15 ms·

A Report on the Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries

212 points by DamienSF 10y ago

natelaporte 10y ago
This is unacceptable. How can you be proud of cheating to win?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- emblem21 10y ago
  Can you not understand why people will do whatever it takes to get a shot at controlling the largest amount of nuclear weapons, the reserve currency that powers the world economy, the most technologically advanced military in world history, the world's most influential fourth/fifth estate, massive trade flows between 180+ nations, and unlimited impunity with the power to pardon anyone in your inner circle? It's the kind of power where, upon victory, you can erase how you won.
- mkhpalm 10y ago
  As long as the constituency is ultimately unwilling to hold anybody responsible after the fact... it may suck, but its still a winning strategy. The crux of the problem is that the majority of the voting public has been conditioned to treat their politics religiously. When people are organized as such, the diocese can do whatever it wants and label the collateral damage as heresy.
- pnut 10y ago
  My view of this is evolving, particularly in the context of a Presidential election. There is zero fair play at that level of politics, and if you have been coddled on your path to that chair in any way, including expectations of the orderly and fair appraisal of the absolute merits of your platform, you are unprepared. I'm saying that Clinton, with all her party machinations, is proving that she understands and has controls over real levers of power, which in turn, suggests she is capable of operating at the level required for that position. Sanders came in expecting a fair fight, and that's completely unrealistic, naive, little league politics. If you can't survive your party's nominating process, whatever that is, you are a light snack for the players at that level.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Sanders came in expecting a fair fight There are two senses of "expect", one about factual expectations (what you think will happen) and one about moral expectations (what you think should happen). There is plenty of efforts from Sanders efforts to impose accountability from very early on for variously ways the DNC seemed to be putting its finger on the scale that Sanders "expected" a fair fight in the second sense, and was prepared to fight to make the fight as fair as possible. There's zero evidence I can see that Sanders "expected" a fair fight in the first sense, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
isuckatcoding 10y ago
Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but this just reinforces the idea of a corrupt (if not idiotic) US voting/election system.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  > Not to sound like a conspiracy nut The fact that you have to state that after being given this whole bunch of good evidence is a big part of the problem.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - isuckatcoding 10y ago
    Well the way the America is currently going, I am not sure any amount of good factual evidence will matter. I think John Oliver described it best in his video a couple of days back. People seem to be motivated by feelings, not facts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I
    - maccilia 10y ago
      Sadly, what's even worse, is as I was reading this, I wondered if it might be an attempt to undermine the Democratic Party. The barrier for determining the origin of their funding and the organizational composition of the group is also high enough that I don't know how to figure out trustworthiness...
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > motivated by feelings While it was written for the creationism/evolution argument, this[1] article is one of the better descriptions of this mode of thought. While the typical HN reader uses language to convey ideas, to the creationist or the RNC attendees on John Oliver's show language instead is used first for phatic expression and social hierarchy. This is a language barrier; one side argues facts, while the other side defers to authority and feelings. Before any real communication can happen between the two sides, you first have to solve the language barrier. [1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-of-s/ http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi...
aorth 10y ago
Damning. Another report from April, 2016 about fraud in the Democratic primaries favoring Hillary Clinton. https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-992ad9e080f6#.51i8q11bq https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-elect...
wjnc 10y ago
I think this story does not need to be flagged, but could benefit from a very constrained discussion ('self-censoring') to not let personal political opinions take over the discussion. I'll try. Is this a direction more modern, western democracies seem to be heading? I feel a loss of democratic appeal and subsequent machinations of all kinds by apparatuses of state to keep in power. Democratic in name, but the number of options available to the public limited to what is in line with what public officials think of as good sense. Examples: -DNC machinating to get Clinton elected as candidate. The public needed Russia (!) for a fresh dosis of unpopular truths about those machinations. This documents more evidence on machinations. -The unpopular and undemocratic European Union. Examples abound. The best being the EU-constitution: struck down in popular referendums, flown in as a treaty. -In my country, the Netherlands, a referendum in which the public voted against an EU-agreement with Ukraine (wholy within law, with very obvious machinations by state and political parties), on which both the government and EU reneged Counter example: -Brexit Disclaimers -Please, don't hit on the 'red herrings' (if any), like 'undemocratic EU'. I see it as both a fact (imho, populus does not recognize European parliament) and an opinion (mostly in the more populist parties over Europe). Not center to my view of democracies limiting decision power of the populus. -The 'public officials' need not be those paid by the state. But more broadly: those aspiring to have their organisations have a say over public policy.
- fleitz 10y ago
  Brexit isn't quite a counter example until they invoke Article 50, before then it's unclear whether the will of the people will be respected.
  - pas 10y ago
    The will of the people is unclear, was unclear, and probably will be unclear for quite some time. A result so close to 50-50 is a coin toss, that's not the will of the people. That's a clear sign that it's a complex issue, more questions (more data) should be in order. But no, let's divine the will of the people from tealeaves instead.
    - 10y ago
selectron 10y ago
Hand counting of votes seems like a no-brainer, regardless of whether there was a conspiracy this election.
- DamienSF 10y ago
  Agree, we have to make hand counting possible in the first place.
fleitz 10y ago
It's a rigged system that's the way it's supposed to work. Either you overcome the rigging, or you STFU and unify with the corruption. As Sarah Silverman would say, stop being ridiculous. Besides, what are you going to do about it? Vote for Trump?
- spdy 10y ago
  Never underestimate the power of "stick it to the man". http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ he has some good points.
  - DamienSF 10y ago
    Thankfully for Hillary, electronic machines will be flipping some votes in her favor. Will this be enough though?
  - patrickk 10y ago
    Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, has some amazing analysis of why he thinks Trump will win: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-climate-science-master-persuader http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-climate-...
    - pas 10y ago
      Why is that amazing?
      - patrickk 10y ago
        Ok that article is a bad example. Here is a better example (ignore the cheesy setup, the actual analysis is very insightful into Trump's media manipulation tactics): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4 If you look at his blog posts written during the primary, he was saying quite early that Trump would win also.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
alanaut 10y ago
