[bruiseralmighty]

>...false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of select past national elections, after final election results are officially certified. This currently applies to:

> * Any past U.S. Presidential election

> * The 2021 German federal election

I don't ascribe to election stealing myths; but my god, listing them out specifically really makes me question whether I'm wrong. It's like a blueprint for what to review further.

[justinlink]

Any past U.S. Presidential election? I'm sure there are a lot of old videos out there about Florida in 2000. Will youtube scrub them from history?

[trothamel]

How about every video that contains the idea of 'Russian collusion' in 2016?

[enragedcacti]

I'm not sure why everyone associates the russian collusion theory with election fraud. It has always primarily been the theory that the trump campaign and the russian government colluded to generate propaganda to support Trump's election. One aspect is that the russian government also attacked our election infrastructure but that isn't at all the core of the collusion theory or what Mueller investigated.

Illegal but not election fraud.

[tzs]

It said false claims. Florida 2000 really did have widespread errors or glitches.

[BrightGlow]

>It's like a blueprint for what to review further.

Why? Something going viral on social media is not proof or evidence that it happened or not. And as you know, without these policies anyone can spread false information about any election for any reason they want.

And the thing is: we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact. It's great to review things and to theorize about what would have happened if elections were run differently (there was a lot of this around the 2000 US election for example) but just saying something like "the election was fraud, Gore really won" is egregiously false and does nothing besides undermine the democratic process.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

>” we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact.”

Yes, it is a legal and historical fact these elections had a certified winner.

This misses the point, though. If the integrity of the election is in question, then let people discuss it.

Perhaps, in due time, the consensus will eventually shift and historians will recognize some underhanded things took place. We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect because of Chicago/Illinois. We know that there were major discrepancies in Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 Texas Senate primary. It’s all pretty well documented at this point. People who “voted” for LBJ signed affidavits that they never voted in the runoff and yet ballots were cast in their name. Sure, it does no good to declare that Nixon really won, or that Coke Stevenson should have been Senator. But it does mean the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight.

[BrightGlow]

I don't see how I am missing the point. Everything you've said would be mostly within the guidelines. Where you would get into trouble is if you did start saying "Nixon really won" or otherwise trying to say the election was fraudulent, because that would be false. You may want to re-read the guidelines to double check this.

But you may want to be careful with statements like "We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect". The election is not suspect and the end results (Kennedy won) are not going to change. It was settled decades ago. Specific events like you mention might have been suspect, but the election itself was not, it was settled legally according to the way the system worked at the time.

>the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight

But that's the thing though, just this saying this on social media in the context of any election is not meaningful and can cause harm, and is causing harm. Every election has statistical oddities, errors, disputes, recounts, and other issues. All of these mentioned election processes already do have oversight and formal reform procedures in place. That's all a normal and expected part of the process. It's a constant ongoing process to improve them. We can never make a perfect system so each election year we just do our best and then resolve the resulting legal disputes in the traditional manner. That's the way the system works.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

>“The election is not suspect and the end results (Nixon won) are not going to change. It was settled decades ago.”

From my point of view, “settled” does not mean the issue has been decisively proven or disproven. More often than not I see “settled” as meaning “nothing can be done about it”. Especially in terms of fraud and organized crime.

If you really dig into the 1960 election there are a ton of discrepancies and oddities that were investigated by partisan committees or had suspects end up having all charges against them dropped. In the 1948 Senate example, the SCOTUS case about the discrepancies was not taken up on jurisdiction grounds. So in that sense, no true ruling was ever made about the challenges in the case. But it is considered “settled” all the same.

>”In 1990, Robert Caro said, "People have been saying for 40 years, 'No one knows what really happened in that election,' and 'Everybody does it.' Neither of those statements is true. I don't think that this is the only election that was ever stolen, but there was never such brazen thievery." Caro said that Johnson was given the votes of "the dead, the halt, the missing and those who were unaware that an election was going on"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_United_States_Senate_el...

[BrightGlow]

I've read about plenty of this, all of that is completely normal. Every election people will try to game the system. It happens. We deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we do a better job than other times. It's not fundamentally different from any other social system.

>does not mean the issue has been decisively proven or disproven

Yeah you're technically right but the point is: that doesn't matter to the election. It's of historical interest only, you can't use it to try to prove that an election didn't happen the right way because our system doesn't work like that. Elections aren't decided based on an investigation that happened 60 years in the future, if that was the case then we could never have an election because we'd have to wait 60 years for the results.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

>” Elections aren't decided based on an investigation that happened 60 years in the future, if that was the case then we could never have an election because we'd have to wait 60 years for the results.”

That’s not quite what I’m getting at. The reason why I’m pointing to these 60+ year old elections is because people aren’t as emotionally charged about those elections in particular.

Elections can indeed be decided in the here-and-now, but the integrity questions still remain. That’s the key.

I feel like too many people are declaring the suspicions as moot and settled without actually looking taking the time and effort to investigate fully and properly. Emphasis on the fully and properly, because in the historical examples as well as the more recent examples, I see investigations being dismissed along partisan lines or because the courts did not want to get roiled in a constitutional crisis or a political revolt.

[Joker_vD]

Hey, at least you're allowed to (apparently, truthfully?) claim that fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the recent Russian parliament elections because there is no way the ruling party ought to have won those.

[scohesc]

I can't wait to see the list be modified further to include other countries that these companies want to gain footholds in by favoring local governments.

[ralph84]

So no discussion of the 1876 US Presidential election is allowed, despite everyone involved being dead and plenty of evidence of shenanigans.

[chrismcb]

So .. like the 2016 election that someone keeps claiming was stolen?

[sleepysysadmin]

>I don't ascribe to election stealing myths; but my god, listing them out specifically really makes me question whether I'm wrong. It's like a blueprint for what to review further.

Actions speak louder than words. More than half the US states have updated their election laws after that election.

The winner of the election in question publicly admitted to "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics" That needs much more explaining than has been provided.

By Biden's own words, he's the most popular US president in history. This isn't Trump, this is Biden who created this problem.

It only looks like it's real when you're banned from talking about it.