4 ms·

As a matter of fact, for the record, neither of these things is actually a particularly big problem in the United States.[1][2][3][4] [1] http://www.nbcnews.co

As a matter of fact, for the record, neither of these things is actually a particularly big problem in the United States.[1][2][3][4] [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-n637776 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-... [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/voter-id-laws-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/voter-id-laws-donald-tr... [4] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/17/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-large-scale-voter-f/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/...

wheelerwj 10y ago
Ahhh yes, the famous, main stream media said everything was fine so I went back to work argument. To be fair, most of the problems we are currently having seem to revolve around gerry mandering with potential issues arising in the future involving tampering with electronic voting. That doesn't mean voter supression, identity theft, and other forms of tampering aren't legitimate concerns though. For example, heres article from MSM that investigates people who have been dead for years are still voting: https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/amp/?client=ms-android-tmobile-us https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/2...
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  I didn't say "isn't a problem." I said "isn't a particularly big problem." In an electorate where millions of people vote every year, a few thousand votes in a non-swing state (using the example you mentioned), or even a few thousand fake votes in every state, is just not that high a rate of fraud. There is rhetoric now as though most or all voting is subject to this kind of fraud, that the fraud is massive. It just isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or shouldn't be stopped, but threats must be dealt with proportionally to the degree that they are threatening. Your reaction strikes me as disproportional.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    A small amount of fraud has the same effect as widescale fraud because it contaminates the entire process, seeding distrust.
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      I think distrust based on a small amount of fraud is a problem of perception, not a problem with the system. That is, it's the same as fearing you'll get serious side effects with a vaccine because a very small number of people do. In both cases, the risk/reward is out of whack, but you might worry anyway.
    - specialist 10y ago
      Fraud is indistinguishable from error. Ignore intent and focus on prevention, like a QA/test person would. I'm kinda thick headed, so it took me too long to figure this out on my own.
      - wheelerwj 10y ago
        "Plan for the worst, hope for the best." It doesn't matter why something happens, only that it happens.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - tropo 10y ago
    It's an UNKNOWN problem because we refuse to effectively detect it. It could be huge, it could be tiny, and we just don't know. One side assumes the problem is huge, especially when they lose, and wants to take effective measures to prevent it. This side sees opposition to common-sense security as confirmation that fraud is actually occurring and is actively supported by the other side. The refusal to solidly secure things may or may not actually matter to the results, but it sure fuels suspicion. After all, why allow doubt about correctness unless you actually are doctoring the results? We'd be better off if we could clearly demonstrate to the losing side that the loss is legit. Our low-security situation encourages the loser to claim that victory was stolen from them. That isn't good for keeping things peaceful.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rbcgerard 10y ago
I honestly don't know how often it happens, and I'm not saying its common, but none of these are the least bit convincing. They just say that there aren't a ton of allegations of voter fraud or a bunch of prosecutions...absence of evidence and evidence of absence and all that stuff...
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  I mean, you can't prove a negative. We cannot prove there is no voter fraud happening anywhere. We can only show that there is no evidence for it, and further, that it is reasonable to conclude that lack of evidence suggests a trend (that is, we can show that we're also actually looking for evidence).
grzm 10y ago
It doesn't matter whether or not there are problems. The fact that people question whether there are problems is in and of itself a problem. The fact that we're having these discussions makes it clear that such a problem does exist. People need to have faith in the system for democracy to work. Facts and figures and studies can be produced, but unfortunately that's not enough to convince people -- and that's on both sides. As much as we'd like to be, we're not perfectly rational actors, and much less so in aggregate. The existing system isn't simple or transparent enough for people to trust. That's what we need to work on.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  What do we do if it turns out that the system cannot be transparent enough for some people to trust? There exists today a large group of people who will disregard anything the government or "mainstream media" says as false, regardless of who says it or what the statement is. What do we do about those people?
  - grzm 10y ago
    I know, right? This issue of trust is really problematic right now, and not just for voting. And it's not just government and mainstream media. At this point it seems any source is potentially suspect in someone's eyes. How do we rebuild that? I want to believe that it's solvable, because the vast majority of people I meet day-to-day are good people. I'm not willing to accept the alternative. I do think a big part of it has to do with figuring out how to talk about contentious issues, of finding common ground (no matter how narrow), with people we might disagree with on other issues. We can't let our disagreements get in the way of making progress on our common goals.

