3 ms·
Not at every single stage of the process. There is no method of, for example, challenging a voter at the voting booth. Or this: https://youtu.be/PKQEQ7qHvgM ht
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
Not at every single stage of the process. There is no method of, for example, challenging a voter at the voting booth.
Or this: https://youtu.be/PKQEQ7qHvgM https://youtu.be/PKQEQ7qHvgM
(I fraudulently voted as someone else a long time back and he voted as me, as part of a bet on whether this was possible. Nothing stopped us, there was no ID check, no security, no one found out.)
- Frondo 10y agoAny time anyone has studied in-person voter fraud, the observation they've made is that it's rare you can almost count the instances on one hand. No one has ever shown it's a problem, people have only claimed or insinuated that it's a problem from a place of "truthiness"; i.e. they claim to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" that in-person voter fraud is a problem.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoSimilarly, if we eliminate all possible record keeping and audits for financial fraud, we will have no evidence that it ever occurs. That is essentially the system we currently have for electoral fraud.
- Frondo 10y agoAgain, this is a "truthy" claim that is, at present, unsupported by evidence. Repeating speculations such as this does not make them less speculative.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoI agree. I am not claiming we have evidence, I'm claiming we go out of our way not to seek it out. As a result, the lack of evidence provides little information as to whether or not fraud occurs. I.e., if p(evidence|presence) ~= 0, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Of course, it is pretty strange how so many people are strongly against the collection of evidence.