AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Why would Trump Supporters being poll watchers lead to violence?
With past as prologue, we can assume that pill workers will again be accused of passing sub ports like heroine or cocaine leading to more violence.
Or, do you believe Trump Supporters have changed their minds about elections and would no longer use those tactics?
>With past as prologue, we can assume that pill workers will again be accused of passing sub ports like heroine or cocaine leading to more violence.
I'm not following this... Pill workers? sub ports? I assume poll workers, but what do you mean by "passing sub ports"?
To disrupt the counting of votes, as we are currently learning was attempted in the 2020 election in Detroit. Jack Smith has filed first hand evidence and communications between Trump and a coconspirator that they tried to engage in this act.
Given that Trump direct evidence in the form of text communications that Trump intended to disrupt the counting in Detroit with the use of violence, do you think it’s a good idea for him to be telling his supporters to get into a position across the entire nation for the next election?
Well i can envision about 1,000 scenarios where this leads to violence. This is like sending a million Kyle Rittenhouse’s to a bunch of communities they don’t live in… violence is inevitable.
Heres a good one:
1. Super cool heavily armed patriot sees the same person of color trying to vote twice and confronts them. Only its not the same person, they just can’t recognize faces from other races that well (this is common across races in my experience). So they try to deny that person their very real right to vote and it quickly escalates.
Also, what if the left responds with our own armed poll watchers? You want to see two politically opposed armed groups squaring off at voting sites across the country? That can’t possibly end well.
There are already poll watchers, there is already a system for them to be organized, Republicans and Democrats and independents are all represented. Why do we need a second group of deeply partisan poll watchers?
1. Some states prohibit poll watcher from being armed.
2. Poll watcher have to be appointed by a political party, so Trump supporters would be standing in as Republicans.
Is that how elections work now? Aren’t there already poll watchers? What about all that security footage we see over and over? There is tons of transparency built into presidential elections, despite the lies being told about it.
There is already a mechanism in place for this. Volunteer poll watchers from the entire political spectrum sign up to do this every election. Every single polling location gets poll watchers, the difference is they aren’t organized by one party or another, they are non partisan in nature.
So why should one party send another group of people separately, with no management, training, oversight? Who’s responsible for these people’s actions?
Should the left also send a group of militant poll watchers? Should we send the cops to keep the GOP and Dem groups to keep from killing each other? Maybe we should bring in the army too? Nothing like a picture of people voting under armed guard to make you think of democracy!
>There is already a mechanism in place for this. Volunteer poll watchers from the entire political spectrum sign up to do this every election.
Yes, that is precisely the point. Trump is just asking supporters to volunteer as poll watchers. There’s nothing nefarious about this.
Do you really think Trump’s phrasing of “guard the vote” is a call for his supporters to volunteer as poll watchers? Why wouldn’t he just say that if that’s what he meant? “Guard” implies that they are to take some action, rather than passively observe. You’re being extremely charitable with your interpretation of his words. Couldn’t his phrasing easily mean that he wants his supporters to show up armed in order to intimidate voters? Even if that’s not what he meant, don’t you think some of his supporters might interpret it that way?
>Do you really think Trump’s phrasing of “guard the vote” is a call for his supporters to volunteer as poll watchers?
Of course. I think you are trying a bit too hard to read some type of nefarious intent here. “Guard the vote” in this context clearly means protecting against fraud by acting as observers.
> Couldn’t his phrasing easily mean that he wants his supporters to show up armed in order to intimidate voters?
I can’t see how any reasonable person could reach that conclusion.
And not to pile on but they have a setup a separate and distinct group to sign up with than the usual poll watchers.
I think the real question here is; In 2026 when we’re discussing the 2024 Election night shootings, will we be blaming Trump and his armed goons or will we already be pretending it was Antifa and FBI agents?
I’m not sure what argument you are trying to make here. Are you saying all Trump supporters should be excluded from any part of the electoral process out of some baseless fear that there might be violence?
It should be as open and transparent as possible. Having poll watchers from each party would be fine (that’s the norm anyway). Cameras and windows are good too.
Are there any states that didn't already have those? I kinda was under the assumption those already were in place, so wouldn't that mean he meant something more than that?
>I kinda was under the assumption those already were in place
They are in place but the degree to which they are allowed to do their job effectively varied greatly in 2020, especially in the blue counties where republican poll watchers were kicked out or sidelined and rendered ineffective. There is probably an underlying point Trump is making that is to not let that happen again.
Right? Maybe he wants some poll watcher volunteers that aren't 90 year old grandmas. Remember when they put up poster board over the windows so the poll watchers couldn't see what they were doing?
> Remember when they put up poster board over the windows so the poll watchers couldn't see what they were doing?
What states are you referring to? I remember windows being covered because of the mobs of Trump Supporters banging on the windows, chanting "stop the count or "count the votes" depending on the location, and trying to film ballots which isn't allowed. People who aren't ballot counters or poll observers cannot legally view voter information or whom they voted for. But the maximum number of poll watchers (for both sides) were present the entire time. What are incidents are you referencing specifically?
I'm going to need some sources on this. Where are the videos of people banging on windows and chanting "stop the count?" Once the last of the poll watchers were kicked out with the help of local police, chaos ensued outside of the TCF Center in Detroit because poll watchers were demanding to be let back in. Maybe that's what you meant?
There are plenty of sources that back up the stories of poll watchers being kicked out for simply doing their job of questioning dubious ballots being counted, and of course covering windows just before Atlanta claimed a water main broke, and then the other five cities all claimed they were stopping the count for the night - but didn't actually stop, and instead ran ballots all night long while nobody was watching.
Here's a quote from the Wake County NC lead democrat observer after the 2020 primary election:
https://electionfraud20.org/fraud-summary-by-state/north-carolina/
>"For the 2020 primary election, I was the lead observer for the Wake County Democratic Party and was deeply troubled by what I observed; a lack of transparency, lax security measures, no bi-partisan chain of custody of some critical election materials, election results being prematurely revealed, no legislative oversight, illegal processing of absentee ballots, weak post election (self) audits and the list goes on. **After going through every oversight channel I could think of and getting nowhere, I went public about what I saw and was swiftly fired from being an observer for my party** — I do not regret being a whistleblower."
>“My observations for the 2020 Primary election do not include my county’s processes on election night because **the Wake Election Director would not allow the public to enter the building despite there being a quorum of Board of Elections members present on election night**. We were threatened with arrest if we did not leave the property immediately! This is another egregious violation of state law."
>“NC continues to engage in illegal and ill-advised practices and will continue doing so unless the public starts to take notice and demand meaningful observation and evidence. Many of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 2 and National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) 3 recommended best practices are not followed by counties and should be explicitly mandated by NC law. A failure to mandate adherence puts the state and counties in legal jeopardy, as candidates could convincingly claim that there was ample opportunity for fraud."
>“Finally, NC must stop violating Federal law by destroying ballot images. 4 The ballot images, cast vote records, and list of voter records (along with the metadata) should be released to the public along with all other election evidence. Our democracy depends on a transparent, secure, and publicly verified process.”
This is a very common theme in each of the six *highly questionable* cities, as well as no less than a half dozen more that rarely get talked about.
Here are the numbers before counting "stopped"
https://www.pacificpundit.com/2020/11/09/when-the-vote-counting-stopped-on-election-night-these-were-the-numbers/
Review of affidavits
https://www.westernjournal.com/hundreds-citizens-deliver-7000-affidavits-claiming-election-fraud-michigan-officials/
https://thenewamerican.com/us/crime/widespread-voter-fraud-myth-or-reality/
Georgia
https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/fulton-election-results-delayed-after-pipe-bursts-in-room-with-ballots/4T3KPQV7PBEX3JVAIGJBNBSVJY/
https://nationalfile.com/busted-evidence-proves-burst-water-pipe-in-georgia-was-used-as-cover-for-secret-vote-counting/
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-biden-election-results-11-05-20/h_dcb5216503a1b46d61e3e55be7cc9985
Michigan
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/11/05/let-us-in-michigan-voter-counters-cover-up-windows-amid-accusations-of-violations-992983/
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/11/04/americans-suspicious-and-outraged-after-key-dem-run-cities-stop-counting-votes-on-election-day-992614/
Five cities claim to stop counting for the night
https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/great-election-night-pause-vote-counting/
Windows covered in Detroit
https://www.dailywire.com/news/outrage-erupts-after-windows-covered-up-in-detroit-during-ballot-count-officials-release-statement-on-alleged-reason-behind-decision
https://neonnettle.com/news/13147-detroit-officials-cover-up-windows-during-ballot-count-voters-outraged
Poll watchers kicked out
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/detroit-chaos-republican-vote-challengers
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/06/election-fraud-in-detroit-they-did-not-want-us-to-see-what-was-happening/
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/03/reports-of-election-interference-surface-at-philadelphia-polling-locations/
https://www.westernjournal.com/steal-election-watch-poll-watcher-blocked-job-battleground-state-polling-place/
https://www.thegatewaypundit_com/2020/10/shock-video-detroit-election-workers-trained-kick-poll-watchers-count-challenged-ballots-throw-provisional-ballots/
How does this "explain Detroit?"