wheelerwj 10y ago

Ahhh yes, the famous, main stream media said everything was fine so I went back to work argument. To be fair, most of the problems we are currently having seem to revolve around gerry mandering with potential issues arising in the future involving tampering with electronic voting. That doesn't mean voter supression, identity theft, and other forms of tampering aren't legitimate concerns though. For example, heres article from MSM that investigates people who have been dead for years are still voting: https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/amp/?client=ms-android-tmobile-us https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/2...

ivraatiems 10y ago
I didn't say "isn't a problem." I said "isn't a particularly big problem." In an electorate where millions of people vote every year, a few thousand votes in a non-swing state (using the example you mentioned), or even a few thousand fake votes in every state, is just not that high a rate of fraud. There is rhetoric now as though most or all voting is subject to this kind of fraud, that the fraud is massive. It just isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or shouldn't be stopped, but threats must be dealt with proportionally to the degree that they are threatening. Your reaction strikes me as disproportional.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  A small amount of fraud has the same effect as widescale fraud because it contaminates the entire process, seeding distrust.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    I think distrust based on a small amount of fraud is a problem of perception, not a problem with the system. That is, it's the same as fearing you'll get serious side effects with a vaccine because a very small number of people do. In both cases, the risk/reward is out of whack, but you might worry anyway.
  - specialist 10y ago
    Fraud is indistinguishable from error. Ignore intent and focus on prevention, like a QA/test person would. I'm kinda thick headed, so it took me too long to figure this out on my own.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      "Plan for the worst, hope for the best." It doesn't matter why something happens, only that it happens.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- tropo 10y ago
  It's an UNKNOWN problem because we refuse to effectively detect it. It could be huge, it could be tiny, and we just don't know. One side assumes the problem is huge, especially when they lose, and wants to take effective measures to prevent it. This side sees opposition to common-sense security as confirmation that fraud is actually occurring and is actively supported by the other side. The refusal to solidly secure things may or may not actually matter to the results, but it sure fuels suspicion. After all, why allow doubt about correctness unless you actually are doctoring the results? We'd be better off if we could clearly demonstrate to the losing side that the loss is legit. Our low-security situation encourages the loser to claim that victory was stolen from them. That isn't good for keeping things peaceful.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rbcgerard 10y ago

I honestly don't know how often it happens, and I'm not saying its common, but none of these are the least bit convincing. They just say that there aren't a ton of allegations of voter fraud or a bunch of prosecutions...absence of evidence and evidence of absence and all that stuff...

ivraatiems 10y ago
I mean, you can't prove a negative. We cannot prove there is no voter fraud happening anywhere. We can only show that there is no evidence for it, and further, that it is reasonable to conclude that lack of evidence suggests a trend (that is, we can show that we're also actually looking for evidence).

grzm 10y ago

It doesn't matter whether or not there are problems. The fact that people question whether there are problems is in and of itself a problem. The fact that we're having these discussions makes it clear that such a problem does exist. People need to have faith in the system for democracy to work. Facts and figures and studies can be produced, but unfortunately that's not enough to convince people -- and that's on both sides. As much as we'd like to be, we're not perfectly rational actors, and much less so in aggregate. The existing system isn't simple or transparent enough for people to trust. That's what we need to work on.

ivraatiems 10y ago
What do we do if it turns out that the system cannot be transparent enough for some people to trust? There exists today a large group of people who will disregard anything the government or "mainstream media" says as false, regardless of who says it or what the statement is. What do we do about those people?
- grzm 10y ago
  I know, right? This issue of trust is really problematic right now, and not just for voting. And it's not just government and mainstream media. At this point it seems any source is potentially suspect in someone's eyes. How do we rebuild that? I want to believe that it's solvable, because the vast majority of people I meet day-to-day are good people. I'm not willing to accept the alternative. I do think a big part of it has to do with figuring out how to talk about contentious issues, of finding common ground (no matter how narrow), with people we might disagree with on other issues. We can't let our disagreements get in the way of making progress on our common goals.