7 ms·

The message isn't clearly false. See this article for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-

The message isn't clearly false. See this article for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-... > Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting. You could say that 1% increase in problems is small, but in close elections that could easily be considered huge.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
Ballots get rejected for all sorts of reasons, as the article mentions, fraud and errors. A double rejection rate can't be 100% attributable to fraud. Here's what the President claimed: > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone..... ....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!
- whatshisface 6y ago
  What's the line between "we have the best burgers in the world," and actually lying? You'll notice that Mr. POTUS said "less than substantially," whch barely means anything. Maybe he thinks 2% is "more than substantially." You can't lie if you phrase everything in a way that doesn't say anything.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    The phrase does indeed say something. "anything less than substantially fraudulent" means near and total fraud. Claiming ~100% of mail-in ballots are fraudulent is baseless and untrue.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      I just don't see how you can go from "anything less than substantially" to 100%. You can't go from "substantially" to any percentage. For an example, I could pull the same trick on your comment. I could try and convince people that "does indeed," implies 100% confidence, and then I could point out that since from a Bayesian perspective you should never reach 100% confidence, you can't know what you're talking about. Obviously nobody would buy that, because it's not you that wrote down 100%, it was me.
      - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
        What does 'substantial' mean? "of considerable importance, size, or worth.". We further constrain the definition with 'anything less than'. So what we're saying is, 'of an especially considerable importance, size of worth'. Okay, well, what does that mean? It has to be a number large enough to influence the election result, but there's no evidence election results have flipped elections due to enough fraudulent mail-in ballots. With this interpretation, the numeric quantity does not matter, but the impact does, yet it is still untrue.
      - gjulianm 6y ago
        You're getting entangled in the details. It's clear from his tweets that what he means is that mail-in ballots will cause a rigged election. We shouldn't trust rigged elections, so he's saying that if the election includes mail-in ballots, it will be untrustworthy. In order to make that reasoning (you could say that arguments are not false or true, they're just arguments) he's using false (CA will not be sending ballots to "anyone") and unsubstantiated (mail-in ballots have been working for years without extended robberies and forging, why would this be any different?) claims. You can search and reason about the words so that "technically" he isn't lying. But the actual message he's sending is very, very clear.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    He obviously doesn’t think it is 2% because 2% in California would be nowhere close to “rigging the election” (his words).
  - pfraze 6y ago
    It's pointless to quibble about what POTUS is getting at. He clearly intends to claim "mail-in voting is fraudulent." The question of whether it's a lie has more to do with whether his claim is accurate.
  - dboreham 6y ago
    So "dark patterns" are ok?
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    The difference is that everyone knows “we have the best burgers in the world” is subjective, and therefore, not true. When it comes to statistics (read: not subjective measures), it’s possible to lie.
  - ken 6y ago
    Specificity. It's an existing exception in advertising law (or so I've been told). Anyone can claim "we have the best burgers" -- and many restaurants do -- because it's non-specific. Ironically, if you were to attempt humility by claiming "we have the second-best burgers", that becomes a specific claim, and you'd need research to support it. "The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state" is a specific claim, and would need to be supported. It's a different category of claim than merely boasting "I am the best president".
    - duskwuff 6y ago
      There's also some room in the law for puffery in advertising, which includes the use of vacuous statements like "the best".
  - foogazi 6y ago
    No what Mr. POTUS said was > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent Translation: 100% certainty that Mail-In Ballots are substantially fraudulent Where do you get the 2% from? > Maybe he thinks 2% is “more than substantially” We don’t know what he thinks - we know what he wrote. And he didn’t write a “maybe 2% chance of fraud” He specified a 100% certainty of substantial election fraud
- safog 6y ago
  > The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone..... ....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one This is also patently false - they're sending out ballots to registered voters, not everyone regardless of how they got there. > That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way! Who are these "professionals"? I thought that according to the right, Americans were perfectly capable of making life / death decisions for themselves and those around them during an active pandemic. So a trivial thing such as misinformation should be easy to deal with for them.
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    Although I'm no trump supporter, it would be incorrect to assume there is no democratic push to get out the vote. Vote Save America ( https://votesaveamerica.com/ https://votesaveamerica.com/ ) is run by Crooked Media, who are most well known for having Obama officials running podcasts like Pod Save America and Pod Save The World (as well as noted black activist Deray hosting Pod Save The People). This is clearly a group that wants to get Trump out and they are actively organizing to encourage calling, texting, donating to democratic campaigns in swing states, and pushing for mail-in voting. (Disclaimer: I am pro mail-in voting and lean leftist in my political beliefs. I am merely disagreeing that there are no pushes to encourage people to vote that are also anti-trump.)
    - DFHippie 6y ago
      Sure. And if Trump only meant that people will campaign against him he sure has a roundabout way of saying it.
      - TeaDrunk 6y ago
        Correct. His implication that this somehow makes the voting process less valid is 100% wrong. It in fact makes the voting process more inclusive. But it is wrong to say there are no movements to teach people how to vote and to make voting easier explicitly with the belief that a more inclusive voting populace will vote trump out.
- dathinab 6y ago
  > many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way! So basically he is afraid of more people voting? Like how is a election where more people then ever vote rigged? Like wtf. This might fall in line with the analysis of <forgot name sorry> which claimed that election results are more based on which people vote and which don't then on swing voters and that swing voters are pretty much irrelevant. If this is true and it turns out that an majority of voters in the US is more on the side of the democrats then a voting method which makes more people vote could indeed cause a long term defeat of the republicans in a fair democratic non rigged manner!
