5 ms·

Voting fraud doesn't seem to be actually happening. Voter suppression on the other hand does.

by myko 10y ago

mzw_mzw 10y ago
[citation needed]
- dllthomas 10y ago
  Not a primary source, but happened to be at hand: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/11/election_securi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/11/election_secu... > To be very clear, this is not about voter fraud. The risks of ineligible people voting, or people voting twice, have been repeatedly shown to be virtually nonexistent, and "solutions" to this problem are largely voter-suppression measures.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    So one sentence blandly asserting that voter suppression is happening in the middle of an essay on an unrelated topic? Okay.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      By someone who pays a lot of attention to security matters, and who is trusted by a lot of people here. I recognize (and called out) that it's not nearly as good a source as might be available, but like I said I happened to have it at hand, and it's certainly better than nothing.
sturgill 10y ago
Bold claim. I'd love to read the source material.
- myko 10y ago
  Voter suppression does not mean people at polling stations with guns threatening people (though that does occasionally happen). Voter suppression includes lessening the number of voting precincts to depress minority turnout and create longer lines. Purging voter rolls illegally. Voter ID laws that target the poor. Reducing the number of days where early voting takes place. I don't think these are particularly bold things to claim are happening.
  - sturgill 10y ago
    We agree that actively reducing voting stations in ways that disproportionately impact the poor is problematic. But it's hard for me to believe that voter ID laws inherently target the poor more so than ID laws governing the sale of alcohol and/or tobacco (or cough syrup or spray paint or guns or...). I find it relatively obscene that I'll get carded at the bar but cast my vote for President by giving a volunteer my name. I don't know for certain that fraud is happening (or at least that it's happening in sufficient numbers), but I find it disingenuous to propose _that it can't be happening_. What is the appropriate trade off between potential for fraud and disenfranchisement is an interesting question. One I wish both sides were willing to talk about without rancor.
alphapapa 10y ago
Honest question: How do you interpret the undercover video of Scott Foval as not indicative of election fraud? He explicitly confesses to violating federal election law. Is he not actually Scott Foval? Is he lying to the person he's talking to? Or are you saying that, while he is telling the truth and has committed those acts, they didn't amount to enough to make a difference? If so, how do you know that, based on what he said? Why do you think they would spend time and money on those things, and risk prosecution, if they didn't think it could make a difference? Why do you think that there aren't people like him doing the same thing in other places? Looking at the video of him, it is clear that election fraud is happening. The question is to what extent. Besides, it's common knowledge that votes have been cast for dead people in places like Chicago and Philadelphia for decades. So I don't understand how you can say that election fraud isn't happening with a straight face.
- myko 10y ago
  O'Keefe is widely known for editing videos to create false narratives (see: the ACORN debacle). I don't really trust anything he puts out at this point. > Besides, it's common knowledge that votes have been cast for dead people in places like Chicago and Philadelphia for decades. So I don't understand how you can say that election fraud isn't happening with a straight face. Not true. It is true that people have casted absentee/early ballots and then died. It's also true that people with the same name as someone who has died has voted. When these examples come up they typically fall into those categories.

Voting fraud doesn't seem to be actually happening. Voter suppression on the other hand does.

by myko 10y ago

Voting fraud doesn't seem to be actually happening. Voter suppression on the other hand does.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

[citation needed]

dllthomas 10y ago
Not a primary source, but happened to be at hand: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/11/election_securi.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/11/election_secu... > To be very clear, this is not about voter fraud. The risks of ineligible people voting, or people voting twice, have been repeatedly shown to be virtually nonexistent, and "solutions" to this problem are largely voter-suppression measures.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  So one sentence blandly asserting that voter suppression is happening in the middle of an essay on an unrelated topic? Okay.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    By someone who pays a lot of attention to security matters, and who is trusted by a lot of people here. I recognize (and called out) that it's not nearly as good a source as might be available, but like I said I happened to have it at hand, and it's certainly better than nothing.

sturgill 10y ago

Bold claim. I'd love to read the source material.

myko 10y ago
Voter suppression does not mean people at polling stations with guns threatening people (though that does occasionally happen). Voter suppression includes lessening the number of voting precincts to depress minority turnout and create longer lines. Purging voter rolls illegally. Voter ID laws that target the poor. Reducing the number of days where early voting takes place. I don't think these are particularly bold things to claim are happening.
- sturgill 10y ago
  We agree that actively reducing voting stations in ways that disproportionately impact the poor is problematic. But it's hard for me to believe that voter ID laws inherently target the poor more so than ID laws governing the sale of alcohol and/or tobacco (or cough syrup or spray paint or guns or...). I find it relatively obscene that I'll get carded at the bar but cast my vote for President by giving a volunteer my name. I don't know for certain that fraud is happening (or at least that it's happening in sufficient numbers), but I find it disingenuous to propose _that it can't be happening_. What is the appropriate trade off between potential for fraud and disenfranchisement is an interesting question. One I wish both sides were willing to talk about without rancor.

alphapapa 10y ago

Honest question: How do you interpret the undercover video of Scott Foval as not indicative of election fraud? He explicitly confesses to violating federal election law. Is he not actually Scott Foval? Is he lying to the person he's talking to? Or are you saying that, while he is telling the truth and has committed those acts, they didn't amount to enough to make a difference? If so, how do you know that, based on what he said? Why do you think they would spend time and money on those things, and risk prosecution, if they didn't think it could make a difference? Why do you think that there aren't people like him doing the same thing in other places? Looking at the video of him, it is clear that election fraud is happening. The question is to what extent. Besides, it's common knowledge that votes have been cast for dead people in places like Chicago and Philadelphia for decades. So I don't understand how you can say that election fraud isn't happening with a straight face.

myko 10y ago
O'Keefe is widely known for editing videos to create false narratives (see: the ACORN debacle). I don't really trust anything he puts out at this point. > Besides, it's common knowledge that votes have been cast for dead people in places like Chicago and Philadelphia for decades. So I don't understand how you can say that election fraud isn't happening with a straight face. Not true. It is true that people have casted absentee/early ballots and then died. It's also true that people with the same name as someone who has died has voted. When these examples come up they typically fall into those categories.