5 ms·

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.
        wpietri 6y ago
        You really don't come across as somebody interested in convincing the general public here. Or particularly aware of what the general public actually trusts. 71% of Americans say that “any voter should have the option to vote early or absentee without having to document a reason." And the areas with the most experience with more relaxed approaches to voting are the ones most likely to agree with that. It is true that pure vote-by-mail is the thing that that people are most skeptical of. But almost nobody is 100% opposed to mailed votes; people are fine with absentee voters, military voters, etc. And California's experience shows that people get more comfortable with mail voting as they have more experience with it. Since 2012, the majority of votes have been cast absentee (which is a mix of mail and drop-off): https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/historical-absentee/ https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/historical-absentee/ So if you'd like to convince the general public, the thing to do is to allow both approaches and let people pick. Especially during a global pandemic, I think we'll see a lot more people liking the idea of mail-in voting than they did in past surveys.
        daenz 6y ago
        I have been talking about vote-by-mail only, and I made that clear in a previous reply to you, so arguing for any vote by mail, as though I oppose it, comes across as a strawman. >So if you'd like to convince the general public, the thing to do is to allow both approaches and let people pick. That's exactly what the majority of states do, but CA is forcing vote-by-mail only. Also, I was courteous enough to post my sources when talking about public opinion, I would appreciate the same courtesy.
        wpietri 6y ago
        The bit of data I didn't cite comes from the 2018 Pew report. You have also worked yourself into a tizzy over nothing. CA is not forcing vote-by-mail only. Newsom's order is only about requiring everybody to receive a ballot. Rules for in-person voting will be determined county by county, and those rules are still being developed. If you aren't opposed to vote by mail, you did a poor job of making that clear. This chunk of the discussion started out with "Voter fraud ahoy!" You jumped in to fret about "undetectable cheating". If you don't think that vote by mail is any less secure, I have no idea what your goal is, and rereading your posts doesn't help.

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.
      - wpietri 6y ago
        You really don't come across as somebody interested in convincing the general public here. Or particularly aware of what the general public actually trusts. 71% of Americans say that “any voter should have the option to vote early or absentee without having to document a reason." And the areas with the most experience with more relaxed approaches to voting are the ones most likely to agree with that. It is true that pure vote-by-mail is the thing that that people are most skeptical of. But almost nobody is 100% opposed to mailed votes; people are fine with absentee voters, military voters, etc. And California's experience shows that people get more comfortable with mail voting as they have more experience with it. Since 2012, the majority of votes have been cast absentee (which is a mix of mail and drop-off): https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/historical-absentee/ https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/historical-absentee/ So if you'd like to convince the general public, the thing to do is to allow both approaches and let people pick. Especially during a global pandemic, I think we'll see a lot more people liking the idea of mail-in voting than they did in past surveys.
        daenz 6y ago
        I have been talking about vote-by-mail only, and I made that clear in a previous reply to you, so arguing for any vote by mail, as though I oppose it, comes across as a strawman. >So if you'd like to convince the general public, the thing to do is to allow both approaches and let people pick. That's exactly what the majority of states do, but CA is forcing vote-by-mail only. Also, I was courteous enough to post my sources when talking about public opinion, I would appreciate the same courtesy.
        wpietri 6y ago
        The bit of data I didn't cite comes from the 2018 Pew report. You have also worked yourself into a tizzy over nothing. CA is not forcing vote-by-mail only. Newsom's order is only about requiring everybody to receive a ballot. Rules for in-person voting will be determined county by county, and those rules are still being developed. If you aren't opposed to vote by mail, you did a poor job of making that clear. This chunk of the discussion started out with "Voter fraud ahoy!" You jumped in to fret about "undetectable cheating". If you don't think that vote by mail is any less secure, I have no idea what your goal is, and rereading your posts doesn't help.