  - dboreham 6y ago
    Of course he's afraid of people voting: he and his party are only in power because people don't vote.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Partially correct. He’s in power because the left didn’t vote as much as they could’ve, but he’s also in power because his party’s constituents overwhelmingly supported him and went out in droves to vote for him. Hillary thought she had a sure win, so she didn’t campaign in some states; Trump seized those opportunities and won more support.
      - anewdirection 6y ago
        I often hear it stated as "We disliked Hillary so much, we voted for someone worse".
        pavlov 6y ago
        The American voters’ approach to government often reduces to “cutting off the nose to spite the face.”
        bcrosby95 6y ago
        You can phrase it that way. But it's a deceptive statement. For the most part, people don't switch parties they vote for. They just choose not to vote instead. So taken in aggregate, you could say "we disliked Hillary so we voted for someone worse". But the more accurate statement is that some groups of people decided not to vote at all because they disliked Hillary, and other groups of people decided to show up and vote.
gjulianm 6y ago
Trump didn't say "it will lead to more problems", he said that "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent". There's absolutely no evidence of that, and it's not true that "The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state". There's no justification at all for that tweet. He's saying that mail-in votes will lead to substantially fraudulent elections, eroding the trust in the process. One could even consider what he's saying as dangerous to the democratic system itself.
donarb 6y ago
That article was 8 years old an deals mostly with people who vote absentee. States like Oregon and Washington have systems in place to make sure every ballot is counted. You get 18 days to send in your ballot, you can check online to see if your ballot has been received. If not, you have plenty of time to request a new one. Oregon has been voting by mail for almost 20 years. In that time they have sent out about 100M ballots with only 12 cases of voter fraud found.
- GenerocUsername 6y ago
  FOUND
- pacala 6y ago
  The ability to check one's ballot status implies that the ballot is tied to one's identity. How does the system guarantee vote secrecy? Edit. From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Oregon#Balloting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Oregon#Balloting Ballots packs are mailed to every registered voter 14 to 18 days before the election. When the ballot pack comes in the mail, it includes: An official ballot A secrecy envelope A ballot return envelope After filling out the ballot the voter then places the ballot in the secrecy envelope, then inside the return envelope and must then sign it in a space provided on the outside return envelope. This is then either mailed back through the US mail with first class postage, or dropped off at any County Elections Office or a designated dropsite. Ballots must be received in a County Elections Office or a designated dropsite by 8pm on Election Day (postmarks do not count). If the ballot arrives at the County Elections Office after 8pm on Election Day, it is not counted. Once received, an Elections Official at the elections office where the ballot is received will compare the signature on the ballot return envelope to the signature on the voter registration card to verify that the voter is registered to vote. Once verified, the secrecy envelope containing the actual ballot is removed and polled with the other ballots. Once the "polls" close at 8pm on Election Day, the ballots are removed from their secrecy envelopes and counted.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    “Vote secrecy” refers to the inability for an attacker to know who you voted for, not that you voted. Checking whether your vote was counted gives you an answer to the latter, not the former. In other words, it’s not possible to prove who you voted for after the fact unless you took pictures (or some other copy).
noelsusman 6y ago
That's not what he said. He claimed the election will be rigged and also claimed California is sending ballots to non-voters.
chlodwig 6y ago
The message isn't clearly false. See this article for example; Seriously. I am getting a "we have always been at war with East Asia" vibe from this latest uproar. If you use Google search tool to look up "mail-in voting fraud" and limit the search to before April 1st, you get a lot of concerned articles from NPR, NY Times, Propublica, etc, that mail-in voting fraud is a problem to worry about, and that expanding mail-in voting might lead to more fraud (and they also think Republicans will benefit from this expansion): https://www.google.com/search?q=mail-in+voting+fraud&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F1%2F2020&tbm= https://www.google.com/search?q=mail-in+voting+fraud&source=... But then Trump tweets about and there is a 180 and now it is disinformation to claim that a massive increase in mail-in voting will lead to a massive fraud problems. Two old quotes are interesting to me: From NY Times in 2012: > “Absentee voting is to voting in person,” Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has written, “as a take-home exam is to a proctored one.” From Pro Publica in March 2020 ( https://www.propublica.org/article/voting-by-mail-would-reduce-coronavirus-transmission-but-it-has-other-risks https://www.propublica.org/article/voting-by-mail-would-redu... ): > “To move from a couple of thousand to a couple of million requires an entirely different infrastructure,” said Tammy Patrick, a former county election official who is now a senior adviser at the nonprofit Democracy Fund in Washington, D.C. Just from those two quotes, it is not at all unreasonable to extrapolate and predict that massively increasing mail-in voting on a tight schedule is going to be a huge fricking problem. I don't know what the answer is, and I don't which party is going to benefit more. And even if you think Trump is wrong, he is still making a prediction that is based on real concerns, which is something that politicians do all the time, it is not a blatant error of fact.
- pacerwpg 6y ago
  Those articles appear to have a much more measured critique of any problems than what the President has been actively tweeting.
  - chlodwig 6y ago
    I will look forward to Twitter adding fact-check links every time a major politician makes an exaggerated, hyperbolic, or extreme prediction on Twitter.
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
It's a bunch of nonsense. Oregon has been using vote by mail since like 1981. The kind of fraud the president is fear mongering about doesn't happen there. If other states see higher problem rates in their vote by mail, it's likely a selection effect due to vote by mail being not the main method.
soco 6y ago
There are countries using mail ballots since like forever. I don't think even Trump can claim Switzerland was undemocratic or forged.
rhizome 6y ago
>Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. "Statistics show." Yeah, no, that's not how it works. Evidence shows, and there isn't any, or the New York freaking Times would describe it.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

