Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

This I would be using as a basis to show that they’re suppressing the vote, if they didn’t just come out and say it themselves.

Kind of odd to claim Trump is outright saying there that he wants to suppress the vote (by opposing the bill,) when everybody knows he'd been consistently shouting that there was going to be fraud in the election. Are you asking me to believe that he's telling his followers that the bill is completely legit, but he opposes it for electoral reasons? Does that sound like a Trump claim to you?

IIRC, Trump brought up potential fraud via ballot harvesting with regards to that bill.

From the article:

“The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again”

Also from Paul Weyrich in the same article, a founding member of the conservative think-tank Berotage Foundation:

“I don’t want everybody to vote,” Paul Weyrich, an influential conservative activist, said in 1980. “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

I explicitly said the article was linked to show conservatives don’t want to expand the vote, so anything they do that purports to be related to making the election more secure is probably secondary to just making it harder for people to vote.

[Starver]

How many countless thousands would you keep from voting out of spite to stop these 544 votes?

False dilemma.

Can't argue with you, because I don't even know what you're saying/think you're saying. What exactly do you consider false?

[Frumple]

I think they're trying to say you could do the latter without doing the former. Which is one of those, "Maybe, if the american right-wing suddenly vanished in a puff of morality" things, i.e. completely (presumably willfully, considering shit ain't exactly been subtle over the years) ignorant of efforts in reality to stop marginal voter fraud.

[Lord Shonus]

If you took every confirmed case of voter fraud in the US since 1950 and shoved them all into 2020, they would not be enough to flip the election in most -if any- states. The notion that there is widespread voter fraud that MUST BE STOPPED is a false one, circulated entirely for the purpose of fooling the gullible into supporting thinly-veiled modern equivalents of poll taxes and literacy tests.

[da_nang]

If you took every confirmed case of voter fraud in the US since 1950 and shoved them all into 2020, they would not be enough to flip the election in most -if any- states. The notion that there is widespread voter fraud that MUST BE STOPPED is a false one, circulated entirely for the purpose of fooling the gullible into supporting thinly-veiled modern equivalents of poll taxes and literacy tests.

The GOP is full of bullshit, I'll give you that.

I will, however, add the bane of all voter fraud detection system statistics.

• Detection rate is easy to acquire.
• Precision is easy as well, albeit fuzzy and imprecise at times.
• False omission rate, however, is extremely difficult to acquire if not straight out illegal.

In layman's terms:

• We know quite well how often the system is dinging.
• We know somewhat well how likely it is that the system is correctly dinging.
• We hardly know anything about how likely it is that the system is incorrectly not dinging.

What we can say is that the false omission rate is probably small due to the effort required but probably not inconsequential for tight races.

Worse, trying to measure the probability requires either intentionally committing voter fraud or convincing a large swath of the population that a hugely important (fake) election is being held.

We can calculate it using the detection rate, the precision, and the sensitivity. However, that is just kicking the can down the road since sensitivity suffers the same issue as the false omission rate: we hardly know anything about it, and measuring it is difficult if not illegal.

Code: (Calculation formula) [Select]

False Omission Rate = Precision * ((1 - Sensitivity)/Sensitivity) * (Detection Rate/(1 - Detection Rate))
If everything worked flawlessly, no voter ID laws, and the fraud rate is low and not too concentrated in one area, then sensitivity can probably be approximated by the turnout. Based on NYC DOI data from the 2013 NYC mayoral election with a 13% turnout, when the system wasn't working correctly, the sensitivity dropped to 3%. (The methods used by the DOI were legally questionable, by the way)

As an example, I estimate the UK 2017 parliamentary elections to have had a false omission rate of 0.1 ppm +- 90% (rounded to 0 to 8 fraudulent votes that went undetected), based on police reports. The MP seat of North East Fife was decided by two votes.

The garbage error bars are due to the fuzziness of the police data (inconclusive reports and reports that lack evidence).

[Lord Shonus]

I didn't think there were any races that were close to that tight in 2020, but there turns out to have been a single congressional district that was a 6 vote margin (out of ~400,000 votes). If your WAG is estimating 0-8 votes out of 46 million may have been fradulent in the 2017 UK election, you would need a fraud rate two orders of magnitude higher to affect even that.

[Starver]

As an example, I estimate the UK 2017 parliamentary elections to have had a false omission rate of 0.1 ppm +- 90% (rounded to 0 to 8 fraudulent votes that went undetected), based on police reports. The MP seat of North East Fife was decided by two votes.

