4 ms·

>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 o

by daenz 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
  - greglindahl 6y ago
    There are already safeguards that make it difficult to cheat undetectably in vote by mail. Perhaps you can fill us in with your tips for avoiding them? The guy in NC sure flunked that test.
    - daenz 6y ago
      >There are already safeguards that make it difficult to cheat undetectably in vote by mail. The majority of Americans still trust in-person voting over vote-by-mail. Perhaps you can share the safeguards that will assuage their concerns. >Within the coronavirus context and questions of safety with in-person voting in November, voters are not very comfortable changing their method of voting. Voters across the country generally trust their current voting process, with 55% trusting primarily in-person voting, compared with 20% who do not trust the current process. When asked about mail balloting, 47% said they would trust a national vote-by-mail process in November, while 31% lack trust in this system. When voters were asked about online balloting, only 33% said they would trust an online system, with 45% not trusting online voting in November’s election. http://emersonpolling.com/2020/04/28/april-national-poll-trump-down-but-not-out-as-enthusiasm-and-expectation-favor-the-president/ http://emersonpolling.com/2020/04/28/april-national-poll-tru...

by daenz 6y ago

sfj 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
- greglindahl 6y ago
  There are already safeguards that make it difficult to cheat undetectably in vote by mail. Perhaps you can fill us in with your tips for avoiding them? The guy in NC sure flunked that test.
  - daenz 6y ago
    >There are already safeguards that make it difficult to cheat undetectably in vote by mail. The majority of Americans still trust in-person voting over vote-by-mail. Perhaps you can share the safeguards that will assuage their concerns. >Within the coronavirus context and questions of safety with in-person voting in November, voters are not very comfortable changing their method of voting. Voters across the country generally trust their current voting process, with 55% trusting primarily in-person voting, compared with 20% who do not trust the current process. When asked about mail balloting, 47% said they would trust a national vote-by-mail process in November, while 31% lack trust in this system. When voters were asked about online balloting, only 33% said they would trust an online system, with 45% not trusting online voting in November’s election. http://emersonpolling.com/2020/04/28/april-national-poll-trump-down-but-not-out-as-enthusiasm-and-expectation-favor-the-president/ http://emersonpolling.com/2020/04/28/april-national-poll-tru...