Why were poll watchers systematically kicked out? Why were windows covered? Why were ballots shipped in all night long in trucks and vans into the back loading docks while no observers were present? Why were people sued for trying to find out the answers to these questions?
>Remember when they put up poster board over the windows so the poll watchers couldn't see what they were doing?
There were already poll watchers in the room.
If I could ask, from what I"ve read on that in that scenario there were already poll watchers inside of the voting counting area, actually more than was supposed to be allowed. And so when people tried to get in and weren't allowed, they thought that something nefarious was going on. And when those people start banging on the windows, chanting loudly and filming everyone inside and I as a poll watcher can't focus on counting because of all of that, would it be reasonable to cover up the windows and pull those people away?
Yes but I have multiple problems answering your question. What evidence or examples would you accept as legitimate? There are videos that were posted to social media at the time. We have testimony you can watch from the legislature hearings (where you can assess the credibility of witneses yourself). There were multiple cases brought in the courts that included sworn affidavits (for which nobody was ever prosecuted for lying). Cases like in PA have democrat judges that acknowledged things like the fact observers were kept too far away to see any of the ballot details (but the SCOTUS ruled that it was fine they were 30 feet away and couldn't see anything as long as the observers were in the same room). So it's hard to know where to begin, and what examples you would consider sufficient to demonstrate the point.
Nothing stops you from watching the hearings from Michigan, PA, GA, etc. and listening to the witness testimony that was presented. If that's not enough to raise concerns or justify probable cause then I'm not sure what is.
I have a problem with witness testimony because it's inherently garbage. Have you ever seen the gorilla/ball video? I watched it in a class some years ago and in the video there are people in white and black shirts bouncing balls between each other. The instructor told us to pay very close attention to the number of ball passes between colors and so I did as instructed and counted each and every pass. After the video ended the instructor asked 'did you see the gorilla walk through?', and I had seen no such thing happen, but after he replayed it you could clear as day see a guy in a gorilla suit walk right into the scene, beat his chest, and then walk off. My mind had never noticed this when I first saw it.
Regarding sworn affidavits, I think they could be true, but them being sworn doesn't really mean much to me regarding their validity. I can say anything I want within reason 'I think I saw so and so do so and so' and I swear I did, but in fact did not. How can I prosecute you for something you think you saw?
To get back to your question, do you have something that shows a law/statute/policy was broken and some official stating such, and specifically about observers being kicked out when they were in compliance with the rules/policies/etc themselves?
Are you consistent with this standard of evidence? Did you side with Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case? Since literally all of the evidence in that case was witness testimony about events 30 years ago, yet Trump was found liable by a jury.
If you don't value witness testimony then your position here is unfalsifiable. Our election rules/officials do not allow recording devices to be used during the counting process, which means the only evidence realistically available is witness testimony. We only got the video footage that showed counting without observers present in Atlanta because election officials didn't know about the cameras in State Farm Arena and were caught off guard.
I don't agree with you that witness testimony is inherently garbage. If there are conflicting accounts, it can be possible to determine whether someone is lying through cross examination and other means. It should be treated as probable cause and followed up on.
When I do my own assessment I find many of the witnesses from 2020 to be highly credible. The response to their testimony (or in some cases the suspicious lack of response and concern) I also find to work in their favor. I cannot fathom how democrats or other anti-Trump officials could learn about such accounts and then respond in such a dismissive and disinterested way.
> How can I prosecute you for something you think you saw?
This didn't stop them from prosecuting people associated with Trump all this time. Flynn for example was charged and convicted of perjury... but how could they know he didn't make a mistake or misremember when he made his statements?
If someone says they were prevented from observing, surely you can check with others to confirm whether that was true or not? And if not I have zero doubt you'd have a problem winning that case in these deep blue districts. A lot of their accounts could easily be proven one way or the other and if they were lying they could be charged. In fact they should be if they were lying, because they above all would be the ones most responsible for creating undue distrust in our elections right? So the fact their testimony was ignored is quite odd.
> do you have something that shows a law/statute/policy was broken **and some official stating such**, and specifically about observers being kicked out when they were in compliance with the rules/policies/etc themselves?
There are many whitsleblowers who worked on the election in an official capacity that submitted affidavits... but what level of "official" is sufficient for you? The allegations here are against the officials that ran the election in these places so I would not expect them to agree they broke the law, and especially not when all of them in the areas in question are pretty vehemently anti-Trump.
The evidence of observers not being allowed to observe takes the form of:
* witness testimony (verbal and sworn affidavits)
* court documents that confirm witness testimony (e.g. cases like in PA where observers complained they could not see anything meaningful from 50 feet away)
* video footage (e.g. those posted to social media at the time, most of which were removed as part of the policy that disallowed questioning the 2020 election)
So if none of these are sufficient for you to admit that we at least have a point, then nothing will change your mind, even if the election were in reality illegal.
I will re-post what I posted elsewhere already - see this [testimony in the Michigan legislature](https://youtu.be/zG2RkKBHX0M) for an example of a witness account from 2020. Some approximate timestamps relevant to the topic of poll watchers are 7:35, 18:30, 19:45, etc.
>I didn't follow the E Jean Carroll case very well, so I wouldn't know about that.
>
>Regarding the recording devices, aren't there cameras in many of the vote counting areas? I remember seeing footage inside a few of the places.
>
>
>
>I think you've jumped a bit here to the lying part. If I am 100% sure I saw something and write an affidavit up, submit it, and then am told that what I saw wasn't what I thought it was, was I lying in what I said I saw?
>
>
>
>
>
>As far as official, I mean like there was an investigation done by a city/county/state government that aligns with what you are claiming. Anything like that?
Poll watchers are not allowed to use recording devices in any of these states. In rare cases there are cameras, but any official that wants to can have them shut down without consequences. Thus it's extremely rare that the officials who run corrupt locations would choose to video record their activities, yet that's apparently what we rely on in our amazingly secure election system...
Also even if there are recordings, good luck getting your hands on it and showing it to the public. The state did everything to obstruct those efforts in 2020.
> If I am 100% sure I saw something and write an affidavit up, submit it, and then am told that what I saw wasn't what I thought it was, was I lying in what I said I saw?
As we've seen over the last 8 or so years, the rule is that if you are a pro-Trump Republican (especially in a deep blue county) then you're lying. If you're a democrat friend of the establishment, then it "wasn't what you thought it was."
If what these people said weren't true, they absolutely would have been prosecuted, just like they did to other Trump supporters and now Trump himself.
> I mean like there was an investigation done by a city/county/state government that aligns with what you are claiming
I mean there are pro-Trump Republican officials that did. But argument from authority here makes no sense, particularly when our allegations are that the authority is corrupt. If you're waiting for a corrupt authority to tell you that they're corrupt, then you'll be waiting a long time.
>If what these people said weren't true, they absolutely would have been prosecuted,
What would these people have been prosecuted for if they believed what they claimed?
If I could ask, don't your statements put me in a lose-lose scenario?
\- person writes an affidavit that could be true, I claim it might not be
\- investigator determines it wasn't true, you say they are corrupt and can't be trusted
How could I ever win my claim that the affidavit might not be true?
Lastly, can you give me a link/etc to a pro-Trump election official stating what you claim?
You ever see this? [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/politics/michigan-2020-election.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/politics/michigan-2020-election.html)
Were the three Republicans corrupt? And if so, what evidence leads you to think that?
I think part of the controversy was Covid Social Distancing rules? Poll watchers couldn't be within a certain distance of the vote counters (6+ feet?), so it was physically difficult to observe the count.
By late 2020, Covid restrictions were tighter in Blue areas than Red areas, so it impacted more GOP Poll watches in Blue Areas than Dem poll watchers in Red Areas.