Just to further refine the calculations, a note that the 0..8 theoretical UDVs would not be likely to be concentrated in NE Fife, but spread (not necessarily evenly, but likely not not spread) across 650 roughly equally-populated[1] constituencies.

Without other confounding factors, it's unlikely that even those two votes were surpassable by nullifying a whole eight 'bad' votes.  Needs to be many more in the system. Or a concerted effort in precisely that one place where it would count (that somehow people knew it would in advance).


((And it turned out easier to buy the whole DUP, for ten full seats of 'Supply And Confidence', to get the knife-edge turned.))



[1] Actual ranges: ~21k (Western Isles) to 113k (Isle of Wight), both significant outliers[2][3].
Median: ~73k
Mean: ~73k
1st/3rd Quartiles: ~67k and ~79k
Geometric Mean: 73k
Geothmetic Meandian[4]: 73061.5052479788 (2019 electorate data)

[2] Tenth lowest: 51k
[3] Tenth highest: 92k
[4] https://xkcd.com/2435/

[BurnedToast]

If you took every confirmed case of voter fraud in the US since 1950 and shoved them all into 2020, they would not be enough to flip the election in most -if any- states. The notion that there is widespread voter fraud that MUST BE STOPPED is a false one, circulated entirely for the purpose of fooling the gullible into supporting thinly-veiled modern equivalents of poll taxes and literacy tests.

Another thing I want to point out is that the GOP has very successfully manipulated the conversation. They have, in the mind of the public, lumped together all forms of voter and election fraud into one big pile and then suggested voter ID as a solution.

This is a false narrative. Voter ID would stop precisely one type of vote fraud - voter impersonation. Voter impersonation in the US is so rare it can be considered zero - one researcher found only ~30 credible cases in a 15 year period. That's 2 per year, everywhere in the united states combined.

Meanwhile, approximately 11% of eligible voters lack a valid government ID. That's ~21 million people. Let's do the math here:

Let's say we are successful in getting 99.9% of them an ID. That's laughably, wildly optimistic, but let's go with it. That means we have disenfranchised only 21,000 people.

Let's also say we are off on the amount of voter impersonation. let's say we are off by a *lot*. Say... a factor of 1000. That means there's 2,000 cases of voter impersonation per year.

Even massaging the numbers this much, to such absurd extremes, you're still even after all that, disenfranchising 10x as many voters as you're stopping fraudulent votes.

Anyone who supports voter ID laws, please tell me how that makes a more healthy democracy? (I'll dig up cites if you don't believe the numbers)

Lord Shonus is absolutely correct, voter ID laws are simply the modern day version of the literacy test. The *only* purpose is to disenfranchise the "wrong" voters so they don't vote for the "wrong" people, there is no other purpose.

[Bumber]

I hate to give ignorance a platform, but what is your actual idea for a solution?

Also, what do you think the problem is? Because the problem should clearly be that people who are legally allowed to vote are being blocked from that civil ability.

Require ID, enforce that everyone who wants one be able to get one?

The problem is that people who are willing and legally allowed to vote does not equal the people who vote.

I don't think he cared whether the votes were added or subtracted to the appropriate side and that's a silly defense to make anyways. "He did it but not in the way you claim!"

There's a world of difference between asking someone to count illegal votes versus throw illegal votes out. I'm not sure how much clearer I can summarize it then, "There was massive fraud, prove 11,780 instances of it so I win."

Come on- how many lawsuit allegations of massive election fraud succeeded?

How many of them got to the discovery phase, where subpoenas could be issued to obtain the needed information?

At least one of the lawsuits was dismissed because it should've been filed earlier (Arizona.) I bet if it had been filed before the election, it would have been rejected on lack of standing (i.e., Trump couldn't claim he'd been harmed by it before anything happened.)

In the majority of them, however, the judges stated they couldn't give the relief asked. That is, even if massive fraud was proved, the courts were unwilling to overturn an election.

It's likely moot as far as finding enough votes to overturn a single state, but we'd have better info on what fraud may have occurred.

There's an exception in the 13th amendment, that slavery is illegal except in the case where "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". Some of you consider yourselves liberal, some conservative, but I assume all parties present agree that they want to be on the side that carries on the legacy of the abolishment of slavery, while those that do not and will privately support slavery for the exploitation of their fellow humans can and will use things like this for profit, so that "you all go work, while I can eat".

It's not like the prisons are allowed whip or starve prisoners if they refuse to work. That's definitely illegal now. The prisoners are probably not going to be getting out early on "good behavior", though.

[Starver]

I can summarize it than, "There was massive fraud, prove 11,780 instances of it so I win."