The United States very well may be the only country on Earth that invites illegal immigrants to stand on the floor of their national convention and demand systematic change across the political divide. Think about this for just a moment - imagine you live in China, illegally, what do you think will happen once you get caught? They will ship you back to the U.S. Period. I overstayed my Chilean visa by 1 day and was threatened to be sent to military prison. Given this is not only a Democrat problem, but a Republican problem as well, both parties irresponsibly pander to potential voters - in this case illegal immigrants. Does that make it right? No. I am all for removing borders globally, but this is not what Democrats are describing. They don't want Trump to separate families. That is it. Where these people used as pawns, yes. Back in the 80's, amnesty was granted for 3 million undocumented workers. Flash forward 30 years, that number is now over 12+ million. When will it end? I don't know about you all, but I could care less about which party you are from - we need to get illegal immigration under control. What will you do to fix this?
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Undocumented immigrants cannot vote.
  - alanaut 10y ago
    Seriously? Where are you getting this information? You are incorrect.
forbes 10y ago
Does any other country have a 'primary' system like the US? In Australia there is no pretending to elect candidates for each party. In our recent election we had two choices for PM from the major parties, chosen by the parties themselves. In the US you spent a year choosing your candidates, but behind closed doors one of those parties spent all their time trying to push one candidate whilst the other party spent all their time trying to stop another. The Australian system seems a little more honest, even though the roles of PM and President are quite different. We can elect a PM and the party can then choose to throw them out the week after. This happens frequently.
- wjnc 10y ago
  In the Netherlands a parties candidates are up to the parties themselves, who usually put them up for internal elections. For the bigger parties, these elections are often newsworthy. Some parties experiment by taking suggestions from the outside or even allowing outsiders to vote as well. I don't think the 'primary' system in the US is very special; it is highly newsworthy though.
- vacri 10y ago
  More than a year, even. And a first-term president is distracted for the last year of their term with that politicking. Regardless of the pros and cons of the US system, it does seem weird that Mr Head Honcho can end up not being politically aligned with the legislature. So much potential for stalemate, as evidenced by the past six years.
- flukus 10y ago
  Australia has a system like this now in the Labor party, I believe the UK does too. Shorten was elected as the Labor party leader by a combined vote of the parliamentary party and party members.
- novawave 10y ago
  The major Canadian political parties hold leadership elections open to party members (indirectly through convention delegates mostly). Party membership is entirely a private undertaking, and generally just requires a small financial contribution and a promise that you don't already belong to another party.
archgoon 10y ago
So why didn't any of this conspiracy to rig Diebold machines get referenced in the 20,000 leaked emails?
- fncndhdhc 10y ago
  My guess would be that it was carried out by a different entity, i.e. some sub-faction of the campaign as opposed to occurring at the party level.
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  Perhaps because even someone who would engage in and document a conspiracy to break organization rules via email wouldn't be dumb enough to do the same thing with breaking the law.
- imglorp 10y ago
  The last guy that talked about rigged Diebold machines died in a plane crash before testifying. That one should have been investigated just as vigorously as this time. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_specialist_dies_in_plane http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_special...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
DamienSF 10y ago
The link suddenly disappeared from the homepage while trending...
nkurz 10y ago
Since I haven't written it elsewhere, I'll write up my recent voting experience here. I'm registered as a "No Party Preference" (NPP) vote-by-mail voter living in Contra Costa County, California. As an non-partisan ballot, (logically) that ballot did not include the ability to vote in any presidential primary. But the rules of some parties in California (Democratic, Green, and Libertarian) allow you to vote in their primary as an NPP voter if you exchange your NPP ballot for a "crossover" ballot. Shortly before the primary election, the California Secretary of State issued a clarifying statement about how the process worked for NPP voters. It included these options for NPP voters who wanted to vote in a primary: Contact your county elections office no later than May 31 to request a [party specific] vote-by-mail ballot... OR Bring your vote-by-mail ballot to an early voting location or the polls on Election Day and exchange it for a ballot with presidential candidates NOTE: If you have lost your original vote-by-mail ballot, you will have to vote a provisional ballot at the polls—your vote will still be counted. http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2016-news-releases-and-advisories/tips-no-party-preference-voters1/ http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advis... Since I was planning to vote in person anyway, and since I wanted to vote in the Democratic primary, I decided to bring my valid vote-by-mail ballot with me to exchange for a standard non-provisional Democratic party ballot at my assigned polling place. When I got there (the lobby of the local Catholic church), I waited (briefly) in line, presented my mail-in ballot, and was told that exchanges for Democratic ballots were not being allowed. I mentioned the Secretary of States memo, and was (politely) told by the volunteer at the desk that they they knew nothing of this, and had been instructed that only provisional ballots were to be given. Not wanting to hold other people up, and not wanting to accept a provisional ballot that would not show up in the end-of-day count, I left my place in line, went outside, and researched my options on my cell phone. I discovered that indeed, Contra Costa County historically has had a policy of not exchanging mail in NPP ballots for "real" partisan ballots, that the Secretary of State's memo was part of the attempt to make clear that this was against state law, and that the day before the election the County had begrudgingly agreed to temporarily change its policy: After hearing reports of Contra Costa County’s practice, the Secretary of State’s Office contacted local elections officials. On Monday, they announced they would change their practice and offer these voters replacement ballots. http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/06/07/contra-costa-county-at-odds-with-state-over-mail-in-ballot-exchange/ http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/06/07/contra-costa-county-at-o... But apparently no one had told the volunteers working at the polls! So seeing no way to solve this on my own, I went though the line again, and accepted a Democratic "provisional" ballot. I was told that I needed to take the "provisional voting class", and directed to a table with 4 or 5 confused people already seated at it. A few minutes later, another volunteer (elderly, bewildered, apparently having a very hard day) tried unsuccessfully to give us instructions on how to fill out the form on which we were to affirm our identity, electoral status, and reason for requesting a provisional ballot. Then the volunteer left, and we filled out the forms as best we could. The process was sufficiently confusing that one of the voters gave up and left. After 5 minutes, the volunteer returned, and then mentioned that I wasn't supposed to have filled out the line that said "Reason for requesting provisional ballot", crossed out my complicated answer. He then went to fetch the actual ballots for us. Most of us filled them out at the table, although I think one person went to a voting booth to do so. A second person gave up at