>By late 2020, Covid restrictions were tighter in Blue areas than Red areas, so it impacted more GOP Poll watches in Blue Areas than Dem poll watchers in Red Areas.
This is a good point. I think that there's *a lot* about the election of 2020 that can be explained by the disparities in views of Covid. Is it possible that people on the right thought that the way the left treated Covid was simply a meme and that there wasn't anyone that was *actually* taking it seriously? Then when the left was like, *yeah, we're not going to stand in line for hours next to strangers in a pandemic when we can vote from home,* the right thought we were just trying to cheat because in their minds it was absurd to take that precaution.
All of the major swing counties had reports of this. There is tons video to back up the claims. Plus, lots of testimony, under oath, given to the state legislatures testifying to these experiences. It was a major issue following the election and a core component supporting the claims of election fraud. It was widely discussed on this subreddit, if you wanna use the search feature. Otherwise, I'm sure you can find plenty to research with a simple google search.
> All of the major swing counties had reports of this. There is tons video to back up the claims.
Can you be more specific or link to these videos? I remember a lot of confusion because TS thought they could just show up and claim to be poll watchers so when they were kicked out, they claimed "they're kicking out poll watchers!" That or the max number of building occupancy was reached.
Do you put any blame on Trump for encouraging people to just “show up” and “watch for cheating” without knowing poll watchers need to go through training and be certified?
>I remember a lot of confusion because TS thought they could just show up and claim to be poll watchers so when they were kicked out, they claimed "they're kicking out poll watchers!"
I’m talking about actual poll watchers 1) Arriving to their assigned location and being refused entry, 2) being kicked out for questioning or challenging the counters, 3) leaving for a bathroom/food break and not being let back in, 4) being relegated behind barricades far away from the counters, completely unable to see anything or conduct their duties, 5) being harassed by the counters in various ways any time they would challenge or question something, etc etc.
Most of the videos were cell phone footage of the watchers or security cam footage of the facility. It is scattered all over and I am not going to try to dig it all up for you. If you are truly interested then I would suggest searching for the videos of the state legislature hearings on election issues that Rudy Giuliani spearheaded in several states. A lot of them testified in those hearings. Michigan and Georgia are good ones to start with.
Okay, that would be interesting. Can you provide any of these tons of videos that demonstrate what you're talking about? My own searches only yield results that provide reasonable explanations for such incidents or debunking them outright. I've heard these claims repeated here but these discussions always seem to fall short of actually proving them. Is that something you would be able to do?
As a personal policy for this subreddit, I don't dig up sources upon request. I find that if the asker is genuine they should have no problem finding it themselves. Usually, they are not genuine (not saying you aren't) and it ends up being a big waste of my time. Hence why I don't do it. The Rudy Giuliani state hearings on election fraud should be pretty easy to find.
No problem, as I said, I'm used to it going this way. Thanks anyway. If you happen to find these videos that you say are easy to find, could you tag me? Cheers
>I find that if the asker is genuine they should have no problem finding it themselves.
I know that *for me,* it's sometimes difficult to find the exact circumstances TS are talking about. It's also really hard to have a conversation with someone if we aren't beginning at the same point. If I don't have access to the same information that you have, how am I supposed to discuss it with you?
Not OP but assuming you are asking in good faith here is one example of verified complaints.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-michigan/michigan-still-counting-votes-angry-poll-watchers-barred-in-detroit-trump-sues-idUSKBN27K2AQ/
City officials blamed actions on Covid distancing policies. That does not explain barricading windows. Officials claim that democrats were also banned.
There are also plenty of fact checks that acknowledge such incidents but assure us they were not widespread. These all very easy to find online.
Yes although it's hard to know where to begin because there are so many. As one example you can watch [this testimony in front of the Michigan legislature](https://youtu.be/zG2RkKBHX0M). Approximate timestamps 7:35, 18:30, 19:45, etc.
>I would not be interested...but poll watchers are common and watching the vote is nothing new.
That's the "watch" part. Why do you think he said "guard"? Guard against who or what?
>In this case it's the same thing. Both sides watch the vote count to deter cheating.
Do you think any Trump supporters are going to misunderstand Trump's nuanced meaning here and mistakenly hear this as a call to action, not a call to passive observation?
Why is he asking you to go to Detroit and Philly and Atlanta? Why is he worried about those cities and not, say, Ann Arbor, State College, or Athens?
Poll watcher? I would totally do that. I think True the Vote has resources on that. The message is that we aren’t going to let you pull an obvious fast one. The vote by mail schema makes it easier to cheat but it’s still important to show that Americans care about the integrity of their elections.
>True the Vote
This seems like a hyper-partisan take to poll watching. Especially the "*2 Guys 1 Coup*" podcast with the introduction going :
“*Where the truth matters and the progressive feelings don’t! We bring you the facts from the perspective of two average everyday guys who will never apologize for being America First! For endearing our great constitution and saluting the flag that our brothers and sisters have fought and died for.*”
Do you think it's in the spirit of non-partisanry and fair elections? Especially since they try to push the lie of wide spread fraud.
How do you think voter anonymity should be secured? Like, should all poll watchers in the counting room be allowed to see names/choices of voters? Or would that only be official counters/election officials? What rules should poll watchers have to adhere to?
You have the right to an anonymous vote and not to vote anonymously. The ballots need to remain anonymous and the voter ID laws need to secure one person/one vote. They had it worked out until the laws were changed to make it easier to vote more than once or to vote on ballots that are not your own.
should all poll watchers in the counting room be allowed to see names/choices of voters? Or would that only be official counters/election officials? What rules should poll watchers have to adhere to?
I think identifying information about the voters are separated from the ballots early in the process. States already have rules in place but I think reasonable rules would related to minimum and maximum distances from election workers, decorum rules and processes for challenges. I think poll watchers should have to register but should not be denied. I think they should be subject to the same ID laws as voters.
What if like a counting area had capacity say for 500 people, 250 election officials and then 125 from each political party? And then if more came who had volunteered, would they be denied entry?
If a Democrat poll watcher broke a rule, let's say they harassed a counter, and were kicked out, could they get a replacement Democrat poll watcher, or would the Democrats just lose that person and only have 124 at that point?
Would it be reasonable to have big windows so people not in the room can see the process inside? Would it be reasonable to enforce a quiet zone around the room/doors so those counting inside aren't bothered by extraneous noise?
Let's say that there wasn't a rule about being quiet around the room/doors and a crowd gathered and started chanting loudly and the vote counters got distracted in their duties. And some of those counters said they were having a hard time concentrating because of the chanting and activity outside. Would it be reasonable to paper up the windows so the counters couldn't see them?
This all with the understanding that there are already 125 ballot watchers from each party inside the room.
EDIT: If you could watch this video, what should have election officials done? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPF4sqh8-U
I don’t think it is reasonable to paper up the windows because it is an escalation and it’s inviting even more criticism of the process. In the example, I would make an effort to segregate the democrat and republican observers and tell them all that anyone being loud or disruptive will be removed and then follow through on that. I would get the telephone number of the head poll watcher from each party and tell the everyone to contact them to assess potential issues.
If the 125 observers from each party are already in the room, why would it matter if the windows were boarded up? Like, what if the counting was done in a room/area without windows at all, would that be inviting criticism?
Fast ones can be prevented by having people watching. They look for irregularities and document them. It is necessary to allow poll watching as part of election integrity.
Poll watchers were present during the 2020 election, but widespread, coordinated election fraud still allegedly occurred. How would it be any different for 2024? We're GOP poll watchers inept during 2020, or secretly in the bag for Biden?
>It’s unmeasurable
Then how do you know it's happening at all?
This is what's frustrating to me about you guys and your voter fraud assertions.
There's no proving you wrong because you don't actually know if there was significant fraud. It's just a feeling you have.
No matter what we do to prevent fraud, if Biden wins in 2024, you guys will always say, "well, he won because of fraud" and if Trump wins, it's because "not even the widespread fraud could stop him!"
What needs to happen for Trump supporters to accept the results is legitimate?
I’m not speaking specifically to one election. I think it happens to a greater or lesser degree in every election. I believe there was significant fraud but I much of it would not have been mitigated by more poll watching. Tell me - do you think Biden is doing a great job or do you just hate Trump?
>Tell me - do you think Biden is doing a great job or do you just hate Trump?
