9 ms·

Anyone with half a brain knows that these purges are designed to advantage a side not protect the system. I read an article the other day that stated that some

Anyone with half a brain knows that these purges are designed to advantage a side not protect the system. I read an article the other day that stated that some America's voting system had essentially been compromised on many levels. It made me think about why so many of our polls have, in the last few years, been so off the mark. Now I'm beginning to think it's not because the polling models suddenly don't work. It is quite possibly something more nefarious than that.

brian-armstrong 9y ago
Yeah, I remember the outrage when the original Diebold hacking announcement was made in the Bush Jr era. The concerns in that were never addressed and doubtless things have simply since got worse. If Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election, they could bring some of their engineering prowess to bear on defeating systematic voting machine fraud.
- corey_moncure 9y ago
  What does the fact that they don't do so, tell you?
- liquidise 9y ago
  > Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election I'm still surprised by the anger for this. For the purposes of the viewer, Google and Facebook are effectively media companies. By that measure, all media companies bias elections heavily during election cycles. This is done both with content and well as paid advertising. But to "make amends" for something sounds as if their influence is either unprecedented or morally wrong. Perhaps the argument is that the bias from international influences was wrong. Something else entirely? I suppose i fail to see where the real complaint here is. What behavior or lapse triggered these accusations?
  - pnathan 9y ago
    > if their influence is either unprecedented It is. That's the entire point of the "filter bubble" argument that is coming up some 8-10 years old now.
  - lurker456 9y ago
    There are some (poor, outdated, ineffective) checks and balances on the use of traditional media for political advertising. The new media successfully lobbied to be even excluded from those. Additionally, a lot of people who are not in this business were surprised about the extent.
  - shostack 9y ago
    >"But to "make amends" for something sounds as if their influence is either unprecedented or morally wrong." I think we're too early in Mueller's investigation to definitively be able to say whether their influence was morally or legally wrong, or whether actions of employees/executives of those companies were morally or legally wrong.
- ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
  >If Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election. Since when has Google wanted to make amends for biasing the election? Aren't we quick to forget Eric Schmidt was all in on attempting to bias the election in the direction he wanted. Timshel/THE GROUNDWORK are and were nothing more than tools for the DNC to manipulate the electorate
- vkou 9y ago
  Does Fox News bias the election? Should it be required to make amends? Do you think it has more, or less influence then a 100K spend Facebook ad campaign by Russia?
  - Larrikin 9y ago
    Way less obviously there are laws to help prevent foreign actors from injecting money and influence in to our elections. Which is why there are bipartisan congressional hearings on an unprecedented attack.
    - vkou 9y ago
      I understand that this is illegal. What I don't understand is why domestic manipulation of elections isn't. Eric Schmidt and Rupert Murdoch don't have the interests of the US in mind any more then Putin does. Just because it's quite precedented doesn't make it right.
      - ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
        Nevermind the US government, and its agencies manipulating elections throughout the world going on 70 years
      - Danihan 9y ago
        >domestic manipulation of elections You mean campaigning?
        vkou 9y ago
        Rupert Murdoch isn't himself running for president, but it's pretty clear that he is trying to manipulate the election into a particular outcome. All the same arguments for why Putin's involvement should be illegal can also be levied against him.
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  > engineering prowess to bear on defeating systematic voting machine fraud Simple, don't use fancy electronic voting machines. There's really no benefit.
  - CyberDildonics 9y ago
    That isn't a systemic solution and this is a systemic problem.
    - nerfhammer 9y ago
      It's not a "the engineering isn't sufficiently sophisticated and cutting edge" problem.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  Everyone wants in on the exiting problem solving portion of the the issue, few people are willing (or have the time available) to sit in on the vote process and procedure oriented bureaucratic election bodies, even fewer still are allowed to be appointed onto the boards that aren't vetted by the major parties.
mtgx 9y ago
I agree. The media seems to mainly focus on voter purging and whatnot when it tends to favor the GOP, and not looking much at the other side. But it's happening with Democrats, too. The elites must know about how vulnerable these systems really are, and they're using it to their advantage. http://www.wnyc.org/story/city-board-elections-admits-it-broke-law-accepts-reforms/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/city-board-elections-admits-it-bro...
- trowawee 9y ago
  ...do you realize that the story you linked to explicitly involved purging Democratic voters? This really isn't a "both sides do it" problem.
drzaiusapelord 9y ago
The 2016 polling models were pretty good, or at least, as good as they are usually[1]. The problem is, it was a very close race by electoral college standards. Trump ultimately won by 80,000 votes in three states in an election with 136m votes cast[2]. So the 'deciding' votes were just 0.06% of the vote total. I think we can have it both ways. Voter suppression is being done and we have statistical heats in competitive races due to how poorly designed the Electoral College is. This mix is pretty tough to work with. Probably more reason to abandon the Electoral College outright. The popular candidate lost even though she have 3m more votes. How can pollsters be expected to work properly with such an irrational system? How can they predict where .06% percent of a vote will swing spread across three competitive states? [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2016/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-... [2] http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-down-to-77744-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan-updated/article/2005323 http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-down-to-7774...
- CalChris 9y ago
  It would take a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. That’s 2/3rd of both houses of Congress and 2/3rds of the State legislatures. Better to call a third Constitutional Convention.
  - thephyber 9y ago
    There is another way to get a similar effect.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
  - pasquinelli 9y ago
    has something changed since a bunch of ladies got a constitutional amendment passed banning everyone's favorite beverage and the federal government's main source of income? say what you will about the temperance movement, they made shit happen.
  - lutorm 9y ago
craftyguy 9y ago
Pretty much. I highly suspect the shit security of the voting system is by design, not some 'accident.'
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
SpikeDad 9y ago
"A side". Lets call a Republican a Republican. Same for gerrymandering. If you can't win fairly, win at any cost.