this time. Or maybe they hadn't understood that they were supposed to sign and seal the envelope and drop it in the box on the way out? Or maybe they had to go to the bathroom and planned to return. Eventually, the volunteer returned and I was told I was told to tear off the "receipt" from the provisional ballot and drop the ballot itself in an official looking bag next to the exit. The instructions on the receipt said that after 30 days, I could check online or by phone to see whether my ballot was accepted. I came home, and immediately filled out and faxed a Voter Complaint form, which I hoped the State would be sympathetic too as the County was directly disobeying their directives and failing to uphold their agreement: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/additional-elections-information/voter-complaint/ http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/additional-elections-informa... I never heard back any followup from the complaint. I've checked online several times, but 45 days later it still shows up as "No ballot found". That's right, so far as I can tell my vote was neither counted nor rejected, just lost. I might try phoning or going in person to see if I can learn more, but at this point I feel it's a lost cause. Edit: I should point out that I don't blame the volunteers --- they were poorly trained, and doing as they are told. But why are we relying on poorly trained volunteers for our elections? I do blame the County, since they failed to follow through on their pledge to the State and the press, but assume this is mostly poor communication rather than any specific ill-intent.
fncndhdhc 10y ago
Quite typical for the mods to delete this. After all, wouldn't want word to get out that YC's political friends are crooks.
- sctb 10y ago
  This post was flagged by users and not touched by mods. That's why most posts drop in rank from the front page.
- dang 10y ago
  The only thing moderators did to this post is turn off the flags on it so it would go back on the front page (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595). We did that in response to emails: polite emails, I might add, making the case for the article and the thread. Had you written a polite email instead of posting a drive-by (and completely bogus) attack, you could have contributed to that outcome yourself. One good thing came of this. When I read your comment, it occurred to me to add "Presume good faith" to our provisional list of new HN guidelines.
dang 10y ago
This story was flagged by users, no doubt because politics are mostly off-topic here and flamewars, which inflammatory topics predictably produce, are the worst. However, more than one user emailed to plead the case for the article, arguing that it is substantive and pointing out that the discussion has so far mostly remained civil (a small miracle in relative terms), so we'll try turning the flags off on this one. If the thread gets nasty we'll have to turn them back on, so if you add a comment here, please ensure that it is extra civil and substantive.
Kinnard 10y ago
How exactly does the flagging work?
- dang 10y ago
  I've detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595 and marked it off-topic so as not to distract from the thread. The way flagging works is that users click the 'flag' link that appears after the timestamp underneath a story title. A user needs a small amount of karma (31 or more) before such links appear. Flags have a number of effects, one of which is to downweight a story so that it is more likely to fall in rank. If there are enough flags on a story, the software will eventually kill it (close it to new comments and hide it from users except those with 'showdead' set to 'yes' in their profile). The purpose of flagging is to indicate that a story does not belong on HN. Frivolous flagging—e.g. flagging a story that's clearly on-topic by the site guidelines just because one personally dislikes it—eventually gets an account's flagging privileges taken away. But there's a new 'hide' link for people to click if they'd just like not to see a story. Flagging of comments is important, too. If you see a comment that breaks the HN guidelines, such as by being uncivil, you should flag it. But there's one extra hoop to jump through in the comment case: you have to click on the comment's timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. That's a speed bump to dampen impulsive flagging.
  - Kinnard 10y ago
    Ok, that was creepy. I was wondering if I was crazy and if had just commented or not. Thanks for the insight. Is the HN team considering open sourcing more of HN given all the recent changes?
    - dang 10y ago
      Sorry. Our experience is that off-topic meta discussions quickly get out of hand, most of all on divisive threads (which a partisan political thread certainly is). To stave that off I detached your comment right away, but it took time to give you a detailed reply.
vannevar 10y ago
I think the most interesting (and perhaps hopeful) aspect here is that people now have an expectation of fairness in the selection of party candidates. That's a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, I think people widely assumed that the party was biased towards individual candidates. Even now, that's clearly the case when the sitting President is a candidate. I personally think that expecting an unbiased party structure is unrealistic, given the very nature of the organization. The party doesn't have a product, other than its opinion. The idea that an organization of partisans only arrives at that collective opinion through primaries and caucuses seems quite naive to me.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  It's not the issue that there are inputs other than the wishes of the delegates, it's that those other inputs almost totally override the delegates and make the whole thing a sham. As it is, the only purpose the delegates have is to fool people into believing in the result.
- DamienSF 10y ago
  I am not sure how the findings of this report can reinforce the expectation of fairness in the selection process. The reports points out to evidences of various election fraud tactics (voter suppression, registration tampering, illegal voter purging and fraudulent voting machine tallies) which have been carried out to eventually influence the outcome of the election. Also, I wonder how can the Democratic party can still be credible in denouncing Republicans efforts to suppress voters the right to vote when employing the exact same tactics during the primaries.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    I'd be cautious of this report. This is an American politics advocacy organization. Not to say that this report is incorrect per se, it may be 100% right. But it also may be anything else, ranging from wildly exaggerated to outright wrong. It's very difficult to find sober, factual information in the national American political scene. I looked up one of the referenced incidents -- the botched poll in Arizona -- and based on other articles (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/31/arizonas-primary-was-an-utter-disaster-but-was-it-just-a-big-mistake-or-something-more-nefarious/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/31/ar...) it's hard to tell from a bird's eye perspective whether even that was "rigged".. or whether it was mere "incompetence". I know FiveThirtyEight, referenced several times in the paper, (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-a...) lean against the "rigged" argument, which is where I stand from a big picture perspective. Political shenanigans always happen, but regardless of this, demographics explain the result of the Democratic primary more than anything else. (That being said, in my opinion, the same demographics should frankly tell the Democratic Party to handle the Sanders supporters much better than they have been so far.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
alexandercrohde 10y ago