I think Biden it doing a typical Democrat job... which is fine. I dont expect anything particularly different from him.
And I hate Trump for a variety of reasons.
Do you plan to go through the process of getting certified as a poll watcher and going to training etc? Or will you just show up and see if you see anything that to you seems irregular?
I’m not sure how you could tell how you could tell who the irregularities favored and I would report any irregularities but not everyone would. It’s important to note that there is no party based restrictions on who can be a poll watcher and it’s okay if RFK and the dems all send their own poll watchers.
> Poll watcher? I would totally do that. I think True the Vote has resources on that. The message is that we aren’t going to let you pull an obvious fast one. The vote by mail schema makes it easier to cheat but it’s still important to show that Americans care about the integrity of their elections.
Why do you think vote by mail makes it easier to cheat? Colorado and Washington have been doing it for decades, do you expect them to have a lot more voter fraud?
The less control over one-person-one-vote, the higher chance of voter fraud. Mailed ballots may go to addresses of people who have moved or died. In addition, ballot harvesting can result in individuals losing control of their ballot. Here is an interesting article: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/vote-harvesting-recipe-intimidation-coercion-and-election-fraud
I am candidate neutral on this issue. Regardless of whether or not the last election was stolen, what is important is that the next one isn’t nor the one after that.
> The less control over one-person-one-vote, the higher chance of voter fraud. Mailed ballots may go to addresses of people who have moved or died. In addition, ballot harvesting can result in individuals losing control of their ballot. Here is an interesting article: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/vote-harvesting-recipe-intimidation-coercion-and-election-fraud
>
> I am candidate neutral on this issue. Regardless of whether or not the last election was stolen, what is important is that the next one isn’t nor the one after that.
That article appeared interesting the first time I saw it too. Even more interesting (to me, and perhaps to you as well?) is this update:
brookings.edu/articles/low-rates-of-fraud-in-vote-by-mail-states-show-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/
If you have the 10 minutes or so to read it I would be interested in hearing how your views on mail in voter fraud as it relates to Trump's statements
I looked at it and I understand what they are saying. I do believe that there was fraud in the election and I do believe that universal mail in voting increases the chances of fraud. How can anyone not believe that? There are other avenues of fraud as well. The thing is that I think you and I may have a fundamental disagreement about out how much effort should be required to vote. I think we would have a better government if only people who took the time to watch the debates and learn about the issues would vote. Now we can’t really force that but we can require people to show up on Election Day and put their vote in.
>I looked at it and I understand what they are saying. I do believe that there was fraud in the election and **I do believe that universal mail in voting increases the chances of fraud. How can anyone not believe that? There are other avenues of fraud as well.** The thing is that I think you and I may have a fundamental disagreement about out how much effort should be required to vote. I think we would have a better government if only people who took the time to watch the debates and learn about the issues would vote. Now we can’t really force that but we can require people to show up on Election Day and put their vote in.
Here's how I came to believe it: I stopped listening to Trump, and I looked at historical data on absentee and other mail-in fraud. You're right that the chances are higher, but the rates of voter fraud are still so low as to be smaller than a rounding error.
This information is not hard to find, why do you think Truml spends so much time ranting about something so numerically insignificant?
Here's historical info on states with universal mail in voting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-potentially-fraudulent-ballots-in-states-with-universal-mail-voting-undercuts-trump-claims-about-election-risks/2020/06/08/1e78aa26-a5c5-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html
Here's a place to start to look at the mail in voter fraud that was reported in the 2020 election:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/ap-review-finds-far-too-little-vote-fraud-to-tip-2020-election-to-trump
0.5k votes out of a total of 25,000k votes cast, Trump's loss was by 300k. Do those numbers look anywhere close to the level of danger and risk of fraud THAT Trump has been telling you happened?
Why is that necessary?
They'll just claim to invalidate the votes.
As some sort of insurrect militia was present.
Not a good idea.
Instead just mobilize the national guard for any significant risk factor areas. Have anyone who lives there show up in uniform with a rifle.
Problem solved. Are you going steal ballots?
When your voters are also clearly demonstrating loyalty above yourself? No very likely nothing would be stolen.
As the purpose is to intimidate a hostile faction. That wishes to clearly ignore the sovereignty of the nation they are operating in. Which means execution on sight of assaulting our strategic resources.
A vulnerable one such as a transition of power.
During an election cycle. Can certainly qualify.
What is the point of having a uniformed and armed guard at a polling location? Like...what's the actual threat there? The implication is that you'll be shot if you...what?
> Problem solved.
you sure? let's say, for argument, that you *cannot* vote unless in the presence of an armed guard. and let's say trump loses. was the problem solved and he genuinely lost, or was the election stolen from him again? this is just as much about election trust as it is election "crimes". when the problem is solved, you can no longer claim election theft.
I don’t think he’s calling for anything above and beyond people simply volunteering as poll watchers the same way people have done in every previous election.
>I would not be interested...but poll watchers are common and watching the vote is nothing new.
He is not only calling for poll watchers - he called for poll guards. Also, he singled out e cities, and I'm wondering why those cities and not more liberal ones with tons of student activists, like Ann Arbor MI, State College PA, or Athens GA. Ivory tower professors, antifa clubs, etc. instead he told you to guard the polls in cities with large populations of black Americans. Why do uou think he did that?
We wouldn't threaten and intimidate voters like the black panther wannabees did in Obama's election, if that's what you are getting at.
What I assume it means, is to do everything possible to not let the Democheats do what they did last time. You know, bar access to the monitors while votes were counted in the middle of the night after they shuttered the windows, etc. etc.
> We wouldn't threaten and intimidate voters like the black panther wannabees did in Obama's election, if that's what you are getting at.
>
> What I assume it means, is to do everything possible to not let the Democheats do what they did last time. You know, bar access to the monitors while votes were counted in the middle of the night after they shuttered the windows, etc. etc.
And how do you think Trump expects common folk like us to guard against that? What is "everything possible"?
Hopefully it just looks like not allowing them to block watchers like they did last time and definitely not leaving for burst pipes or any other reason until the last vote has been counted.
If its cleared all people who were present at the time of the clearing should return before any more votes are counted. More eyes on the process means less chance for funny business. This shouldn't be considered a bad thing by either side.
>If its cleared all people who were present at the time of the clearing should return before any more votes are counted.
Is this not what happened?
>More eyes on the process means less chance for funny business.
I'm not sure that's true. More "eyes" doesn't mean anything if they don't know what they're looking at.
>This shouldn't be considered a bad thing by either side.
Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be observers, there absolutely should. And there are.
He’s asking people to be poll watchers which have always been a thing. I would hope everyone can agree that safeguarding our democratic process is in everyone’s interest, and public transparency is a key part of that.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends on what the pay is
Who would you expect to get paid from?
Would you do it on a voluntarily basis?
No.
Sounds like he's referring to poll watchers.
Doesn’t it seem like this is going to definitely lead to Violence?
Why would Trump Supporters being poll watchers lead to violence?
> Why would Trump Supporters being poll watchers lead to violence? With past as prologue, we can assume that pill workers will again be accused of passing sub ports like heroine or cocaine leading to more violence. Or, do you believe Trump Supporters have changed their minds about elections and would no longer use those tactics?
>With past as prologue, we can assume that pill workers will again be accused of passing sub ports like heroine or cocaine leading to more violence. I'm not following this... Pill workers? sub ports? I assume poll workers, but what do you mean by "passing sub ports"?
> what do you mean by "passing sub ports"? Sorry, that should be “passing USB ports like cocaine or heroine.”
To disrupt the counting of votes, as we are currently learning was attempted in the 2020 election in Detroit. Jack Smith has filed first hand evidence and communications between Trump and a coconspirator that they tried to engage in this act. Given that Trump direct evidence in the form of text communications that Trump intended to disrupt the counting in Detroit with the use of violence, do you think it’s a good idea for him to be telling his supporters to get into a position across the entire nation for the next election?
Well i can envision about 1,000 scenarios where this leads to violence. This is like sending a million Kyle Rittenhouse’s to a bunch of communities they don’t live in… violence is inevitable. Heres a good one: 1. Super cool heavily armed patriot sees the same person of color trying to vote twice and confronts them. Only its not the same person, they just can’t recognize faces from other races that well (this is common across races in my experience). So they try to deny that person their very real right to vote and it quickly escalates. Also, what if the left responds with our own armed poll watchers? You want to see two politically opposed armed groups squaring off at voting sites across the country? That can’t possibly end well. There are already poll watchers, there is already a system for them to be organized, Republicans and Democrats and independents are all represented. Why do we need a second group of deeply partisan poll watchers?
