4 ms·

I mean, your values are different, so you come to a different conclusion. I'm sure you can understand why, to other people, your position seems to be "0% voter

I mean, your values are different, so you come to a different conclusion. I'm sure you can understand why, to other people, your position seems to be "0% voter fraud at all costs", when people have gerrymandering and other such things to deal with. So hopefully now you can see that the reason others come to different conclusions from you isn't that you're rational and they're irrational.

TechBro8615 6y ago
No, sorry, I maintain the position that it’s irrational to think that legalizing bulk ballot harvesting leads to a net increase of fairness in elections. Note the qualifier of bulk. It’s perfectly reasonable to allow submitting the ballot of family members, or perhaps even neighbors, within limits. My problem is with the idea of bulk ballot harvesting, where one person has the ability to carry a box of hundreds of ballots to a polling place. Absent any sort of chain of custody, which AFAIK does not exist, how can you be certain that person did not modify the ballots, or that they even gave them to other voters in the first place? Compare this to the potential gain of ballot harvesting: increased voter turnout because people who could not submit ballots now can. Note that the cost of submitting a ballot is inserting it into a mailbox. IMO, it is irrational to think there are more members of the population who are unable to submit a ballot into a mailbox, than the number of false ballots that a small group of malicious actors could submit. In fact, it seems like any argument in favor of ballot harvesting is ameliorated by the ability to vote by mail. And in either case, I maintain that it’s crucial to introduce some system that allows provable chain of custody for ballots, so that results may be audited.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Right, of course you're the rational one. Completely disregarding historical and ongoing gerrymandering, onerous voter ID laws, and all the other hurdles that have been brazenly thrown and which continue to be thrown in people's ways in bulk to discourage them from voting, make it more difficult for them to cast their ballots, and nullify the effects of their votes. Everyone else who disagrees is irrational. The ones who dare to try to remove one obstacle in bulk are irrational partisans trying to rig a completely fair game because their solution isn't scalable like AWS Lambda.
  - TechBro8615 6y ago
    I don’t see how ballot harvesting has any relation to gerrymandering or voter ID laws. Gerrymandering does not affect whether or not you can vote. It affects which district your vote counts for. Voter ID, where it exists, does not affect ballot harvesting because registering to vote, and actually voting, are two separate activities. Further, I highly doubt that anywhere with “onerous voter ID laws” also allows ballot harvesting, because if it does, how could the ID laws be enforced?

TechBro8615 6y ago

No, sorry, I maintain the position that it’s irrational to think that legalizing bulk ballot harvesting leads to a net increase of fairness in elections. Note the qualifier of bulk. It’s perfectly reasonable to allow submitting the ballot of family members, or perhaps even neighbors, within limits. My problem is with the idea of bulk ballot harvesting, where one person has the ability to carry a box of hundreds of ballots to a polling place. Absent any sort of chain of custody, which AFAIK does not exist, how can you be certain that person did not modify the ballots, or that they even gave them to other voters in the first place? Compare this to the potential gain of ballot harvesting: increased voter turnout because people who could not submit ballots now can. Note that the cost of submitting a ballot is inserting it into a mailbox. IMO, it is irrational to think there are more members of the population who are unable to submit a ballot into a mailbox, than the number of false ballots that a small group of malicious actors could submit. In fact, it seems like any argument in favor of ballot harvesting is ameliorated by the ability to vote by mail. And in either case, I maintain that it’s crucial to introduce some system that allows provable chain of custody for ballots, so that results may be audited.

mehrdadn 6y ago
Right, of course you're the rational one. Completely disregarding historical and ongoing gerrymandering, onerous voter ID laws, and all the other hurdles that have been brazenly thrown and which continue to be thrown in people's ways in bulk to discourage them from voting, make it more difficult for them to cast their ballots, and nullify the effects of their votes. Everyone else who disagrees is irrational. The ones who dare to try to remove one obstacle in bulk are irrational partisans trying to rig a completely fair game because their solution isn't scalable like AWS Lambda.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  I don’t see how ballot harvesting has any relation to gerrymandering or voter ID laws. Gerrymandering does not affect whether or not you can vote. It affects which district your vote counts for. Voter ID, where it exists, does not affect ballot harvesting because registering to vote, and actually voting, are two separate activities. Further, I highly doubt that anywhere with “onerous voter ID laws” also allows ballot harvesting, because if it does, how could the ID laws be enforced?