Colorado’s election skeptics could use a first hand look at the system

Knowledge about elections processes is powerful

Re: “These three things could restore voters’ faith in U.S. elections,” Dec. 2 commentary

As an election supervisor at a polling place, I can personally attest that elections are run competently and fairly, and I believe that most election integrity skeptics who actually work elections and see the process in action change their minds.

The levels of checks and balances and the security measures in place throughout the whole election process, as well as the bipartisan process used from setting up polling places to voting and counting, would make voter fraud exceedingly difficult to carry out.

But I suspect that little can be done to convince many election deniers because larger forces are at play. Social media and political punditry masquerading as news has poisoned our republic by peddling in outright lies, half-truths and fear-mongering under the guise of freedom of speech, something I doubt our founding fathers had considered when crafting the First Amendment.

Election worker integrity is already in place in most of America, and despite the many obstacles we are forced to deal with, our mission is clear: We are there to ensure that all voters who are eligible to vote can do so. What’s missing is the integrity and responsibility of media leaders and politicians to ensure that voters get the facts necessary to be informed voters minus the convoluted dribble that often overrides truth and our senses.

Gerry Camilli, Englewood

The authors lament the American public’s loss of trust in our elections by wringing their hands and citing “study after study” conducted by “non-partisan experts.” Like themselves, perhaps?

Merely Google both of them to realize they are neither “non-partisan” nor “experts.” Read their papers, note the startlingly obvious political bent of the academic institutions where they work, and one needn’t be a “political scientist” as they tout themselves to realize they have a bias. Most of us, both scientists and non-scientists, do. It doesn’t take a for-real scientist to discover that “distrust will be especially high among the voters who supported candidates who lost.” Duh.

Maybe take on the elements of today’s elections that sow the most distrust, like early voting, absentee ballots, ballot harvesting, and dropbox voting, rather than chiding politicians who “express doubt… whether warranted or unwarranted.” If doubt is warranted, then expressing it is a good thing in a healthy democracy.

Finally, the irony is too delicious to ignore. Repeatedly referencing the Carter Center to make their case for how to restore voters’ faith in the legitimacy of our elections seems ill-advised, given that the ex-president for whom the Center is named threw fuel on the fire of distrust by publicly suggesting that Donald Trump’s election was illegitimate.

Jon Pitt, Golden

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Source: Read Full Article