brian-armstrong 9y ago

Yeah, I remember the outrage when the original Diebold hacking announcement was made in the Bush Jr era. The concerns in that were never addressed and doubtless things have simply since got worse. If Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election, they could bring some of their engineering prowess to bear on defeating systematic voting machine fraud.

corey_moncure 9y ago
What does the fact that they don't do so, tell you?
liquidise 9y ago
> Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election I'm still surprised by the anger for this. For the purposes of the viewer, Google and Facebook are effectively media companies. By that measure, all media companies bias elections heavily during election cycles. This is done both with content and well as paid advertising. But to "make amends" for something sounds as if their influence is either unprecedented or morally wrong. Perhaps the argument is that the bias from international influences was wrong. Something else entirely? I suppose i fail to see where the real complaint here is. What behavior or lapse triggered these accusations?
- pnathan 9y ago
  > if their influence is either unprecedented It is. That's the entire point of the "filter bubble" argument that is coming up some 8-10 years old now.
- lurker456 9y ago
  There are some (poor, outdated, ineffective) checks and balances on the use of traditional media for political advertising. The new media successfully lobbied to be even excluded from those. Additionally, a lot of people who are not in this business were surprised about the extent.
- shostack 9y ago
  >"But to "make amends" for something sounds as if their influence is either unprecedented or morally wrong." I think we're too early in Mueller's investigation to definitively be able to say whether their influence was morally or legally wrong, or whether actions of employees/executives of those companies were morally or legally wrong.
ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
>If Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election. Since when has Google wanted to make amends for biasing the election? Aren't we quick to forget Eric Schmidt was all in on attempting to bias the election in the direction he wanted. Timshel/THE GROUNDWORK are and were nothing more than tools for the DNC to manipulate the electorate
vkou 9y ago
Does Fox News bias the election? Should it be required to make amends? Do you think it has more, or less influence then a 100K spend Facebook ad campaign by Russia?
- Larrikin 9y ago
  Way less obviously there are laws to help prevent foreign actors from injecting money and influence in to our elections. Which is why there are bipartisan congressional hearings on an unprecedented attack.
  - vkou 9y ago
    I understand that this is illegal. What I don't understand is why domestic manipulation of elections isn't. Eric Schmidt and Rupert Murdoch don't have the interests of the US in mind any more then Putin does. Just because it's quite precedented doesn't make it right.
    - ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
      Nevermind the US government, and its agencies manipulating elections throughout the world going on 70 years
    - Danihan 9y ago
      >domestic manipulation of elections You mean campaigning?
      - vkou 9y ago
        Rupert Murdoch isn't himself running for president, but it's pretty clear that he is trying to manipulate the election into a particular outcome. All the same arguments for why Putin's involvement should be illegal can also be levied against him.
nerfhammer 9y ago
> engineering prowess to bear on defeating systematic voting machine fraud Simple, don't use fancy electronic voting machines. There's really no benefit.
- CyberDildonics 9y ago
  That isn't a systemic solution and this is a systemic problem.
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    It's not a "the engineering isn't sufficiently sophisticated and cutting edge" problem.
dv_dt 9y ago
Everyone wants in on the exiting problem solving portion of the the issue, few people are willing (or have the time available) to sit in on the vote process and procedure oriented bureaucratic election bodies, even fewer still are allowed to be appointed onto the boards that aren't vetted by the major parties.

mtgx 9y ago

I agree. The media seems to mainly focus on voter purging and whatnot when it tends to favor the GOP, and not looking much at the other side. But it's happening with Democrats, too. The elites must know about how vulnerable these systems really are, and they're using it to their advantage. http://www.wnyc.org/story/city-board-elections-admits-it-broke-law-accepts-reforms/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/city-board-elections-admits-it-bro...

trowawee 9y ago
...do you realize that the story you linked to explicitly involved purging Democratic voters? This really isn't a "both sides do it" problem.

drzaiusapelord 9y ago

The 2016 polling models were pretty good, or at least, as good as they are usually[1]. The problem is, it was a very close race by electoral college standards. Trump ultimately won by 80,000 votes in three states in an election with 136m votes cast[2]. So the 'deciding' votes were just 0.06% of the vote total. I think we can have it both ways. Voter suppression is being done and we have statistical heats in competitive races due to how poorly designed the Electoral College is. This mix is pretty tough to work with. Probably more reason to abandon the Electoral College outright. The popular candidate lost even though she have 3m more votes. How can pollsters be expected to work properly with such an irrational system? How can they predict where .06% percent of a vote will swing spread across three competitive states? [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2016/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-... [2] http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-down-to-77744-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan-updated/article/2005323 http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-down-to-7774...

CalChris 9y ago
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. That’s 2/3rd of both houses of Congress and 2/3rds of the State legislatures. Better to call a third Constitutional Convention.
- thephyber 9y ago
  There is another way to get a similar effect.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
- pasquinelli 9y ago
  has something changed since a bunch of ladies got a constitutional amendment passed banning everyone's favorite beverage and the federal government's main source of income? say what you will about the temperance movement, they made shit happen.
- lutorm 9y ago

craftyguy 9y ago

Pretty much. I highly suspect the shit security of the voting system is by design, not some 'accident.'

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

SpikeDad 9y ago

"A side". Lets call a Republican a Republican. Same for gerrymandering. If you can't win fairly, win at any cost.