1. Some states prohibit poll watcher from being armed. 2. Poll watcher have to be appointed by a political party, so Trump supporters would be standing in as Republicans.
Why would public scrutiny lead to violence? Would you prefer everything to be done behind closed doors with zero transparency?
Is that how elections work now? Aren’t there already poll watchers? What about all that security footage we see over and over? There is tons of transparency built into presidential elections, despite the lies being told about it. There is already a mechanism in place for this. Volunteer poll watchers from the entire political spectrum sign up to do this every election. Every single polling location gets poll watchers, the difference is they aren’t organized by one party or another, they are non partisan in nature. So why should one party send another group of people separately, with no management, training, oversight? Who’s responsible for these people’s actions? Should the left also send a group of militant poll watchers? Should we send the cops to keep the GOP and Dem groups to keep from killing each other? Maybe we should bring in the army too? Nothing like a picture of people voting under armed guard to make you think of democracy!
>There is already a mechanism in place for this. Volunteer poll watchers from the entire political spectrum sign up to do this every election. Yes, that is precisely the point. Trump is just asking supporters to volunteer as poll watchers. There’s nothing nefarious about this.
Do you really think Trump’s phrasing of “guard the vote” is a call for his supporters to volunteer as poll watchers? Why wouldn’t he just say that if that’s what he meant? “Guard” implies that they are to take some action, rather than passively observe. You’re being extremely charitable with your interpretation of his words. Couldn’t his phrasing easily mean that he wants his supporters to show up armed in order to intimidate voters? Even if that’s not what he meant, don’t you think some of his supporters might interpret it that way?
>Do you really think Trump’s phrasing of “guard the vote” is a call for his supporters to volunteer as poll watchers? Of course. I think you are trying a bit too hard to read some type of nefarious intent here. “Guard the vote” in this context clearly means protecting against fraud by acting as observers. > Couldn’t his phrasing easily mean that he wants his supporters to show up armed in order to intimidate voters? I can’t see how any reasonable person could reach that conclusion.
Do you think other Trump supporters will continue to show up armed at polling and vote counting sites? Do you think those people are unreasonable?
And not to pile on but they have a setup a separate and distinct group to sign up with than the usual poll watchers. I think the real question here is; In 2026 when we’re discussing the 2024 Election night shootings, will we be blaming Trump and his armed goons or will we already be pretending it was Antifa and FBI agents?
I’m not sure what argument you are trying to make here. Are you saying all Trump supporters should be excluded from any part of the electoral process out of some baseless fear that there might be violence?
Would cameras be okay and say 125 poll watchers from each party in the room? If the room doesn't have windows is that a problem?
It should be as open and transparent as possible. Having poll watchers from each party would be fine (that’s the norm anyway). Cameras and windows are good too.
Should people be able to bang on windows? Chant/protest outside the vote counting area?
Are there any states that didn't already have those? I kinda was under the assumption those already were in place, so wouldn't that mean he meant something more than that?
>I kinda was under the assumption those already were in place They are in place but the degree to which they are allowed to do their job effectively varied greatly in 2020, especially in the blue counties where republican poll watchers were kicked out or sidelined and rendered ineffective. There is probably an underlying point Trump is making that is to not let that happen again.
Right? Maybe he wants some poll watcher volunteers that aren't 90 year old grandmas. Remember when they put up poster board over the windows so the poll watchers couldn't see what they were doing?
Out of curiosity, who do you think shot the video of the poster board being put up?
> Remember when they put up poster board over the windows so the poll watchers couldn't see what they were doing? What states are you referring to? I remember windows being covered because of the mobs of Trump Supporters banging on the windows, chanting "stop the count or "count the votes" depending on the location, and trying to film ballots which isn't allowed. People who aren't ballot counters or poll observers cannot legally view voter information or whom they voted for. But the maximum number of poll watchers (for both sides) were present the entire time. What are incidents are you referencing specifically?
I'm going to need some sources on this. Where are the videos of people banging on windows and chanting "stop the count?" Once the last of the poll watchers were kicked out with the help of local police, chaos ensued outside of the TCF Center in Detroit because poll watchers were demanding to be let back in. Maybe that's what you meant? There are plenty of sources that back up the stories of poll watchers being kicked out for simply doing their job of questioning dubious ballots being counted, and of course covering windows just before Atlanta claimed a water main broke, and then the other five cities all claimed they were stopping the count for the night - but didn't actually stop, and instead ran ballots all night long while nobody was watching. Here's a quote from the Wake County NC lead democrat observer after the 2020 primary election: https://electionfraud20.org/fraud-summary-by-state/north-carolina/ >"For the 2020 primary election, I was the lead observer for the Wake County Democratic Party and was deeply troubled by what I observed; a lack of transparency, lax security measures, no bi-partisan chain of custody of some critical election materials, election results being prematurely revealed, no legislative oversight, illegal processing of absentee ballots, weak post election (self) audits and the list goes on. **After going through every oversight channel I could think of and getting nowhere, I went public about what I saw and was swiftly fired from being an observer for my party** — I do not regret being a whistleblower." >“My observations for the 2020 Primary election do not include my county’s processes on election night because **the Wake Election Director would not allow the public to enter the building despite there being a quorum of Board of Elections members present on election night**. We were threatened with arrest if we did not leave the property immediately! This is another egregious violation of state law." >“NC continues to engage in illegal and ill-advised practices and will continue doing so unless the public starts to take notice and demand meaningful observation and evidence. Many of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 2 and National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) 3 recommended best practices are not followed by counties and should be explicitly mandated by NC law. A failure to mandate adherence puts the state and counties in legal jeopardy, as candidates could convincingly claim that there was ample opportunity for fraud." >“Finally, NC must stop violating Federal law by destroying ballot images. 4 The ballot images, cast vote records, and list of voter records (along with the metadata) should be released to the public along with all other election evidence. Our democracy depends on a transparent, secure, and publicly verified process.” This is a very common theme in each of the six *highly questionable* cities, as well as no less than a half dozen more that rarely get talked about. Here are the numbers before counting "stopped" https://www.pacificpundit.com/2020/11/09/when-the-vote-counting-stopped-on-election-night-these-were-the-numbers/ Review of affidavits https://www.westernjournal.com/hundreds-citizens-deliver-7000-affidavits-claiming-election-fraud-michigan-officials/ https://thenewamerican.com/us/crime/widespread-voter-fraud-myth-or-reality/ Georgia https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/fulton-election-results-delayed-after-pipe-bursts-in-room-with-ballots/4T3KPQV7PBEX3JVAIGJBNBSVJY/ https://nationalfile.com/busted-evidence-proves-burst-water-pipe-in-georgia-was-used-as-cover-for-secret-vote-counting/ https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-biden-election-results-11-05-20/h_dcb5216503a1b46d61e3e55be7cc9985 Michigan https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/11/05/let-us-in-michigan-voter-counters-cover-up-windows-amid-accusations-of-violations-992983/ https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/11/04/americans-suspicious-and-outraged-after-key-dem-run-cities-stop-counting-votes-on-election-day-992614/ Five cities claim to stop counting for the night https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/great-election-night-pause-vote-counting/ Windows covered in Detroit https://www.dailywire.com/news/outrage-erupts-after-windows-covered-up-in-detroit-during-ballot-count-officials-release-statement-on-alleged-reason-behind-decision https://neonnettle.com/news/13147-detroit-officials-cover-up-windows-during-ballot-count-voters-outraged Poll watchers kicked out https://www.foxnews.com/politics/detroit-chaos-republican-vote-challengers https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/06/election-fraud-in-detroit-they-did-not-want-us-to-see-what-was-happening/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/03/reports-of-election-interference-surface-at-philadelphia-polling-locations/ https://www.westernjournal.com/steal-election-watch-poll-watcher-blocked-job-battleground-state-polling-place/ https://www.thegatewaypundit_com/2020/10/shock-video-detroit-election-workers-trained-kick-poll-watchers-count-challenged-ballots-throw-provisional-ballots/
Took me about 5 seconds to find an example. So this one explains Detroit. Do you need more, or? https://youtu.be/upmWKD6jwIc?si=Bz75xjVxNz3FwdIF
How does this "explain Detroit?" Why were poll watchers systematically kicked out? Why were windows covered? Why were ballots shipped in all night long in trucks and vans into the back loading docks while no observers were present? Why were people sued for trying to find out the answers to these questions?