I think this report is excellent. Even for those who don't believe the statistical evidence it provides is conclusive in this case, I think no reasonable person could disagree with the improvements it suggests: Quoting from page 8: 1) Exclusive use of hand-counted paper ballots in all future US elections. 2) Automatic voter registration with same-day party affiliation switching as a mandatory condition for all elections that are publicly funded. 3) Restoration of voting rights legislation which would ensure adequate access to polling sites.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  Reasonable people can oppose same day automatic voter registration if it comes without proper fraud prevention. Everyone should support adequate access to polling sites, but also understand that there is a level of free access that has in the past allowed and encouraged fraud. I think no reasonable person could disagree that showing an ID is a reasonable requirement for voting.
  - cwmma 10y ago
    > I think no reasonable person could disagree that showing an ID is a reasonable requirement for voting. Ok here is some reasonable disagreement Voter impersonation is a very rare type of fraud [0] and ID laws tend to make it hard for some but not all voters to vote [1] meaning they don't prevent fraud, they just prevent democrat votes. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com... 1. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measurin...
- timmytokyo 10y ago
  I wonder why didn't also recommend the replacement of caucuses with primaries, since primaries are clearly more democratic than caucuses.
tunesmith 10y ago
Is there convincing evidence in this document that the amount of irregularities were actually sufficient to change the result? I haven't read the entire document yet but have sampled a couple of parts. The exit polls section, by the way, is irresponsibly flawed. It's well-known that the primary purpose of exit polls in the US is not to audit elections. It's not even to project winners. It's to update demographic models. It's well-known that using the vote count to update an exit poll's model is normal and expected practice, and not evidence of conspiracy. Yes, there have been cases where exit poll divergence has been used as evidence to point out likely fraud. But that only happens when the divergence reaches a certain level, and - this is more key - this determination is made by the exit poll organizations themselves. Here, in order to believe that exit polling shows evidence of fraud, you'd have to not only believe that the exit poll divergence does not have simpler, alternative explanations, and that the level of divergence goes beyond a reasonable range, but that our exit poll organization - a non-partisan coalition of several different independent news organizations - was aware of it and unanimously chose to suppress the information. This is tinfoil hat territory. I call it irresponsible because the point of view advanced in this report is willfully ignorant of how exit polls even work. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/22/how-exit-polls-work-explained/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/22/ho...
- seizethecheese 10y ago
  > Is there convincing evidence in this document that the amount of irregularities were actually sufficient to change the result? If an athlete is caught doping, do we question whether they would have won anyway?
  - nkurz 10y ago
    In athletics, usually not. But perhaps surprisingly, in the American legal system, yes! The relevant question actually is whether "they would have won anyway". The standard is that if the prosecution intentionally "cheats" and obtains a conviction through unconstitutional means, the conviction cannot be appealed unless it can be shown that there was a "reasonable probability" that the verdict would have been different without the violation of rights. Worse, in our adversarial system, prosecutors are essentially obligated to argue that any misconduct had no effect. One might even conclude that they are "obligated to cheat". Ken White, a former prosecutor and legal blogger at Popehat has an excellent explanation of this in his recent piece "Confessions of an Ex-Prosecutor". I'm tempted to just quote entire sections from it, but perhaps better just to link to it. If pressed for time, start with the section "Prosecutors Are Duty-Bound to Argue That Rights Don't Matter": http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/23/confessions-of-an-ex-prosecutor/print http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/23/confessions-of-an-ex-p... So, while your point is excellent, one might ask whether our voting system should be more like an athletic contest, or a legal proceeding? And if the answer is "like an athletic contest", what does that say about our legal system?
unabst 10y ago
The only question we should be asking is this. Why do some votes count more than others? The fact that there are delegates, let alone super delegates, is damning. You should always question someone claiming they will "represent" you. Democracy at its best does not need any systems or hierarchies or even parties. It needs people, all equal, to all vote, and to all be counted. That's it. I for one am all for mandatory voting, and a mandatory voting national holiday. Those who don't want to vote can vote "null" in protest. And they will feel their voice was heard because it will be. That would be a true democracy and a holiday America would be proud of.
- jessedhillon 10y ago
  Your claim that direct, popular democracy is the most desirable form is not obvious, and needs to be substantiated.
  - unabst 10y ago
    If democracy is about every American having an equal say, and if our vote is that voice, then there should be nothing standing between an individual and their vote. There is nothing that can be placed in between you and your voice that will add to what you will say. No system, no bureaucracy, no process, no delegate, nothing. This is a fundamental virtue of communication. Imagine if anything stood between you and the submit button you used to respond? Even if you had to tell someone first who then had to tell me, the message could be tainted. A man-in-the-middle is inherently insecure, whether it's actually a man or anything else. Just my keyboard will give me typos.
    - jessedhillon 10y ago
      I think you are reiterating your claims without demonstrating why these things are true. There are a wide number of issue which require a deep level of research and experience to consider. It's unfeasible to educate all 150M+ voters to the level where we can be confident their opinion on the question is informed. Absent that, their votes will only measure how the question feels with respect to gut-instinct and common "wisdom". Moreover, it would be a waste of time to have 300M (we need to teach the children too) people all be educated on the minutiae of every public policy. The field of public policy is an actual discipline precisely because it is something that people need to specialize in. Given questions like, - what range of broadcasting frequencies should be set aside for public use? - what should the maximum allowable individual gross income be before one should be required to pay AMT if it exceeds AGI; what about jointly-filing couples? - what should the agricultural subsidy be for soy and grain farmers? how do you think the average person is supposed to decide these things?
SixSigma 10y ago
The irony of hosting this all on Clinton financing Google. in for nearly $1m http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...
rubberstamp 10y ago
Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig Makes 15-Minute Case That U.S. Is Nowhere Near A True Democracy. https://collegetimes.co/larry-lessig-american-democracy/ https://collegetimes.co/larry-lessig-american-democracy/
protomyth 10y ago
I found this election cycle interesting from the point of view of a true outsider versus the party ruling clique. It seemed to me the big difference in outcomes was the amount of work done at the grassroots level in previous elections. The party who has had their ruling clique challenged for multiple election cycles had an outsider nominated, as opposed to where the party leadership was much more able to deal with insurgents.
20tibbygt06 10y ago
Election Justice USA reporting their site is under attack since reporting their findings. [0] [0]https://twitter.com/Elect_Justice/status/758376021674561536 https://twitter.com/Elect_Justice/status/758376021674561536 At this time, I'm still unable to reach their site.
boneheadmed 10y ago
Perhaps the Russians were involved.LOL! http://blogosqarteam.typepad.com/.a/6a0148c7b55aa3970c019b028bfea0970d-pi http://blogosqarteam.typepad.com/.a/6a0148c7b55aa3970c019b02...