Ballots get rejected for all sorts of reasons, as the article mentions, fraud and errors. A double rejection rate can't be 100% attributable to fraud. Here's what the President claimed: > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone..... ....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!

whatshisface 6y ago
What's the line between "we have the best burgers in the world," and actually lying? You'll notice that Mr. POTUS said "less than substantially," whch barely means anything. Maybe he thinks 2% is "more than substantially." You can't lie if you phrase everything in a way that doesn't say anything.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  The phrase does indeed say something. "anything less than substantially fraudulent" means near and total fraud. Claiming ~100% of mail-in ballots are fraudulent is baseless and untrue.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    I just don't see how you can go from "anything less than substantially" to 100%. You can't go from "substantially" to any percentage. For an example, I could pull the same trick on your comment. I could try and convince people that "does indeed," implies 100% confidence, and then I could point out that since from a Bayesian perspective you should never reach 100% confidence, you can't know what you're talking about. Obviously nobody would buy that, because it's not you that wrote down 100%, it was me.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
      What does 'substantial' mean? "of considerable importance, size, or worth.". We further constrain the definition with 'anything less than'. So what we're saying is, 'of an especially considerable importance, size of worth'. Okay, well, what does that mean? It has to be a number large enough to influence the election result, but there's no evidence election results have flipped elections due to enough fraudulent mail-in ballots. With this interpretation, the numeric quantity does not matter, but the impact does, yet it is still untrue.
    - gjulianm 6y ago
      You're getting entangled in the details. It's clear from his tweets that what he means is that mail-in ballots will cause a rigged election. We shouldn't trust rigged elections, so he's saying that if the election includes mail-in ballots, it will be untrustworthy. In order to make that reasoning (you could say that arguments are not false or true, they're just arguments) he's using false (CA will not be sending ballots to "anyone") and unsubstantiated (mail-in ballots have been working for years without extended robberies and forging, why would this be any different?) claims. You can search and reason about the words so that "technically" he isn't lying. But the actual message he's sending is very, very clear.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  He obviously doesn’t think it is 2% because 2% in California would be nowhere close to “rigging the election” (his words).
- pfraze 6y ago
  It's pointless to quibble about what POTUS is getting at. He clearly intends to claim "mail-in voting is fraudulent." The question of whether it's a lie has more to do with whether his claim is accurate.
- dboreham 6y ago
  So "dark patterns" are ok?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  The difference is that everyone knows “we have the best burgers in the world” is subjective, and therefore, not true. When it comes to statistics (read: not subjective measures), it’s possible to lie.
- ken 6y ago
  Specificity. It's an existing exception in advertising law (or so I've been told). Anyone can claim "we have the best burgers" -- and many restaurants do -- because it's non-specific. Ironically, if you were to attempt humility by claiming "we have the second-best burgers", that becomes a specific claim, and you'd need research to support it. "The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state" is a specific claim, and would need to be supported. It's a different category of claim than merely boasting "I am the best president".
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    There's also some room in the law for puffery in advertising, which includes the use of vacuous statements like "the best".
- foogazi 6y ago
  No what Mr. POTUS said was > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent Translation: 100% certainty that Mail-In Ballots are substantially fraudulent Where do you get the 2% from? > Maybe he thinks 2% is “more than substantially” We don’t know what he thinks - we know what he wrote. And he didn’t write a “maybe 2% chance of fraud” He specified a 100% certainty of substantial election fraud
safog 6y ago