Quote some credible (unproven, maybe, but not disproven) assertion that he made that got anywhere close to realistically postulating the volume necessary for that figure. (Pure self delusion, or at best wishful thinking, doesn't count.)

[Bumber]

I can summarize it than, "There was massive fraud, prove 11,780 instances of it so I win."

Quote some credible (unproven, maybe, but not disproven) assertion that he made that got anywhere close to realistically postulating the volume necessary for that figure. (Pure self delusion, or at best wishful thinking, doesn't count.)

I don't need to show that to prove what he was asking for.

[Lord Shonus]

In the majority of them, however, the judges stated they couldn't give the relief asked. That is, even if massive fraud was proved, the courts were unwilling to overturn an election.

This is not the case. The majority of the rulings against Trump were "You have failed to provide the slightest trace of evidence to support your claim of fraud". They weren't thrown out on some procedural issue, they were thrown out because the judges recognized it as the "I appointed you, now throw out democracy for me" gambit that it was.

I don't know any way to explain this clearer than this. The only reason that anybody is claiming voter fraud is because the only election result they would accept is the re-election of God-Emperor Donald Trump. The claim of widespread voter fraud has no basis in fact. It is a bald-faced lie from a serial con man.

[Duuvian]

In the majority of them, however, the judges stated they couldn't give the relief asked. That is, even if massive fraud was proved, the courts were unwilling to overturn an election.

This is not the case. The majority of the rulings against Trump were "You have failed to provide the slightest trace of evidence to support your claim of fraud". They weren't thrown out on some procedural issue, they were thrown out because the judges recognized it as the "I appointed you, now throw out democracy for me" gambit that it was.

I don't know any way to explain this clearer than this. The only reason that anybody is claiming voter fraud is because the only election result they would accept is the re-election of God-Emperor Donald Trump. The claim of widespread voter fraud has no basis in fact. It is a bald-faced lie from a serial con man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election fraud, election manipulation, voter fraud or vote rigging, involves illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of a favored candidate, depressing the vote share of rival candidates, or both.[1] It differs from but often goes hand-in-hand with voter suppression. What exactly constitutes electoral fraud varies from country to country.

Your boy is a conman, likely a criminal, and a would be tyrant. Your party had the chance to turn itself around but went with him instead. Now it's split through his supporters own fault. If the Biden admin doesn't screw up in the reality most people live in, expect difficulty in non-local politics unless people in your position make a smart political decision and start supporting Republicans who had the sense to not stay or enter Trump's camp. I disagree with them on many things but I respect that they made a difficult choice without selling out.

Welcome to political sidelining. Sucks don't it?

[martinuzz]

People in Florida, stay safe and get the hell outta there. You're at high risk of being covered in a 6m high tidal wave of toxic waste water.

EDIT: I really hope for nature and farmer's sake that they manage to pump that basin dry before the walls break (about 2 billion liters, being pumped out at 80k liters per minute now). Or the Tampa area will end up not just salted earth, but salted toxic earth. That's end of business if you're a farmer.

EDIT: perhaps also a good idea if you live in the area, to hoard drinking water. Apparently if the thing floods, your drinking water supply is also going to be contaminated.

[Max™]

Like please educate me here, but aside from a homeless person what eligible voter has zero proof that they exist and therefore can't use our current system?

Yo.

Drift out of the workforce long enough, end up living with someone for a while, suddenly it is really hard to even begin to prove you're actually a person standing there, and last time I tried was before they closed several DMVs and shit out here.

I'm a me-shaped hole in the awareness of the US and state government here. The US is at least theoretically aware that I existed, but I was never able to get any id in this state, yet here I am watching people play into the hands of fucking-fascist-loving-racist-pieces-of-twice-digested-rancid-shit by operating within the bounds of the conversation they set up to get us seriously talking about the pro's and con's of voting ID instead of paying attention to the FACT that they're trying to keep the "wrong" people from voting because their whole platform (such that it existed prior to Trump) was based on screwing over said "wrong" people as hard as possible while redistributing wealth and power where "it belongs" i.e. the hands of old white dudes.

There's no defense for seriously worrying about voter fraud or considering the idea of a voter ID besides not realizing you're buying into a smokescreen set up by the worst pieces of shit in the entire nation.

So, here I am pulling back the curtain to reveal that the wizard is just an evil old white dude, and all the shit he's talking about is a lie or cleverly-phrased way of saying "we hate black people, aren't fond of brown people in general, and wish poor people would all hurry up and die" so we can get back to reminding people how important it is that these fuckers are removed from office and ideally punished severely for their crimes.