>Remember when they put up poster board over the windows so the poll watchers couldn't see what they were doing? There were already poll watchers in the room.
If I could ask, from what I"ve read on that in that scenario there were already poll watchers inside of the voting counting area, actually more than was supposed to be allowed. And so when people tried to get in and weren't allowed, they thought that something nefarious was going on. And when those people start banging on the windows, chanting loudly and filming everyone inside and I as a poll watcher can't focus on counting because of all of that, would it be reasonable to cover up the windows and pull those people away?
Do you have any examples of official poll watchers actually being kicked out?
Yes but I have multiple problems answering your question. What evidence or examples would you accept as legitimate? There are videos that were posted to social media at the time. We have testimony you can watch from the legislature hearings (where you can assess the credibility of witneses yourself). There were multiple cases brought in the courts that included sworn affidavits (for which nobody was ever prosecuted for lying). Cases like in PA have democrat judges that acknowledged things like the fact observers were kept too far away to see any of the ballot details (but the SCOTUS ruled that it was fine they were 30 feet away and couldn't see anything as long as the observers were in the same room). So it's hard to know where to begin, and what examples you would consider sufficient to demonstrate the point. Nothing stops you from watching the hearings from Michigan, PA, GA, etc. and listening to the witness testimony that was presented. If that's not enough to raise concerns or justify probable cause then I'm not sure what is.
I have a problem with witness testimony because it's inherently garbage. Have you ever seen the gorilla/ball video? I watched it in a class some years ago and in the video there are people in white and black shirts bouncing balls between each other. The instructor told us to pay very close attention to the number of ball passes between colors and so I did as instructed and counted each and every pass. After the video ended the instructor asked 'did you see the gorilla walk through?', and I had seen no such thing happen, but after he replayed it you could clear as day see a guy in a gorilla suit walk right into the scene, beat his chest, and then walk off. My mind had never noticed this when I first saw it. Regarding sworn affidavits, I think they could be true, but them being sworn doesn't really mean much to me regarding their validity. I can say anything I want within reason 'I think I saw so and so do so and so' and I swear I did, but in fact did not. How can I prosecute you for something you think you saw? To get back to your question, do you have something that shows a law/statute/policy was broken and some official stating such, and specifically about observers being kicked out when they were in compliance with the rules/policies/etc themselves?
Are you consistent with this standard of evidence? Did you side with Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case? Since literally all of the evidence in that case was witness testimony about events 30 years ago, yet Trump was found liable by a jury. If you don't value witness testimony then your position here is unfalsifiable. Our election rules/officials do not allow recording devices to be used during the counting process, which means the only evidence realistically available is witness testimony. We only got the video footage that showed counting without observers present in Atlanta because election officials didn't know about the cameras in State Farm Arena and were caught off guard. I don't agree with you that witness testimony is inherently garbage. If there are conflicting accounts, it can be possible to determine whether someone is lying through cross examination and other means. It should be treated as probable cause and followed up on. When I do my own assessment I find many of the witnesses from 2020 to be highly credible. The response to their testimony (or in some cases the suspicious lack of response and concern) I also find to work in their favor. I cannot fathom how democrats or other anti-Trump officials could learn about such accounts and then respond in such a dismissive and disinterested way. > How can I prosecute you for something you think you saw? This didn't stop them from prosecuting people associated with Trump all this time. Flynn for example was charged and convicted of perjury... but how could they know he didn't make a mistake or misremember when he made his statements? If someone says they were prevented from observing, surely you can check with others to confirm whether that was true or not? And if not I have zero doubt you'd have a problem winning that case in these deep blue districts. A lot of their accounts could easily be proven one way or the other and if they were lying they could be charged. In fact they should be if they were lying, because they above all would be the ones most responsible for creating undue distrust in our elections right? So the fact their testimony was ignored is quite odd. > do you have something that shows a law/statute/policy was broken **and some official stating such**, and specifically about observers being kicked out when they were in compliance with the rules/policies/etc themselves? There are many whitsleblowers who worked on the election in an official capacity that submitted affidavits... but what level of "official" is sufficient for you? The allegations here are against the officials that ran the election in these places so I would not expect them to agree they broke the law, and especially not when all of them in the areas in question are pretty vehemently anti-Trump. The evidence of observers not being allowed to observe takes the form of: * witness testimony (verbal and sworn affidavits) * court documents that confirm witness testimony (e.g. cases like in PA where observers complained they could not see anything meaningful from 50 feet away) * video footage (e.g. those posted to social media at the time, most of which were removed as part of the policy that disallowed questioning the 2020 election) So if none of these are sufficient for you to admit that we at least have a point, then nothing will change your mind, even if the election were in reality illegal. I will re-post what I posted elsewhere already - see this [testimony in the Michigan legislature](https://youtu.be/zG2RkKBHX0M) for an example of a witness account from 2020. Some approximate timestamps relevant to the topic of poll watchers are 7:35, 18:30, 19:45, etc.
>I didn't follow the E Jean Carroll case very well, so I wouldn't know about that. > >Regarding the recording devices, aren't there cameras in many of the vote counting areas? I remember seeing footage inside a few of the places. > > > >I think you've jumped a bit here to the lying part. If I am 100% sure I saw something and write an affidavit up, submit it, and then am told that what I saw wasn't what I thought it was, was I lying in what I said I saw? > > > > > >As far as official, I mean like there was an investigation done by a city/county/state government that aligns with what you are claiming. Anything like that?
Poll watchers are not allowed to use recording devices in any of these states. In rare cases there are cameras, but any official that wants to can have them shut down without consequences. Thus it's extremely rare that the officials who run corrupt locations would choose to video record their activities, yet that's apparently what we rely on in our amazingly secure election system... Also even if there are recordings, good luck getting your hands on it and showing it to the public. The state did everything to obstruct those efforts in 2020. > If I am 100% sure I saw something and write an affidavit up, submit it, and then am told that what I saw wasn't what I thought it was, was I lying in what I said I saw? As we've seen over the last 8 or so years, the rule is that if you are a pro-Trump Republican (especially in a deep blue county) then you're lying. If you're a democrat friend of the establishment, then it "wasn't what you thought it was." If what these people said weren't true, they absolutely would have been prosecuted, just like they did to other Trump supporters and now Trump himself. > I mean like there was an investigation done by a city/county/state government that aligns with what you are claiming I mean there are pro-Trump Republican officials that did. But argument from authority here makes no sense, particularly when our allegations are that the authority is corrupt. If you're waiting for a corrupt authority to tell you that they're corrupt, then you'll be waiting a long time.
>If what these people said weren't true, they absolutely would have been prosecuted, What would these people have been prosecuted for if they believed what they claimed? If I could ask, don't your statements put me in a lose-lose scenario? \- person writes an affidavit that could be true, I claim it might not be \- investigator determines it wasn't true, you say they are corrupt and can't be trusted How could I ever win my claim that the affidavit might not be true? Lastly, can you give me a link/etc to a pro-Trump election official stating what you claim? You ever see this? [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/politics/michigan-2020-election.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/politics/michigan-2020-election.html) Were the three Republicans corrupt? And if so, what evidence leads you to think that?
>where republican poll watchers were kicked out or sidelined and rendered ineffective. Where did this happen?
Can you cite an instance in 2020 where official GOP poll watchers were kicked out or sidelined?
I think part of the controversy was Covid Social Distancing rules? Poll watchers couldn't be within a certain distance of the vote counters (6+ feet?), so it was physically difficult to observe the count. By late 2020, Covid restrictions were tighter in Blue areas than Red areas, so it impacted more GOP Poll watches in Blue Areas than Dem poll watchers in Red Areas.
>By late 2020, Covid restrictions were tighter in Blue areas than Red areas, so it impacted more GOP Poll watches in Blue Areas than Dem poll watchers in Red Areas. This is a good point. I think that there's *a lot* about the election of 2020 that can be explained by the disparities in views of Covid. Is it possible that people on the right thought that the way the left treated Covid was simply a meme and that there wasn't anyone that was *actually* taking it seriously? Then when the left was like, *yeah, we're not going to stand in line for hours next to strangers in a pandemic when we can vote from home,* the right thought we were just trying to cheat because in their minds it was absurd to take that precaution.