> The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone..... ....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one This is also patently false - they're sending out ballots to registered voters, not everyone regardless of how they got there. > That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way! Who are these "professionals"? I thought that according to the right, Americans were perfectly capable of making life / death decisions for themselves and those around them during an active pandemic. So a trivial thing such as misinformation should be easy to deal with for them.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  Although I'm no trump supporter, it would be incorrect to assume there is no democratic push to get out the vote. Vote Save America ( https://votesaveamerica.com/ https://votesaveamerica.com/ ) is run by Crooked Media, who are most well known for having Obama officials running podcasts like Pod Save America and Pod Save The World (as well as noted black activist Deray hosting Pod Save The People). This is clearly a group that wants to get Trump out and they are actively organizing to encourage calling, texting, donating to democratic campaigns in swing states, and pushing for mail-in voting. (Disclaimer: I am pro mail-in voting and lean leftist in my political beliefs. I am merely disagreeing that there are no pushes to encourage people to vote that are also anti-trump.)
  - DFHippie 6y ago
    Sure. And if Trump only meant that people will campaign against him he sure has a roundabout way of saying it.
    - TeaDrunk 6y ago
      Correct. His implication that this somehow makes the voting process less valid is 100% wrong. It in fact makes the voting process more inclusive. But it is wrong to say there are no movements to teach people how to vote and to make voting easier explicitly with the belief that a more inclusive voting populace will vote trump out.
dathinab 6y ago
> many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way! So basically he is afraid of more people voting? Like how is a election where more people then ever vote rigged? Like wtf. This might fall in line with the analysis of <forgot name sorry> which claimed that election results are more based on which people vote and which don't then on swing voters and that swing voters are pretty much irrelevant. If this is true and it turns out that an majority of voters in the US is more on the side of the democrats then a voting method which makes more people vote could indeed cause a long term defeat of the republicans in a fair democratic non rigged manner!
- dboreham 6y ago
  Of course he's afraid of people voting: he and his party are only in power because people don't vote.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Partially correct. He’s in power because the left didn’t vote as much as they could’ve, but he’s also in power because his party’s constituents overwhelmingly supported him and went out in droves to vote for him. Hillary thought she had a sure win, so she didn’t campaign in some states; Trump seized those opportunities and won more support.
    - anewdirection 6y ago
      I often hear it stated as "We disliked Hillary so much, we voted for someone worse".
      - pavlov 6y ago
        The American voters’ approach to government often reduces to “cutting off the nose to spite the face.”
      - bcrosby95 6y ago
        You can phrase it that way. But it's a deceptive statement. For the most part, people don't switch parties they vote for. They just choose not to vote instead. So taken in aggregate, you could say "we disliked Hillary so we voted for someone worse". But the more accurate statement is that some groups of people decided not to vote at all because they disliked Hillary, and other groups of people decided to show up and vote.

gjulianm 6y ago

Trump didn't say "it will lead to more problems", he said that "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent". There's absolutely no evidence of that, and it's not true that "The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state". There's no justification at all for that tweet. He's saying that mail-in votes will lead to substantially fraudulent elections, eroding the trust in the process. One could even consider what he's saying as dangerous to the democratic system itself.

donarb 6y ago

That article was 8 years old an deals mostly with people who vote absentee. States like Oregon and Washington have systems in place to make sure every ballot is counted. You get 18 days to send in your ballot, you can check online to see if your ballot has been received. If not, you have plenty of time to request a new one. Oregon has been voting by mail for almost 20 years. In that time they have sent out about 100M ballots with only 12 cases of voter fraud found.

