4 ms·

Washington state has been using that system since forever ago, and the world didn’t end. Why do you foresee it going any differently in CA? And i am saying tha

Washington state has been using that system since forever ago, and the world didn’t end. Why do you foresee it going any differently in CA? And i am saying that as someone who is opposed to electronic voting.

TylerE 7y ago
Because, as Trump himself said, when people vote, Republicans lose. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/30/trump-voting-republicans/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/30/trump-vot...
- searchableguy 7y ago
  Trump referenced proposals from Democrats in the coronavirus stimulus negotiations that would have vastly increased funding for absentee and vote-by-mail options. The final package included $400 million for the effort, which was far less than what Democrats had sought. “The things they had in there were crazy,” Trump said. “They had things — levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
ojbyrne 7y ago
I think the previous commenter is just advocating the well known strategy of one party in the US - better phrased as "We can't suppress voters as easily!"
daenz 7y ago
>Washington state has been using that system since forever ago, and the world didn’t end. I don't think you're fully considering the implications of what the outcome would look like if voter fraud was used effectively. The world wouldn't "end" because nobody would be the wiser. The whole point of cheating is to do so undetectably, so nobody realizes it and everyone agrees that the outcome is fair. So it's our moral obligation to ensure that undetectable cheating is as difficult as humanly possible to ensure the integrity of elections. Not just say "oh, well nobody has detected anything bad so far, so it must be fine" because things would also appear fine in a severely compromised voting system.
- sfj 7y ago
  Also the people who stand to benefit from cheating, then are elected and tasked with preventing it. How is that incentive structure going to work?
- wpietri 7y ago
  No election system is totally proof against voter fraud. Our current election system isn't perfect either. If you'd like to make the case that this is worse, feel free to make it. But I know some serious voting nerds that are not just fine with vote-by-mail; they think it's way better. Personally, I would rather vote the traditional way. But that's more because I enjoy the collective civic duty feeling, and not because I think it's actually better at getting a more accurate representation of the will of the people.
  - daenz 7y ago
    >If you'd like to make the case that this is worse, feel free to make it. Better or worse depends on what your goals are. It's "better" if your goal is making it easier to vote. It's "worse" if your goal is making it harder to cheat. My point is that it is easier to cheat undetectably the more indirection you introduce into the process.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      Both are sub-goals, with the primary goal being that the outcome reflect the democratic will of the people. For example, if we turn up the "impossible to cheat" knob high enough that, say, only 10% of people bother to vote, then that's definitely worse. Anybody who wants to argue against vote-by-mail needs to make the case that the overall outcome is worse, not just that vote-by-mail has some flaws that are different that the ones in-person voting has.
      - daenz 7y ago
        Disagree. Since the vast majority of states do not offer vote-by-mail only (which is what we're discussing here, to be clear), the onus is on proponents of it to make the case that it is better than the currently majority-adopted solution of voting either in-person or by mail. You don't require others to prove why your change is worse, you have to prove to others why your change is better.

TylerE 7y ago

Because, as Trump himself said, when people vote, Republicans lose. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/30/trump-voting-republicans/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/30/trump-vot...

searchableguy 7y ago
Trump referenced proposals from Democrats in the coronavirus stimulus negotiations that would have vastly increased funding for absentee and vote-by-mail options. The final package included $400 million for the effort, which was far less than what Democrats had sought. “The things they had in there were crazy,” Trump said. “They had things — levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

ojbyrne 7y ago

I think the previous commenter is just advocating the well known strategy of one party in the US - better phrased as "We can't suppress voters as easily!"

daenz 7y ago

>Washington state has been using that system since forever ago, and the world didn’t end. I don't think you're fully considering the implications of what the outcome would look like if voter fraud was used effectively. The world wouldn't "end" because nobody would be the wiser. The whole point of cheating is to do so undetectably, so nobody realizes it and everyone agrees that the outcome is fair. So it's our moral obligation to ensure that undetectable cheating is as difficult as humanly possible to ensure the integrity of elections. Not just say "oh, well nobody has detected anything bad so far, so it must be fine" because things would also appear fine in a severely compromised voting system.

sfj 7y ago
Also the people who stand to benefit from cheating, then are elected and tasked with preventing it. How is that incentive structure going to work?
wpietri 7y ago
No election system is totally proof against voter fraud. Our current election system isn't perfect either. If you'd like to make the case that this is worse, feel free to make it. But I know some serious voting nerds that are not just fine with vote-by-mail; they think it's way better. Personally, I would rather vote the traditional way. But that's more because I enjoy the collective civic duty feeling, and not because I think it's actually better at getting a more accurate representation of the will of the people.
- daenz 7y ago
  >If you'd like to make the case that this is worse, feel free to make it. Better or worse depends on what your goals are. It's "better" if your goal is making it easier to vote. It's "worse" if your goal is making it harder to cheat. My point is that it is easier to cheat undetectably the more indirection you introduce into the process.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Both are sub-goals, with the primary goal being that the outcome reflect the democratic will of the people. For example, if we turn up the "impossible to cheat" knob high enough that, say, only 10% of people bother to vote, then that's definitely worse. Anybody who wants to argue against vote-by-mail needs to make the case that the overall outcome is worse, not just that vote-by-mail has some flaws that are different that the ones in-person voting has.
    - daenz 7y ago
      Disagree. Since the vast majority of states do not offer vote-by-mail only (which is what we're discussing here, to be clear), the onus is on proponents of it to make the case that it is better than the currently majority-adopted solution of voting either in-person or by mail. You don't require others to prove why your change is worse, you have to prove to others why your change is better.