If this election was free and fair then of course someone else could've won it

[uponit7771]

... But for those of us who do NOT believe this election was free and fair the supposition that someone else could've won sound like

- victim blaming
- FUD meme
- asinine, backward Trump voter type thinking

Where am I off here?

Thx in advance

[tenorly]

1. "Eeees OK," says Vladimir.

"As long as you Americans use those nifty, read-and-write software voting and tabulation machines, NO ONE will 'win it' unless I say eeees OK."

"Nasdrovia!"

[uponit7771]

2. Someone said Russia and Comey and Voter suppression was nothing new in response to free...

... and fair.

IDK wtf people are thinking here

[tenorly]

3. It's amazing how quickly the abnormal can get normalized, even among smart people.

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

[center]— Voltaire[/center]

[uponit7771]

6. +1

[Orsino]

4. If it had been free and fair it could be audited and recounted...

...and the reason for every voter denied access would be known.

[LaydeeBug]

5. exactly. nt

[uponit7771]

7. yes

[mythology]

8. There's the issue that there is no evidence that the actual voting wasn't free

So if you're starting off on a false premise, then your conclusions are also likely to be wrong.

If you are alleging that the vote wasn't free, you need to present compelling evidence as it's just not there when you look at the overall demographics of the election. And you can't just claim that because there is electronic vote counting that it's flawed because the demographics in Michigan with paper ballots matched other states.

[uponit7771]

9. Yes there is, Nate silver not only calculated the 1.2% effect of voter suppression but also the

... Comey effect.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate-silver-clinton-wouldve-almost-certainly-become-president-if-not-for-comeys-letter/

Effects of voter suppression

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2668239

[JCanete]

10. yet Democrats have failed time and time again to make voter suppression and voter machines a major

issue. As a party we keep rolling over, and we can be damned sure the media isn't going to do the job of informing the people for us. Its not for me whether or not somebody else would have won, its whether and which Democrats are willing to stand in solidarity on these things and fight back against them, or whether they are content to continue to be #2 in Washington if it means not rocking the boat or upsetting the natural order.

[uponit7771]

11. Unnnn, I think in every state they've fought... if you're talking about a campaign issue then

... you're 100% right.

They can make it an issue with showing mostly the white middle class being affected if their concerned about "identity" issues.

That's the reason why I think Deans proposal is correct; the DNC head should be full time... period

[JCanete]

12. yes, that's what I mean. Fighting at the state level is by itself, likely to be a losing battle.

It's one fought in the Republican appointed courts against republican legislation, when the battle should be waged by getting the people outraged and engaged in their democracy.

Our party's problem(generous read here) is that we keep thinking that we are going to win in-spite of the scale-tipping. We don't want to sound like whiners pre-election and damage our chances. Clinton even went so far as to legitimize our system by trying to paint Trump with a sore-loser vibe if he disavowed it in the face of a loss, because she was so certain that she had this in the bag. Now come post election, we can't challenge our rigged elections without ourselves, looking like sore-losers.

Its a mantle we need to take up and not let up on, whether we are winning or losing in the poles, and we need to do it uniformly as a party...not just as isolated voices expressing concern here and there.

[uponit7771]

13. +1, I think some of the consensus now is to do some scale tipping ourselves in the most moral

... way possible.

My thought is to go out and start vote suppression rural areas and make a big fuss about it... then press the federal legislator to make laws against it on a national level or make them enforce the ones we have that are going agasinst the poor and PoC

[JCanete]

14. I think that sounds pretty sensible. Places where it has a provable outcome are probably a smart

place to start, with the force and money of the DNC behind the exposure.

[uponit7771]

15. +1