3 ms·

>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

by 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...
  - greglindahl 6y ago
    Sorry, my mistake. I thought you wanted to have a discussion in good faith about the details you were unaware of. In hindsight, I was foolish.
    - daenz 6y ago
      I think you indicated that you were already not speaking in good faith with the condescending "perhaps you can fill us in on your tips" and pretending that nobody would notice.
      - greglindahl 6y ago
        Ah. No wonder your followup was so pointless. If you ever do want to know about the numerous existing safeguards that are built into our bi-partisan-designed election system, you can probably educate yourself online.
        daenz 6y ago
        The existence of any safeguards was never in question, but thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Have a blessed day.
        greglindahl 6y ago
        You said: > My point is that it is easier to cheat undetectably the more indirection you introduce into the process. It's not just "any" safeguards. It's existing safeguards that work well at the level of indirection that "vote by mail" represents. Even with ballot pickup.
        daenz 6y ago
        And I'll go back to my other point, which you again condescendingly dismissed (see a theme here?) as "pointless": the general public needs to be convinced of the safeguards--safeguards which you are suggesting thwart any attempts at indirection-based potential fraud-- in order for them to be effective. Voting isn't about simply voting, it's about faith in the system itself. You could have a perfect voting system, but if nobody trusts it, it is as bad as a corrupted system because nobody will agree on the outcome. And currently, whatever safeguards you claim are "good enough" clearly are not good enough to convince the general public to trust them, so they aren't good enough.

by daenz 6y ago

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...
- greglindahl 6y ago
  Sorry, my mistake. I thought you wanted to have a discussion in good faith about the details you were unaware of. In hindsight, I was foolish.
  - daenz 6y ago
    I think you indicated that you were already not speaking in good faith with the condescending "perhaps you can fill us in on your tips" and pretending that nobody would notice.
    - greglindahl 6y ago
      Ah. No wonder your followup was so pointless. If you ever do want to know about the numerous existing safeguards that are built into our bi-partisan-designed election system, you can probably educate yourself online.
      - daenz 6y ago
        The existence of any safeguards was never in question, but thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Have a blessed day.
        greglindahl 6y ago
        You said: > My point is that it is easier to cheat undetectably the more indirection you introduce into the process. It's not just "any" safeguards. It's existing safeguards that work well at the level of indirection that "vote by mail" represents. Even with ballot pickup.
        daenz 6y ago
        And I'll go back to my other point, which you again condescendingly dismissed (see a theme here?) as "pointless": the general public needs to be convinced of the safeguards--safeguards which you are suggesting thwart any attempts at indirection-based potential fraud-- in order for them to be effective. Voting isn't about simply voting, it's about faith in the system itself. You could have a perfect voting system, but if nobody trusts it, it is as bad as a corrupted system because nobody will agree on the outcome. And currently, whatever safeguards you claim are "good enough" clearly are not good enough to convince the general public to trust them, so they aren't good enough.