Colorado GOP without evidence alleges ‘systemic fraud’ and tells canvas boards not to certify November election

[essentialsaltes]

The Colorado Republican Party is advising county canvass boards to not certify results from the Nov. 7 statewide election, alleging without evidence that the process is a “rigged system” and promoting debunked conspiracy theories on election insecurity.

In an email sent to GOP supporters on Nov. 22, former state Rep. Ron Hanks, who now serves as the party’s Ballot and Election Security Committee chairman, wrote that certifying the election would imply the party’s “acceptance of a disastrous process and declare we acquiesced to their systemic fraud and personal corruption.”

County canvass boards are made up of members from both parties and look at data to check for accuracy of election night results. They are in charge of certifying the official abstract of votes by reconciling the number of ballots counted with the number of ballots cast, and the number of ballots cast with the number of people who voted. It is typically a non-controversial and simple process.

“I encourage members of the canvass board to follow election rules and procedure. We will not allow bad actors to interfere with the will of voters,” [CO SoS] Griswold said.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This un-little-d-democratic nonsense has to stop.

 

[Pommer]

This un-little-d-democratic nonsense has to stop.

From yon article:
“Hanks compared the canvass boards, however, to a “facade of citizen oversight and a rubber stamp.”

Apparently “oversight” here means changing the vote totals so that the “correct result” is achieved.
”Rubber stamp” is absolutely correct, though, canvas boards are supposed to see that all of the i’s are dotted and all of the t’s are crossed; nothing more.

 

[DaisyDay]

The Colorado Republican Party is advising county canvass boards to not certify results from the Nov. 7 statewide election, alleging without evidence that the process is a “rigged system” and promoting debunked conspiracy theories on election insecurity.

In an email sent to GOP supporters on Nov. 22, former state Rep. Ron Hanks, who now serves as the party’s Ballot and Election Security Committee chairman, wrote that certifying the election would imply the party’s “acceptance of a disastrous process and declare we acquiesced to their systemic fraud and personal corruption.”

County canvass boards are made up of members from both parties and look at data to check for accuracy of election night results. They are in charge of certifying the official abstract of votes by reconciling the number of ballots counted with the number of ballots cast, and the number of ballots cast with the number of people who voted. It is typically a non-controversial and simple process.

“I encourage members of the canvass board to follow election rules and procedure. We will not allow bad actors to interfere with the will of voters,” [CO SoS] Griswold said.

Former state rep. Sore loser.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Colorado Republican Party is advising county canvass boards to not certify results from the Nov. 7 statewide election, alleging without evidence that the process is a “rigged system” and promoting debunked conspiracy theories on election insecurity.

In an email sent to GOP supporters on Nov. 22, former state Rep. Ron Hanks, who now serves as the party’s Ballot and Election Security Committee chairman, wrote that certifying the election would imply the party’s “acceptance of a disastrous process and declare we acquiesced to their systemic fraud and personal corruption.”

County canvass boards are made up of members from both parties and look at data to check for accuracy of election night results. They are in charge of certifying the official abstract of votes by reconciling the number of ballots counted with the number of ballots cast, and the number of ballots cast with the number of people who voted. It is typically a non-controversial and simple process.

“I encourage members of the canvass board to follow election rules and procedure. We will not allow bad actors to interfere with the will of voters,” [CO SoS] Griswold said.

To be fair...when you throw the word "systemic" in front of something, nobody expects or requires evidence.

 

[JustOneWay]

To be fair...when you throw the word "systemic" in front of something, nobody expects or requires evidence.

To be fair, that is entirely untrue. Evidence is the main thing required in order to use the 'systemic' label. Just admit it, in this case, there was no evidence provided, and the republicans in Colorado are using the same failed accusations most of the republicans use today without much success. I do think it is interesting how you downplayed the republican false statements.

Hopefully Dominion goes after the Colorado republicans like they did Fox News.

 

[KCfromNC]

This un-little-d-democratic nonsense has to stop.

The other option is for the GOP to adopt policies which are palatable to a large enough majority of voters to win elections fairly, and we all know how likely that is.

 

[Desk trauma]

The other option is for the GOP to adopt policies which are palatable to a large enough majority of voters to win elections fairly, and we all know how likely that is.

Hence their reliance on crying fraud.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To be fair, that is entirely untrue. Evidence is the main thing required in order to use the 'systemic' label.

Not really.

Lots of people were throwing around the term "systemic racism" for years without a shred of evidence.

 

[Pommer]

Not really.

Lots of people were throwing around the term "systemic racism" for years without a shred of evidence.

Oh, they had evidence but not evidence that was acceptable by you. Minor difference.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, they had evidence but not evidence that was acceptable by you. Minor difference.

I'd agree that we have different ideas for "evidence".

It seems to swing wildly though, depending on whom you ask, because nobody seems quite clear as to what "systemic racism" actually is.

Some people would point to the results of a system as evidence it's racist.

Some point to historical examples of racism within a system that don't typically exist today.

Some pointed to anecdotal examples as evidence of something systemic.

I, admittedly, always expected (wait for it) examples of racism engrained within a system. It seems like the type of evidence one needs to show that a system is racist. They seem to be rather difficult to come by though.

 

[DaisyDay]

I, admittedly, always expected (wait for it) examples of racism engrained within a system. It seems like the type of evidence one needs to show that a system is racist. They seem to be rather difficult to come by though.

I seem to recall, although I could be mistaken, when you declared that unless something were official policy, preferably written in the handbook, it didn't count as "systemic".

Now you seem to be arguing that since there is no such thing as "systemic racism" (currently in the United States) there must also be no such thing as "systemic fraud". But perhaps I misunderstand you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I seem to recall, although I could be mistaken, when you declared that unless something were official policy, preferably written in the handbook, it didn't count as "systemic".

Close...

I think in discussions of "systemic racism in policing" I would argue that we can remove everything that isn't racist like the department buildings, uniforms, guns, etc....and you'd be left with stuff like policies, practices, training, laws, and people.

I'm impressed you remembered. The point I was making though, is that one need not turn off their brain just because the word "systemic" got used to describe something. All systems are finite. It's not that complicated.

Now you seem to be arguing that since there is no such thing as "systemic racism" (currently in the United States) there must also be no such thing as "systemic fraud". But perhaps I misunderstand you?

Really more of a joke really...I don't actually remember what this thread is about. Who got elected to what again?

 

[The Barbarian]

Lots of people were throwing around the term "systemic racism" for years without a shred of evidence.

Turns out, black motorists are stopped by police more often than white motorists, even though white motorists are more likely to be carrying contraband. But... the difference goes away at night, when it's harder to tell the race of the motorist.

The largest-ever study of alleged racial profiling during traffic stops has found that blacks, who are pulled over more frequently than whites by day, are much less likely to be stopped after sunset, when “a veil of darkness” masks their race.

Black drivers get pulled over by police less at night when their race is obscured by ‘veil of darkness,’ Stanford study finds

The study also found that once stopped, black drivers were searched about 1.5 to 2 times as often as white drivers, while they were less likely to be carrying drugs, guns, or other illegal contraband compared to their white peers.

Research Shows Black Drivers More Likely to Be Stopped by Police

There's more, if you want more. But it doesn't come much more systemic than that.

"Systemic fraud" would be something like repeatedly and falsely inflating the value of one's properties to get loans, while at the same time, repeatedly and falsely minimizing the same values for tax purposes.

Which is why the Trump organization is about to be disbanded in New York.