There's one thing which has been on my mind since I started following the US election run-up because it has been unheard-of and will probably not be seen in a number of European countries and that is the imponderabilities of the execution of an election. I'm wondering why the US system seems so vulnerable that long before election day all sorts of people can easily find fault with the election procedure and the election results and say that they won't recognise them anyway because they suspect fraud. Why is the electoral process not so ironclad that such suspicions would be excluded from the outset? Apparently, that seems to work in other countries. It seems unimaginable over here that an election campaign from day one is based on the assumption that the electoral process is faulty and can't be controlled anyway. There were communal elections on Sunday and I voted in-person. We have mail-in voting as well but I have never heard of problems like signatures on the ballots not matching the signatures of voters on file or ballots not complying with the technical rules that apply to absentee ballots just to give one example. There are many other weak spots, as you know. Why is it? I guess a lot of people over here would find it bizarre if there was to be an election which from the very outset could be dismissed as "probably fraudulent". Why then vote in the first place? Even the opposition parties from national conservative to extreme right haven't seriously thought about contesting the election procedure, which they would if they saw the slightest chance. They know why that hasn't been an option for them. On the one hand, because they'd need proof of fraud and, OTOH, because if they did impeach the system, their own potential victory wouldn't be worth anything because it would be a result of a fraudulent election. Wouldn't that be the case in the US as well if Trump won again? Wouldn't it be nice to have a generally accepted election procedure that at least the candidates themselves would have trust in? Do you trust the current procedure although people at the top don't? Would you like to see changes to it? If so, what can or should be done to make the US voting procedure more solid and less prone to be challenged or called into question by anyone? A country like the US should be capable of introducing and using such a system, shouldn't it?
States Rights! The US is bi-polar. The state hold any power that is not assigned to the feds by the constitution. This results in 50 different methods of conducting elections while being constrained to federal guidelines. One state may use paper ballots,another electronic, another maybe another method. Different states have different requirements to appear on a ballot. Some state you may only vote in your registered parties primary,some any voter can vote in any primary. Some state require you to declare a party upon registration some don't.
As Peter stated, each state conducts the election process differently. Unlike Europe, the U.S. is huge and keeping track of everyone is a monumental job. It is so easy to interfere with the process and has in the past. Thus we have all these wild predictions due to fraud, etc. It should be run the same everywhere, but, until that happens you will see this, Thomas.
That is the point. To suppress turnout. Low turnout here usually favors one political party. This is a new strategy that I've never seen before. There have certainly been efforts to suppress turnout before, but never by claiming the whole process is fraudulent.
There's a similar strategy over here known as asymmetric mobilisation aiming at producing unequal turnout which has been pursued by Merkel and her party. Similar in aim but different in the way to achieve it.
On the other hand, as Merkel may pronounce it, Asymmetrischen Mobilisierung sounds like we may need shots for it.
I'm not sure if Merkel herself ever used that term, a technical one created by her spin doctors. If at all, then the German term is "asymmetrische Demobilisierung". That's a possible variation because the strategy aims at "demobilising", i.e. discouraging the voters of the opposition parties by avoiding clear statements on hot-button issues. At the same time they speculate that their own voters will be mobilised nonetheless, i.e. encouraged to vote, by that strategy. Merkel has brought that to some perfection. She'd learned from her mentor Helmut Kohl that it is sometimes better to kick the can down the road.
It sounds technical and kind of cryptic, don't you think? It makes people think about what it could mean.
It sounds like a pretty sensible strategy to me in normal times. But we have moved past the point of no return for that. There are always characters who appear on the internet and "interpret" everything for everyone, trying to stir people up on all sides. I still haven't figured out what's in it for them, or at least, where or who, it comes from. Does that make sense? lol
Most Americans wonder the same thing as you, Thomas. Why is it so difficult to have secure and accurate elections?? I will be voting in person, as always.
I don't know the extent of corruption if any in German politics, but in the U.S. it is quite rampant, federal, state and local. We have little trust in politicians and used car salesmen.
Ed, I think it would be fair to say that corruption in German politics is not an issue. There's some lobbyism as is in any country but recent surveys show that the ruling coalition parties are still getting the support of 68% of the population despite the anti-corona measures imposed on them or just because of them. @Terry Coywin Don't be afraid of politics, Terry. After all, politics is about humans and their behavior, if you like. You can't quit all your relationships with people either, can you.
Of course it does. As for the where, who, and why: There's quite a lot in it for them. For the first time in history literally everybody has a voice and can make themselves heard no matter what they say. (Who) Never has it been easier to find and link up with like-minded people and, thus, get a lot of positive feedback and confirmation relatively fast due to a lack of credibility and reality filters. According to McLuhan the medium is the message (or the massage ). So the internet and social media have an impact on what is posted and how opinions are voiced. (Where) As a result, the noise increases and everybody gets a feeling that they are heard in contrast to pre-internet times. And that is definitely a motivation for many people because they feel they become the directors of their own world experience at least in their own sealed-off micro public spheres. (Why) Not to forget: some get a decent pay for it.