GenerocUsername 6y ago
FOUND
pacala 6y ago
The ability to check one's ballot status implies that the ballot is tied to one's identity. How does the system guarantee vote secrecy? Edit. From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Oregon#Balloting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Oregon#Balloting Ballots packs are mailed to every registered voter 14 to 18 days before the election. When the ballot pack comes in the mail, it includes: An official ballot A secrecy envelope A ballot return envelope After filling out the ballot the voter then places the ballot in the secrecy envelope, then inside the return envelope and must then sign it in a space provided on the outside return envelope. This is then either mailed back through the US mail with first class postage, or dropped off at any County Elections Office or a designated dropsite. Ballots must be received in a County Elections Office or a designated dropsite by 8pm on Election Day (postmarks do not count). If the ballot arrives at the County Elections Office after 8pm on Election Day, it is not counted. Once received, an Elections Official at the elections office where the ballot is received will compare the signature on the ballot return envelope to the signature on the voter registration card to verify that the voter is registered to vote. Once verified, the secrecy envelope containing the actual ballot is removed and polled with the other ballots. Once the "polls" close at 8pm on Election Day, the ballots are removed from their secrecy envelopes and counted.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  “Vote secrecy” refers to the inability for an attacker to know who you voted for, not that you voted. Checking whether your vote was counted gives you an answer to the latter, not the former. In other words, it’s not possible to prove who you voted for after the fact unless you took pictures (or some other copy).

noelsusman 6y ago

That's not what he said. He claimed the election will be rigged and also claimed California is sending ballots to non-voters.

chlodwig 6y ago

The message isn't clearly false. See this article for example; Seriously. I am getting a "we have always been at war with East Asia" vibe from this latest uproar. If you use Google search tool to look up "mail-in voting fraud" and limit the search to before April 1st, you get a lot of concerned articles from NPR, NY Times, Propublica, etc, that mail-in voting fraud is a problem to worry about, and that expanding mail-in voting might lead to more fraud (and they also think Republicans will benefit from this expansion): https://www.google.com/search?q=mail-in+voting+fraud&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F1%2F2020&tbm= https://www.google.com/search?q=mail-in+voting+fraud&source=... But then Trump tweets about and there is a 180 and now it is disinformation to claim that a massive increase in mail-in voting will lead to a massive fraud problems. Two old quotes are interesting to me: From NY Times in 2012: > “Absentee voting is to voting in person,” Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has written, “as a take-home exam is to a proctored one.” From Pro Publica in March 2020 ( https://www.propublica.org/article/voting-by-mail-would-reduce-coronavirus-transmission-but-it-has-other-risks https://www.propublica.org/article/voting-by-mail-would-redu... ): > “To move from a couple of thousand to a couple of million requires an entirely different infrastructure,” said Tammy Patrick, a former county election official who is now a senior adviser at the nonprofit Democracy Fund in Washington, D.C. Just from those two quotes, it is not at all unreasonable to extrapolate and predict that massively increasing mail-in voting on a tight schedule is going to be a huge fricking problem. I don't know what the answer is, and I don't which party is going to benefit more. And even if you think Trump is wrong, he is still making a prediction that is based on real concerns, which is something that politicians do all the time, it is not a blatant error of fact.

pacerwpg 6y ago
Those articles appear to have a much more measured critique of any problems than what the President has been actively tweeting.
- chlodwig 6y ago
  I will look forward to Twitter adding fact-check links every time a major politician makes an exaggerated, hyperbolic, or extreme prediction on Twitter.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

It's a bunch of nonsense. Oregon has been using vote by mail since like 1981. The kind of fraud the president is fear mongering about doesn't happen there. If other states see higher problem rates in their vote by mail, it's likely a selection effect due to vote by mail being not the main method.

soco 6y ago

There are countries using mail ballots since like forever. I don't think even Trump can claim Switzerland was undemocratic or forged.

rhizome 6y ago

>Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. "Statistics show." Yeah, no, that's not how it works. Evidence shows, and there isn't any, or the New York freaking Times would describe it.