212 points by DamienSF 10y ago

natelaporte 10y ago

This is unacceptable. How can you be proud of cheating to win?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
emblem21 10y ago
Can you not understand why people will do whatever it takes to get a shot at controlling the largest amount of nuclear weapons, the reserve currency that powers the world economy, the most technologically advanced military in world history, the world's most influential fourth/fifth estate, massive trade flows between 180+ nations, and unlimited impunity with the power to pardon anyone in your inner circle? It's the kind of power where, upon victory, you can erase how you won.
mkhpalm 10y ago
As long as the constituency is ultimately unwilling to hold anybody responsible after the fact... it may suck, but its still a winning strategy. The crux of the problem is that the majority of the voting public has been conditioned to treat their politics religiously. When people are organized as such, the diocese can do whatever it wants and label the collateral damage as heresy.
pnut 10y ago
My view of this is evolving, particularly in the context of a Presidential election. There is zero fair play at that level of politics, and if you have been coddled on your path to that chair in any way, including expectations of the orderly and fair appraisal of the absolute merits of your platform, you are unprepared. I'm saying that Clinton, with all her party machinations, is proving that she understands and has controls over real levers of power, which in turn, suggests she is capable of operating at the level required for that position. Sanders came in expecting a fair fight, and that's completely unrealistic, naive, little league politics. If you can't survive your party's nominating process, whatever that is, you are a light snack for the players at that level.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Sanders came in expecting a fair fight There are two senses of "expect", one about factual expectations (what you think will happen) and one about moral expectations (what you think should happen). There is plenty of efforts from Sanders efforts to impose accountability from very early on for variously ways the DNC seemed to be putting its finger on the scale that Sanders "expected" a fair fight in the second sense, and was prepared to fight to make the fight as fair as possible. There's zero evidence I can see that Sanders "expected" a fair fight in the first sense, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

isuckatcoding 10y ago

Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but this just reinforces the idea of a corrupt (if not idiotic) US voting/election system.

m_mueller 10y ago
> Not to sound like a conspiracy nut The fact that you have to state that after being given this whole bunch of good evidence is a big part of the problem.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- isuckatcoding 10y ago
  Well the way the America is currently going, I am not sure any amount of good factual evidence will matter. I think John Oliver described it best in his video a couple of days back. People seem to be motivated by feelings, not facts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I
  - maccilia 10y ago
    Sadly, what's even worse, is as I was reading this, I wondered if it might be an attempt to undermine the Democratic Party. The barrier for determining the origin of their funding and the organizational composition of the group is also high enough that I don't know how to figure out trustworthiness...
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > motivated by feelings While it was written for the creationism/evolution argument, this[1] article is one of the better descriptions of this mode of thought. While the typical HN reader uses language to convey ideas, to the creationist or the RNC attendees on John Oliver's show language instead is used first for phatic expression and social hierarchy. This is a language barrier; one side argues facts, while the other side defers to authority and feelings. Before any real communication can happen between the two sides, you first have to solve the language barrier. [1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-of-s/ http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi...

aorth 10y ago

Damning. Another report from April, 2016 about fraud in the Democratic primaries favoring Hillary Clinton. https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-992ad9e080f6#.51i8q11bq https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-elect...

wjnc 10y ago

I think this story does not need to be flagged, but could benefit from a very constrained discussion ('self-censoring') to not let personal political opinions take over the discussion. I'll try. Is this a direction more modern, western democracies seem to be heading? I feel a loss of democratic appeal and subsequent machinations of all kinds by apparatuses of state to keep in power. Democratic in name, but the number of options available to the public limited to what is in line with what public officials think of as good sense. Examples: -DNC machinating to get Clinton elected as candidate. The public needed Russia (!) for a fresh dosis of unpopular truths about those machinations. This documents more evidence on machinations. -The unpopular and undemocratic European Union. Examples abound. The best being the EU-constitution: struck down in popular referendums, flown in as a treaty. -In my country, the Netherlands, a referendum in which the public voted against an EU-agreement with Ukraine (wholy within law, with very obvious machinations by state and political parties), on which both the government and EU reneged Counter example: -Brexit Disclaimers -Please, don't hit on the 'red herrings' (if any), like 'undemocratic EU'. I see it as both a fact (imho, populus does not recognize European parliament) and an opinion (mostly in the more populist parties over Europe). Not center to my view of democracies limiting decision power of the populus. -The 'public officials' need not be those paid by the state. But more broadly: those aspiring to have their organisations have a say over public policy.

fleitz 10y ago
Brexit isn't quite a counter example until they invoke Article 50, before then it's unclear whether the will of the people will be respected.
- pas 10y ago
  The will of the people is unclear, was unclear, and probably will be unclear for quite some time. A result so close to 50-50 is a coin toss, that's not the will of the people. That's a clear sign that it's a complex issue, more questions (more data) should be in order. But no, let's divine the will of the people from tealeaves instead.
  - 10y ago

selectron 10y ago

Hand counting of votes seems like a no-brainer, regardless of whether there was a conspiracy this election.

DamienSF 10y ago
Agree, we have to make hand counting possible in the first place.

fleitz 10y ago

It's a rigged system that's the way it's supposed to work. Either you overcome the rigging, or you STFU and unify with the corruption. As Sarah Silverman would say, stop being ridiculous. Besides, what are you going to do about it? Vote for Trump?

spdy 10y ago
Never underestimate the power of "stick it to the man". http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ he has some good points.
- DamienSF 10y ago
  Thankfully for Hillary, electronic machines will be flipping some votes in her favor. Will this be enough though?
- patrickk 10y ago
  Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, has some amazing analysis of why he thinks Trump will win: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-climate-science-master-persuader http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-climate-...
  - pas 10y ago
    Why is that amazing?
    - patrickk 10y ago
      Ok that article is a bad example. Here is a better example (ignore the cheesy setup, the actual analysis is very insightful into Trump's media manipulation tactics): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4 If you look at his blog posts written during the primary, he was saying quite early that Trump would win also.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

alanaut 10y ago

The United States very well may be the only country on Earth that invites illegal immigrants to stand on the floor of their national convention and demand systematic change across the political divide. Think about this for just a moment - imagine you live in China, illegally, what do you think will happen once you get caught? They will ship you back to the U.S. Period. I overstayed my Chilean visa by 1 day and was threatened to be sent to military prison. Given this is not only a Democrat problem, but a Republican problem as well, both parties irresponsibly pander to potential voters - in this case illegal immigrants. Does that make it right? No. I am all for removing borders globally, but this is not what Democrats are describing. They don't want Trump to separate families. That is it. Where these people used as pawns, yes. Back in the 80's, amnesty was granted for 3 million undocumented workers. Flash forward 30 years, that number is now over 12+ million. When will it end? I don't know about you all, but I could care less about which party you are from - we need to get illegal immigration under control. What will you do to fix this?