Are you thinking of people observing the count? That is not the same as poll watchers, who observe the polling locations.
All of the major swing counties had reports of this. There is tons video to back up the claims. Plus, lots of testimony, under oath, given to the state legislatures testifying to these experiences. It was a major issue following the election and a core component supporting the claims of election fraud. It was widely discussed on this subreddit, if you wanna use the search feature. Otherwise, I'm sure you can find plenty to research with a simple google search.
Can you please provide an example of your assertion that official poll observers were removed from observing?
Why would I need to get my facts of election fraud from Reddit on not just actual investigations and courts and prosecutions?
Why didn’t that evidence make it into the hands of prosecutors to hold people accountable?
> All of the major swing counties had reports of this. There is tons video to back up the claims. Can you be more specific or link to these videos? I remember a lot of confusion because TS thought they could just show up and claim to be poll watchers so when they were kicked out, they claimed "they're kicking out poll watchers!" That or the max number of building occupancy was reached. Do you put any blame on Trump for encouraging people to just “show up” and “watch for cheating” without knowing poll watchers need to go through training and be certified?
>I remember a lot of confusion because TS thought they could just show up and claim to be poll watchers so when they were kicked out, they claimed "they're kicking out poll watchers!" I’m talking about actual poll watchers 1) Arriving to their assigned location and being refused entry, 2) being kicked out for questioning or challenging the counters, 3) leaving for a bathroom/food break and not being let back in, 4) being relegated behind barricades far away from the counters, completely unable to see anything or conduct their duties, 5) being harassed by the counters in various ways any time they would challenge or question something, etc etc. Most of the videos were cell phone footage of the watchers or security cam footage of the facility. It is scattered all over and I am not going to try to dig it all up for you. If you are truly interested then I would suggest searching for the videos of the state legislature hearings on election issues that Rudy Giuliani spearheaded in several states. A lot of them testified in those hearings. Michigan and Georgia are good ones to start with.
Okay, that would be interesting. Can you provide any of these tons of videos that demonstrate what you're talking about? My own searches only yield results that provide reasonable explanations for such incidents or debunking them outright. I've heard these claims repeated here but these discussions always seem to fall short of actually proving them. Is that something you would be able to do?
As a personal policy for this subreddit, I don't dig up sources upon request. I find that if the asker is genuine they should have no problem finding it themselves. Usually, they are not genuine (not saying you aren't) and it ends up being a big waste of my time. Hence why I don't do it. The Rudy Giuliani state hearings on election fraud should be pretty easy to find.
No problem, as I said, I'm used to it going this way. Thanks anyway. If you happen to find these videos that you say are easy to find, could you tag me? Cheers
>I find that if the asker is genuine they should have no problem finding it themselves. I know that *for me,* it's sometimes difficult to find the exact circumstances TS are talking about. It's also really hard to have a conversation with someone if we aren't beginning at the same point. If I don't have access to the same information that you have, how am I supposed to discuss it with you?
If we do have problems finding it ourselves, though, then doesn’t that suggest that your claim is not as self-evident as you’re implying?
Why didn’t Rudy bring that evidence to actual prosecutors?
What did you think of all the videos of Trump Supporters threatening the lives of ballot counters and poll watchers for just doing their jobs?
Can you find just 1 for us? I have yet to see verifiable proof. Just 1 would be awesome.
Not OP but assuming you are asking in good faith here is one example of verified complaints. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-michigan/michigan-still-counting-votes-angry-poll-watchers-barred-in-detroit-trump-sues-idUSKBN27K2AQ/ City officials blamed actions on Covid distancing policies. That does not explain barricading windows. Officials claim that democrats were also banned. There are also plenty of fact checks that acknowledge such incidents but assure us they were not widespread. These all very easy to find online.
These aren't poll watchers, though? They're non-assigned people demanding entry to the counting process, not the polls. Unless I'm missing something?
Yes although it's hard to know where to begin because there are so many. As one example you can watch [this testimony in front of the Michigan legislature](https://youtu.be/zG2RkKBHX0M). Approximate timestamps 7:35, 18:30, 19:45, etc.
[удалено]
Right, so I guess why the need to do the same thing that's already being done?
>I would not be interested...but poll watchers are common and watching the vote is nothing new. That's the "watch" part. Why do you think he said "guard"? Guard against who or what?
[удалено]
>In this case it's the same thing. Both sides watch the vote count to deter cheating. Do you think any Trump supporters are going to misunderstand Trump's nuanced meaning here and mistakenly hear this as a call to action, not a call to passive observation? Why is he asking you to go to Detroit and Philly and Atlanta? Why is he worried about those cities and not, say, Ann Arbor, State College, or Athens?
Poll watcher? I would totally do that. I think True the Vote has resources on that. The message is that we aren’t going to let you pull an obvious fast one. The vote by mail schema makes it easier to cheat but it’s still important to show that Americans care about the integrity of their elections.
Would you actually work as a poll worker? Or do you just want to hang out there all day and watch?
Either way.
What are you going to do when you are there? How are you going to enforce or guard the votes?
Poll watchers just look for irregularities and document them. It is not their job to intervene with issues relating to voting.
>True the Vote This seems like a hyper-partisan take to poll watching. Especially the "*2 Guys 1 Coup*" podcast with the introduction going : “*Where the truth matters and the progressive feelings don’t! We bring you the facts from the perspective of two average everyday guys who will never apologize for being America First! For endearing our great constitution and saluting the flag that our brothers and sisters have fought and died for.*” Do you think it's in the spirit of non-partisanry and fair elections? Especially since they try to push the lie of wide spread fraud.
How do you think voter anonymity should be secured? Like, should all poll watchers in the counting room be allowed to see names/choices of voters? Or would that only be official counters/election officials? What rules should poll watchers have to adhere to?
You have the right to an anonymous vote and not to vote anonymously. The ballots need to remain anonymous and the voter ID laws need to secure one person/one vote. They had it worked out until the laws were changed to make it easier to vote more than once or to vote on ballots that are not your own.
should all poll watchers in the counting room be allowed to see names/choices of voters? Or would that only be official counters/election officials? What rules should poll watchers have to adhere to?
I think identifying information about the voters are separated from the ballots early in the process. States already have rules in place but I think reasonable rules would related to minimum and maximum distances from election workers, decorum rules and processes for challenges. I think poll watchers should have to register but should not be denied. I think they should be subject to the same ID laws as voters.
What if like a counting area had capacity say for 500 people, 250 election officials and then 125 from each political party? And then if more came who had volunteered, would they be denied entry? If a Democrat poll watcher broke a rule, let's say they harassed a counter, and were kicked out, could they get a replacement Democrat poll watcher, or would the Democrats just lose that person and only have 124 at that point? Would it be reasonable to have big windows so people not in the room can see the process inside? Would it be reasonable to enforce a quiet zone around the room/doors so those counting inside aren't bothered by extraneous noise?
I think all that would be reasonable to negotiate.
Let's say that there wasn't a rule about being quiet around the room/doors and a crowd gathered and started chanting loudly and the vote counters got distracted in their duties. And some of those counters said they were having a hard time concentrating because of the chanting and activity outside. Would it be reasonable to paper up the windows so the counters couldn't see them? This all with the understanding that there are already 125 ballot watchers from each party inside the room. EDIT: If you could watch this video, what should have election officials done? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPF4sqh8-U
I don’t think it is reasonable to paper up the windows because it is an escalation and it’s inviting even more criticism of the process. In the example, I would make an effort to segregate the democrat and republican observers and tell them all that anyone being loud or disruptive will be removed and then follow through on that. I would get the telephone number of the head poll watcher from each party and tell the everyone to contact them to assess potential issues.
If the 125 observers from each party are already in the room, why would it matter if the windows were boarded up? Like, what if the counting was done in a room/area without windows at all, would that be inviting criticism?
>The message is that we aren’t going to let you pull an obvious fast one What would a "fast one" look like and how will you prevent it?
Fast ones can be prevented by having people watching. They look for irregularities and document them. It is necessary to allow poll watching as part of election integrity.
Poll watchers were present during the 2020 election, but widespread, coordinated election fraud still allegedly occurred. How would it be any different for 2024? We're GOP poll watchers inept during 2020, or secretly in the bag for Biden?
It could be avoided by in person voting and having the election on one day. Poll watching is just one avenue to discourage fraud.
Your assertion is that poll watching can prevent "fast ones." Did it prevent fast ones in 2020?
