about regarding how the system's rigged against him; priming these new-age fascist, wannabe skinhead-ass white people to riot as soon as the final count comes. With him? We don't have the luxury to accept a "we'll see". Not with how he's been riling his base.

it's fine to question the votes if there are irregularities. But if a winner is certified, you concede.

people will be quick to laugh at your questioning, and nothing at all will be done about the irregularities because the media wasn't even tasked or pressured to go after your facts. It was simply enough to go after your assertion.

We shouldn't be helping the media to insulate itself from criticism by reinforcing this imaginary wall they've put up around issues of questioning the legitimacy of our elections.

Sure, the right thing to do is concede when you've lost, even when it wasn't a legitimate loss, because to not do so could do so much harm to not just your brand, but to the positions you care about. Trump clearly doesn't give a shit about anything but himself, so that's not going to be an issue. But accepting a dubious result is also akin to accepting and reinforcing a legitimacy that may be an illusion.

Unfortunately on the flip side, any criticism or claim levied has the potential to be, and frankly almost always is, coopted and distorted to different ends by people like Trump. The media's job should be to make distinctions between claims based upon their merits. What the media does instead is to blanketly laugh at them all. If Trump is the biggest clown on scene, then he becomes the poster child not just for his own claims, but for any and all claims of election malfeasance, because our media frankly sucks.

There are legitimate reasons to question an election, and I personally don't think Trump saying he would see is a big deal. And you're right about the media having an imaginary set of rules that candidates don't question. It's almost like the media wants to cover up any evidence of vote fraud...

the idea that when you lose the presidency or any election...you go looking for things that were wrong with the election results and no election will be 100% perfect by the way which is why we have a margin of error... would destroy our elections and ultimately our Republic. There was a recount with Gore. It went to SCOTUS and it was over. Gore did the right thing as did Kerry in 04.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2528271

would not destroy our elections...we can not have every election contested...it simply must not happen. Donald is wrong about the wait and see...and I disagree with your position as well. The peaceful transfer of power...within the law...is a pillar of our Republican and must continue.

...and allowing the election to be stolen in plain sight destroyed the bedrock principle on which our nation is built; the principle that that our elected officials take office in accord with a lawful process.

As cited in the linked post, SCOTUS had NO place in resolving the controversy under the law. The Electoral Count Act serves as the backstop against corrupt state elections. All SCOTUS did was render the FL election incomplete. Appointing electors pursuant to that incomplete election was a blatant violation of Florida election law. All SCOTUS did in stopping the count was render that election void under the law. And the ONLY thing that could have preserved the integrity our election process, and a LEGITIMATE, peaceful, transition was for Congress to fulfill its obligation to judge the electors, reject the Florida electors, and determine the outcome on a count of the remaining, legitimately appointed electors.

The damage done by allowing the corruption of that election is incalculable.

Or are we talking about two different things?

Many folks here still say that was illegitimate. I think the Supreme Court should have stayed out and let the recount finish. The result may have been the same, but I personally think something was fishy there in Florida.

But we can't be hypocrites about this. If Trump won, we would want Hillary to contest it, if there was any evidence of shenanigans.

I'm just suggesting us "good guys" be a little clearer about the fact that there are instances in which contesting results is legitimate, and sometimes even demanded the preserve the integrity of our elections.

And in re: Florida
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512527769#post64

election system and election results comes from a place of sore-loserdome, and people on this board distress me too often with their ability to be so go team that they never look at the underlying principles. Clinton bludgeoned Trump hard, and justly on this point, because he IS being a sore loser. He's ignoring the fact that he's only in this race because of the media. But that doesn't make the message she and the media is sending right.

Did the media totally rig this election? They definitely did their part, by initially pumping up and refusing to vet a horrible candidate. They just abdicated their responsibility to report anything of substance about this man until the debates. which is what I predicted they would do all along.

It is a dangerous precedent to let the media set the terms of what is off limits to consider and talk about. They should attack Trump on his assertion, not because it is his assertion, but because when you look at the facts, his narrative is grossly flawed. Instead, the media, and in this case Hillary as well, are helping to solidify a set of rules that says questioning the election system is itself illegitimate and should be laughed at. That's convenient, since the media is basically shielding themselves from criticism as well, even while they very much do have a hand in swaying our elections. But I must only be saying that because I'm a sore loser, even though I want Clinton to beat Trump.

Thanks for framing the problem so well.

I expected push back, but the overwhelming negative response to my post last night surprised me. I'm an old time DUer whose been away for quite awhile. There were always some who are "so team that they never look at the underlying principles" but their numbers appear to have multiplied. This morning it was nice to see that there are at least a few people here who share my concerns.

We're looking at an election where Hillary is likely to pull 350 EV or more. You can't rig or steal a landslide. If this were a tight race, then yes, some qualifications about accepting the results would be prudent.

In this case it is Trump who needs to clarify his words. He is setting up a situation where he will cry "Rigged" regardless of the outcome.

Gore conceded prematurely. That is true. Ohio in 2004 was a travesty and, at least congress was forced to debate the issue. Both Gore and Kerry failed the American people in those cases proving they were unfit to be president anyway. If you're not willing to fight for office, you don't deserve it.

...which is being expressed as a general principle that I find problematic. On this thread there are folks asserting that Hillary's unconditional commitment that she would never contest results is a necessary counter to Trump; that any concession that it is possible for the integrity this election -- and by extension, any election -- to be threatened by systematic voter suppression, somehow bolsters Trump's insanity.

Gore's concession "for the good of the country" is being cited to support the "contest = bad" meme. That's a problem.

Countering Trump's blanket assertion "election is rigged and shall be contested" with a contradictory blanket assertion that "there are no problems and it would be terrible to contest results" is extremely problematic. As you say Context Is Important, and the statements made need to be put into contest. I provided an outline of one way that context could be framed in the OP.

Perhaps the fix is in on their side, and by getting everyone to say that, absolutely, the results of the election should be accepted, they have all of us falling on our sword over a stolen election

"in certain areas," intimidating and creating impossible lines with absurd challenges.

Even if it is a certainty that enough Hillary voters will turn out that it won't matter how many people are prevented from casting their vote, or having their vote count, the presidential election isn't the only election happening on Nov 8. Systematic suppression can -- and if Trump has his way, almost certainly will -- affect down ticket races.

Making a commitment to be vigilant to prevent such suppression, and making a commitment to demand remedies (to contest) if it occurs, is necessary to protect the integrity of all our elections -- this year and in the future. Such a commitment to integrity of elections needs to be loud and clear, and come from the TOP (i.e., from Hillary). It cannot be left as some unspoken, assumed, thing. ("We all know that contesting results is sometimes necessary, even though no prominent voices are actually saying it" doesn't cut it.)

Surely you'd contest that?

Not necessarily in the way you said it, but there are legit concerns about hackers tampering with voter registration databases, as well as the usual Republican voter purges, misinformation, voter intimidation, and other tricks they use to suppress the vote. I think by making such absolute statements about accepting the results of the election, Democrats are undermining their own potential legitimate challenges to the presidential or downballot election results.

That's it. In a nutshell.

Thanks!