chillwaves 10y ago
Undocumented immigrants cannot vote.
- alanaut 10y ago
  Seriously? Where are you getting this information? You are incorrect.

forbes 10y ago

Does any other country have a 'primary' system like the US? In Australia there is no pretending to elect candidates for each party. In our recent election we had two choices for PM from the major parties, chosen by the parties themselves. In the US you spent a year choosing your candidates, but behind closed doors one of those parties spent all their time trying to push one candidate whilst the other party spent all their time trying to stop another. The Australian system seems a little more honest, even though the roles of PM and President are quite different. We can elect a PM and the party can then choose to throw them out the week after. This happens frequently.

wjnc 10y ago
In the Netherlands a parties candidates are up to the parties themselves, who usually put them up for internal elections. For the bigger parties, these elections are often newsworthy. Some parties experiment by taking suggestions from the outside or even allowing outsiders to vote as well. I don't think the 'primary' system in the US is very special; it is highly newsworthy though.
vacri 10y ago
More than a year, even. And a first-term president is distracted for the last year of their term with that politicking. Regardless of the pros and cons of the US system, it does seem weird that Mr Head Honcho can end up not being politically aligned with the legislature. So much potential for stalemate, as evidenced by the past six years.
flukus 10y ago
Australia has a system like this now in the Labor party, I believe the UK does too. Shorten was elected as the Labor party leader by a combined vote of the parliamentary party and party members.
novawave 10y ago
The major Canadian political parties hold leadership elections open to party members (indirectly through convention delegates mostly). Party membership is entirely a private undertaking, and generally just requires a small financial contribution and a promise that you don't already belong to another party.

archgoon 10y ago

So why didn't any of this conspiracy to rig Diebold machines get referenced in the 20,000 leaked emails?

fncndhdhc 10y ago
My guess would be that it was carried out by a different entity, i.e. some sub-faction of the campaign as opposed to occurring at the party level.
brazzledazzle 10y ago
Perhaps because even someone who would engage in and document a conspiracy to break organization rules via email wouldn't be dumb enough to do the same thing with breaking the law.
imglorp 10y ago
The last guy that talked about rigged Diebold machines died in a plane crash before testifying. That one should have been investigated just as vigorously as this time. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_specialist_dies_in_plane http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_special...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

DamienSF 10y ago

The link suddenly disappeared from the homepage while trending...

nkurz 10y ago

Since I haven't written it elsewhere, I'll write up my recent voting experience here. I'm registered as a "No Party Preference" (NPP) vote-by-mail voter living in Contra Costa County, California. As an non-partisan ballot, (logically) that ballot did not include the ability to vote in any presidential primary. But the rules of some parties in California (Democratic, Green, and Libertarian) allow you to vote in their primary as an NPP voter if you exchange your NPP ballot for a "crossover" ballot. Shortly before the primary election, the California Secretary of State issued a clarifying statement about how the process worked for NPP voters. It included these options for NPP voters who wanted to vote in a primary: Contact your county elections office no later than May 31 to request a [party specific] vote-by-mail ballot... OR Bring your vote-by-mail ballot to an early voting location or the polls on Election Day and exchange it for a ballot with presidential candidates NOTE: If you have lost your original vote-by-mail ballot, you will have to vote a provisional ballot at the polls—your vote will still be counted. http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2016-news-releases-and-advisories/tips-no-party-preference-voters1/ http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advis... Since I was planning to vote in person anyway, and since I wanted to vote in the Democratic primary, I decided to bring my valid vote-by-mail ballot with me to exchange for a standard non-provisional Democratic party ballot at my assigned polling place. When I got there (the lobby of the local Catholic church), I waited (briefly) in line, presented my mail-in ballot, and was told that exchanges for Democratic ballots were not being allowed. I mentioned the Secretary of States memo, and was (politely) told by the volunteer at the desk that they they knew nothing of this, and had been instructed that only provisional ballots were to be given. Not wanting to hold other people up, and not wanting to accept a provisional ballot that would not show up in the end-of-day count, I left my place in line, went outside, and researched my options on my cell phone. I discovered that indeed, Contra Costa County historically has had a policy of not exchanging mail in NPP ballots for "real" partisan ballots, that the Secretary of State's memo was part of the attempt to make clear that this was against state law, and that the day before the election the County had begrudgingly agreed to temporarily change its policy: After hearing reports of Contra Costa County’s practice, the Secretary of State’s Office contacted local elections officials. On Monday, they announced they would change their practice and offer these voters replacement ballots. http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/06/07/contra-costa-county-at-odds-with-state-over-mail-in-ballot-exchange/ http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/06/07/contra-costa-county-at-o... But apparently no one had told the volunteers working at the polls! So seeing no way to solve this on my own, I went though the line again, and accepted a Democratic "provisional" ballot. I was told that I needed to take the "provisional voting class", and directed to a table with 4 or 5 confused people already seated at it. A few minutes later, another volunteer (elderly, bewildered, apparently having a very hard day) tried unsuccessfully to give us instructions on how to fill out the form on which we were to affirm our identity, electoral status, and reason for requesting a provisional ballot. Then the volunteer left, and we filled out the forms as best we could. The process was sufficiently confusing that one of the voters gave up and left. After 5 minutes, the volunteer returned, and then mentioned that I wasn't supposed to have filled out the line that said "Reason for requesting provisional ballot", crossed out my complicated answer. He then went to fetch the actual ballots for us. Most of us filled them out at the table, although I think one person went to a voting booth to do so. A second person gave up at this time. Or maybe they hadn't understood that they were supposed to sign and seal the envelope and drop it in the box on the way out? Or maybe they had to go to the bathroom and planned to return. Eventually, the volunteer returned and I was told I was told to tear off the "receipt" from the provisional ballot and drop the ballot itself in an official looking bag next to the exit. The instructions on the receipt said that after 30 days, I could check online or by phone to see whether my ballot was accepted. I came home, and immediately filled out and faxed a Voter Complaint form, which I hoped the State would be sympathetic too as the County was directly disobeying their directives and failing to uphold their agreement: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/additional-elections-information/voter-complaint/ http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/additional-elections-informa... I never heard back any followup from the complaint. I've checked online several times, but 45 days later it still shows up as "No ballot found". That's right, so far as I can tell my vote was neither counted nor rejected, just lost. I might try phoning or going in person to see if I can learn more, but at this point I feel it's a lost cause. Edit: I should point out that I don't blame the volunteers --- they were poorly trained, and doing as they are told. But why are we relying on poorly trained volunteers for our elections? I do blame the County, since they failed to follow through on their pledge to the State and the press, but assume this is mostly poor communication rather than any specific ill-intent.