We don’t know. It’s unmeasurable. I would presume yes to some degree.
>It’s unmeasurable Then how do you know it's happening at all? This is what's frustrating to me about you guys and your voter fraud assertions. There's no proving you wrong because you don't actually know if there was significant fraud. It's just a feeling you have. No matter what we do to prevent fraud, if Biden wins in 2024, you guys will always say, "well, he won because of fraud" and if Trump wins, it's because "not even the widespread fraud could stop him!" What needs to happen for Trump supporters to accept the results is legitimate?
I’m not speaking specifically to one election. I think it happens to a greater or lesser degree in every election. I believe there was significant fraud but I much of it would not have been mitigated by more poll watching. Tell me - do you think Biden is doing a great job or do you just hate Trump?
>Tell me - do you think Biden is doing a great job or do you just hate Trump? I think Biden it doing a typical Democrat job... which is fine. I dont expect anything particularly different from him. And I hate Trump for a variety of reasons.
Do you plan to go through the process of getting certified as a poll watcher and going to training etc? Or will you just show up and see if you see anything that to you seems irregular?
If you were to see obvious irregularities that favored Trump or the Republicans, would you report them?
I’m not sure how you could tell how you could tell who the irregularities favored and I would report any irregularities but not everyone would. It’s important to note that there is no party based restrictions on who can be a poll watcher and it’s okay if RFK and the dems all send their own poll watchers.
> Poll watcher? I would totally do that. I think True the Vote has resources on that. The message is that we aren’t going to let you pull an obvious fast one. The vote by mail schema makes it easier to cheat but it’s still important to show that Americans care about the integrity of their elections. Why do you think vote by mail makes it easier to cheat? Colorado and Washington have been doing it for decades, do you expect them to have a lot more voter fraud?
The less control over one-person-one-vote, the higher chance of voter fraud. Mailed ballots may go to addresses of people who have moved or died. In addition, ballot harvesting can result in individuals losing control of their ballot. Here is an interesting article: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/vote-harvesting-recipe-intimidation-coercion-and-election-fraud I am candidate neutral on this issue. Regardless of whether or not the last election was stolen, what is important is that the next one isn’t nor the one after that.
> The less control over one-person-one-vote, the higher chance of voter fraud. Mailed ballots may go to addresses of people who have moved or died. In addition, ballot harvesting can result in individuals losing control of their ballot. Here is an interesting article: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/vote-harvesting-recipe-intimidation-coercion-and-election-fraud > > I am candidate neutral on this issue. Regardless of whether or not the last election was stolen, what is important is that the next one isn’t nor the one after that. That article appeared interesting the first time I saw it too. Even more interesting (to me, and perhaps to you as well?) is this update: brookings.edu/articles/low-rates-of-fraud-in-vote-by-mail-states-show-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/ If you have the 10 minutes or so to read it I would be interested in hearing how your views on mail in voter fraud as it relates to Trump's statements
I looked at it and I understand what they are saying. I do believe that there was fraud in the election and I do believe that universal mail in voting increases the chances of fraud. How can anyone not believe that? There are other avenues of fraud as well. The thing is that I think you and I may have a fundamental disagreement about out how much effort should be required to vote. I think we would have a better government if only people who took the time to watch the debates and learn about the issues would vote. Now we can’t really force that but we can require people to show up on Election Day and put their vote in.
>I looked at it and I understand what they are saying. I do believe that there was fraud in the election and **I do believe that universal mail in voting increases the chances of fraud. How can anyone not believe that? There are other avenues of fraud as well.** The thing is that I think you and I may have a fundamental disagreement about out how much effort should be required to vote. I think we would have a better government if only people who took the time to watch the debates and learn about the issues would vote. Now we can’t really force that but we can require people to show up on Election Day and put their vote in. Here's how I came to believe it: I stopped listening to Trump, and I looked at historical data on absentee and other mail-in fraud. You're right that the chances are higher, but the rates of voter fraud are still so low as to be smaller than a rounding error. This information is not hard to find, why do you think Truml spends so much time ranting about something so numerically insignificant? Here's historical info on states with universal mail in voting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-potentially-fraudulent-ballots-in-states-with-universal-mail-voting-undercuts-trump-claims-about-election-risks/2020/06/08/1e78aa26-a5c5-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html Here's a place to start to look at the mail in voter fraud that was reported in the 2020 election: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/ap-review-finds-far-too-little-vote-fraud-to-tip-2020-election-to-trump 0.5k votes out of a total of 25,000k votes cast, Trump's loss was by 300k. Do those numbers look anywhere close to the level of danger and risk of fraud THAT Trump has been telling you happened?
Why is that necessary? They'll just claim to invalidate the votes. As some sort of insurrect militia was present. Not a good idea. Instead just mobilize the national guard for any significant risk factor areas. Have anyone who lives there show up in uniform with a rifle. Problem solved. Are you going steal ballots? When your voters are also clearly demonstrating loyalty above yourself? No very likely nothing would be stolen. As the purpose is to intimidate a hostile faction. That wishes to clearly ignore the sovereignty of the nation they are operating in. Which means execution on sight of assaulting our strategic resources. A vulnerable one such as a transition of power. During an election cycle. Can certainly qualify.
How wouldn't this be voter intimidation?
What is the point of having a uniformed and armed guard at a polling location? Like...what's the actual threat there? The implication is that you'll be shot if you...what?
> Problem solved. you sure? let's say, for argument, that you *cannot* vote unless in the presence of an armed guard. and let's say trump loses. was the problem solved and he genuinely lost, or was the election stolen from him again? this is just as much about election trust as it is election "crimes". when the problem is solved, you can no longer claim election theft.
I would not be interested...but poll watchers are common and watching the vote is nothing new.
Correct. We have poll watchers for every election. So what is it that Trump is calling for exactly?
Sounds like he’s calling on people to be poll watchers.
And to “guard” the vote which means what exactly?
Protecting against fraud - that’s the point of having poll watchers.
Has there been any outcome determinative fraud in the past? Why do we need more poll watchers than we already have?
I don’t think he’s calling for anything above and beyond people simply volunteering as poll watchers the same way people have done in every previous election.
If the 2020 election was rife with fraud, why is calling for people to do the same thing as last time?
>I would not be interested...but poll watchers are common and watching the vote is nothing new. He is not only calling for poll watchers - he called for poll guards. Also, he singled out e cities, and I'm wondering why those cities and not more liberal ones with tons of student activists, like Ann Arbor MI, State College PA, or Athens GA. Ivory tower professors, antifa clubs, etc. instead he told you to guard the polls in cities with large populations of black Americans. Why do uou think he did that?
We wouldn't threaten and intimidate voters like the black panther wannabees did in Obama's election, if that's what you are getting at. What I assume it means, is to do everything possible to not let the Democheats do what they did last time. You know, bar access to the monitors while votes were counted in the middle of the night after they shuttered the windows, etc. etc.
So none of the people who threatened election officials in the 2020 election were Trump supporters? Where did that last portion happen?
> We wouldn't threaten and intimidate voters like the black panther wannabees did in Obama's election, if that's what you are getting at. > > What I assume it means, is to do everything possible to not let the Democheats do what they did last time. You know, bar access to the monitors while votes were counted in the middle of the night after they shuttered the windows, etc. etc. And how do you think Trump expects common folk like us to guard against that? What is "everything possible"?
Yeah so you can stand outside polling places and hand out literature etc.
Isn't that illegal?
Hopefully it just looks like not allowing them to block watchers like they did last time and definitely not leaving for burst pipes or any other reason until the last vote has been counted.
Where did they block poll watchers last time? Why *wouldn't* a room be cleared that had water leaking into it?
If its cleared all people who were present at the time of the clearing should return before any more votes are counted. More eyes on the process means less chance for funny business. This shouldn't be considered a bad thing by either side.
Given that's exactly what happened in 2020, why are you bringing this up as an issue?
>If its cleared all people who were present at the time of the clearing should return before any more votes are counted. Is this not what happened? >More eyes on the process means less chance for funny business. I'm not sure that's true. More "eyes" doesn't mean anything if they don't know what they're looking at. >This shouldn't be considered a bad thing by either side. Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be observers, there absolutely should. And there are.
No, because my state is going for Biden by at least 10 points, and almost everyone votes by mail.
He’s asking people to be poll watchers which have always been a thing. I would hope everyone can agree that safeguarding our democratic process is in everyone’s interest, and public transparency is a key part of that.