fncndhdhc 10y ago

Quite typical for the mods to delete this. After all, wouldn't want word to get out that YC's political friends are crooks.

sctb 10y ago
This post was flagged by users and not touched by mods. That's why most posts drop in rank from the front page.
dang 10y ago
The only thing moderators did to this post is turn off the flags on it so it would go back on the front page (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595). We did that in response to emails: polite emails, I might add, making the case for the article and the thread. Had you written a polite email instead of posting a drive-by (and completely bogus) attack, you could have contributed to that outcome yourself. One good thing came of this. When I read your comment, it occurred to me to add "Presume good faith" to our provisional list of new HN guidelines.

dang 10y ago

This story was flagged by users, no doubt because politics are mostly off-topic here and flamewars, which inflammatory topics predictably produce, are the worst. However, more than one user emailed to plead the case for the article, arguing that it is substantive and pointing out that the discussion has so far mostly remained civil (a small miracle in relative terms), so we'll try turning the flags off on this one. If the thread gets nasty we'll have to turn them back on, so if you add a comment here, please ensure that it is extra civil and substantive.

Kinnard 10y ago

How exactly does the flagging work?

dang 10y ago
I've detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595 and marked it off-topic so as not to distract from the thread. The way flagging works is that users click the 'flag' link that appears after the timestamp underneath a story title. A user needs a small amount of karma (31 or more) before such links appear. Flags have a number of effects, one of which is to downweight a story so that it is more likely to fall in rank. If there are enough flags on a story, the software will eventually kill it (close it to new comments and hide it from users except those with 'showdead' set to 'yes' in their profile). The purpose of flagging is to indicate that a story does not belong on HN. Frivolous flagging—e.g. flagging a story that's clearly on-topic by the site guidelines just because one personally dislikes it—eventually gets an account's flagging privileges taken away. But there's a new 'hide' link for people to click if they'd just like not to see a story. Flagging of comments is important, too. If you see a comment that breaks the HN guidelines, such as by being uncivil, you should flag it. But there's one extra hoop to jump through in the comment case: you have to click on the comment's timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. That's a speed bump to dampen impulsive flagging.
- Kinnard 10y ago
  Ok, that was creepy. I was wondering if I was crazy and if had just commented or not. Thanks for the insight. Is the HN team considering open sourcing more of HN given all the recent changes?
  - dang 10y ago
    Sorry. Our experience is that off-topic meta discussions quickly get out of hand, most of all on divisive threads (which a partisan political thread certainly is). To stave that off I detached your comment right away, but it took time to give you a detailed reply.

vannevar 10y ago

I think the most interesting (and perhaps hopeful) aspect here is that people now have an expectation of fairness in the selection of party candidates. That's a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, I think people widely assumed that the party was biased towards individual candidates. Even now, that's clearly the case when the sitting President is a candidate. I personally think that expecting an unbiased party structure is unrealistic, given the very nature of the organization. The party doesn't have a product, other than its opinion. The idea that an organization of partisans only arrives at that collective opinion through primaries and caucuses seems quite naive to me.

EdHominem 10y ago
It's not the issue that there are inputs other than the wishes of the delegates, it's that those other inputs almost totally override the delegates and make the whole thing a sham. As it is, the only purpose the delegates have is to fool people into believing in the result.
DamienSF 10y ago
I am not sure how the findings of this report can reinforce the expectation of fairness in the selection process. The reports points out to evidences of various election fraud tactics (voter suppression, registration tampering, illegal voter purging and fraudulent voting machine tallies) which have been carried out to eventually influence the outcome of the election. Also, I wonder how can the Democratic party can still be credible in denouncing Republicans efforts to suppress voters the right to vote when employing the exact same tactics during the primaries.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  I'd be cautious of this report. This is an American politics advocacy organization. Not to say that this report is incorrect per se, it may be 100% right. But it also may be anything else, ranging from wildly exaggerated to outright wrong. It's very difficult to find sober, factual information in the national American political scene. I looked up one of the referenced incidents -- the botched poll in Arizona -- and based on other articles (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/31/arizonas-primary-was-an-utter-disaster-but-was-it-just-a-big-mistake-or-something-more-nefarious/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/31/ar...) it's hard to tell from a bird's eye perspective whether even that was "rigged".. or whether it was mere "incompetence". I know FiveThirtyEight, referenced several times in the paper, (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-a...) lean against the "rigged" argument, which is where I stand from a big picture perspective. Political shenanigans always happen, but regardless of this, demographics explain the result of the Democratic primary more than anything else. (That being said, in my opinion, the same demographics should frankly tell the Democratic Party to handle the Sanders supporters much better than they have been so far.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

alexandercrohde 10y ago

I think this report is excellent. Even for those who don't believe the statistical evidence it provides is conclusive in this case, I think no reasonable person could disagree with the improvements it suggests: Quoting from page 8: 1) Exclusive use of hand-counted paper ballots in all future US elections. 2) Automatic voter registration with same-day party affiliation switching as a mandatory condition for all elections that are publicly funded. 3) Restoration of voting rights legislation which would ensure adequate access to polling sites.

WillPostForFood 10y ago
Reasonable people can oppose same day automatic voter registration if it comes without proper fraud prevention. Everyone should support adequate access to polling sites, but also understand that there is a level of free access that has in the past allowed and encouraged fraud. I think no reasonable person could disagree that showing an ID is a reasonable requirement for voting.
- cwmma 10y ago
  > I think no reasonable person could disagree that showing an ID is a reasonable requirement for voting. Ok here is some reasonable disagreement Voter impersonation is a very rare type of fraud [0] and ID laws tend to make it hard for some but not all voters to vote [1] meaning they don't prevent fraud, they just prevent democrat votes. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com... 1. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measurin...
timmytokyo 10y ago
I wonder why didn't also recommend the replacement of caucuses with primaries, since primaries are clearly more democratic than caucuses.

tunesmith 10y ago

Is there convincing evidence in this document that the amount of irregularities were actually sufficient to change the result? I haven't read the entire document yet but have sampled a couple of parts. The exit polls section, by the way, is irresponsibly flawed. It's well-known that the primary purpose of exit polls in the US is not to audit elections. It's not even to project winners. It's to update demographic models. It's well-known that using the vote count to update an exit poll's model is normal and expected practice, and not evidence of conspiracy. Yes, there have been cases where exit poll divergence has been used as evidence to point out likely fraud. But that only happens when the divergence reaches a certain level, and - this is more key - this determination is made by the exit poll organizations themselves. Here, in order to believe that exit polling shows evidence of fraud, you'd have to not only believe that the exit poll divergence does not have simpler, alternative explanations, and that the level of divergence goes beyond a reasonable range, but that our exit poll organization - a non-partisan coalition of several different independent news organizations - was aware of it and unanimously chose to suppress the information. This is tinfoil hat territory. I call it irresponsible because the point of view advanced in this report is willfully ignorant of how exit polls even work. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/22/how-exit-polls-work-explained/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/22/ho...

seizethecheese 10y ago
> Is there convincing evidence in this document that the amount of irregularities were actually sufficient to change the result? If an athlete is caught doping, do we question whether they would have won anyway?
- nkurz 10y ago
  In athletics, usually not. But perhaps surprisingly, in the American legal system, yes! The relevant question actually is whether "they would have won anyway". The standard is that if the prosecution intentionally "cheats" and obtains a conviction through unconstitutional means, the conviction cannot be appealed unless it can be shown that there was a "reasonable probability" that the verdict would have been different without the violation of rights. Worse, in our adversarial system, prosecutors are essentially obligated to argue that any misconduct had no effect. One might even conclude that they are "obligated to cheat". Ken White, a former prosecutor and legal blogger at Popehat has an excellent explanation of this in his recent piece "Confessions of an Ex-Prosecutor". I'm tempted to just quote entire sections from it, but perhaps better just to link to it. If pressed for time, start with the section "Prosecutors Are Duty-Bound to Argue That Rights Don't Matter": http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/23/confessions-of-an-ex-prosecutor/print http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/23/confessions-of-an-ex-p... So, while your point is excellent, one might ask whether our voting system should be more like an athletic contest, or a legal proceeding? And if the answer is "like an athletic contest", what does that say about our legal system?

unabst 10y ago

The only question we should be asking is this. Why do some votes count more than others? The fact that there are delegates, let alone super delegates, is damning. You should always question someone claiming they will "represent" you. Democracy at its best does not need any systems or hierarchies or even parties. It needs people, all equal, to all vote, and to all be counted. That's it. I for one am all for mandatory voting, and a mandatory voting national holiday. Those who don't want to vote can vote "null" in protest. And they will feel their voice was heard because it will be. That would be a true democracy and a holiday America would be proud of.

jessedhillon 10y ago
Your claim that direct, popular democracy is the most desirable form is not obvious, and needs to be substantiated.
- unabst 10y ago
  If democracy is about every American having an equal say, and if our vote is that voice, then there should be nothing standing between an individual and their vote. There is nothing that can be placed in between you and your voice that will add to what you will say. No system, no bureaucracy, no process, no delegate, nothing. This is a fundamental virtue of communication. Imagine if anything stood between you and the submit button you used to respond? Even if you had to tell someone first who then had to tell me, the message could be tainted. A man-in-the-middle is inherently insecure, whether it's actually a man or anything else. Just my keyboard will give me typos.
  - jessedhillon 10y ago
    I think you are reiterating your claims without demonstrating why these things are true. There are a wide number of issue which require a deep level of research and experience to consider. It's unfeasible to educate all 150M+ voters to the level where we can be confident their opinion on the question is informed. Absent that, their votes will only measure how the question feels with respect to gut-instinct and common "wisdom". Moreover, it would be a waste of time to have 300M (we need to teach the children too) people all be educated on the minutiae of every public policy. The field of public policy is an actual discipline precisely because it is something that people need to specialize in. Given questions like, - what range of broadcasting frequencies should be set aside for public use? - what should the maximum allowable individual gross income be before one should be required to pay AMT if it exceeds AGI; what about jointly-filing couples? - what should the agricultural subsidy be for soy and grain farmers? how do you think the average person is supposed to decide these things?

SixSigma 10y ago

The irony of hosting this all on Clinton financing Google. in for nearly $1m http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...

rubberstamp 10y ago

Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig Makes 15-Minute Case That U.S. Is Nowhere Near A True Democracy. https://collegetimes.co/larry-lessig-american-democracy/ https://collegetimes.co/larry-lessig-american-democracy/

protomyth 10y ago

I found this election cycle interesting from the point of view of a true outsider versus the party ruling clique. It seemed to me the big difference in outcomes was the amount of work done at the grassroots level in previous elections. The party who has had their ruling clique challenged for multiple election cycles had an outsider nominated, as opposed to where the party leadership was much more able to deal with insurgents.

20tibbygt06 10y ago

Election Justice USA reporting their site is under attack since reporting their findings. [0] [0]https://twitter.com/Elect_Justice/status/758376021674561536 https://twitter.com/Elect_Justice/status/758376021674561536 At this time, I'm still unable to reach their site.

boneheadmed 10y ago

Perhaps the Russians were involved.LOL! http://blogosqarteam.typepad.com/.a/6a0148c7b55aa3970c019b028bfea0970d-pi http://blogosqarteam.typepad.com/.a/6a0148c7b55aa3970c019b02...