3 ms·

> So... no evidence of fraudulent use. First link has plenty of people convicted of voter fraud using absentee ballots: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whiteh

> So... no evidence of fraudulent use. First link has plenty of people convicted of voter fraud using absentee ballots: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p... > 28 million out of how many? "almost 1 in 5". so roughly 150 million ballots mailed out over multiple years and elections, and < 20% are not returned. Or something else? The second link was there to provide data on what happens to absentee ballots along the chain of trust. As you said 1/5 is unaccounted for. The third link is one court case of a mail man meddling with absentee ballots, and admitting to doing so. It shows the chain-of-trust of mail system is much weaker than what we expect with in-person voting. Would you be happy if 1/5 of the people that showed up at the voting office was unaccounted for? > It seems that when there's evidence found - as in, criminal investigations turn up fraud and people are charged and prosecuted - "there's evidence of fraud!". Seems like you commented without inspecting all evidence or in bad faith when you ignore the evidence in the first link of convicted cases of absentee ballot fraud, then state this.

mgkimsal 6y ago
didn't ignore it - was responding specifically to text/headline of one of the other articles, which pretty clearly had "28 million" as the click bait, then later says "no evidence of fraud was found". What does "unaccounted for" mean? "Would you be happy if 1/5 of the people that showed up at the voting office was unaccounted for?" huh? how does that compare to ballots mailed out that were not returned? Again - "unaccounted for" is... nebulous. If 100m were mailed out, and 20m were not returned... are they "unaccounted for"? There's context missing here. What are the historical averages? If in any given year, 20% of mailed out ballots are not returned, and that's pretty average for 10-15-20 years... 20% "unaccounted for" is a non-issue. If the average is 4%, and in one election it's 20% or more... yeah, that's an issue that needs investigation. That information was not provided in the articles I saw, instead they just appear to rely on "big" numbers.
- asabjorn 6y ago
  > didn't ignore it - was responding specifically to text/headline of one of the other articles Why did you move on from the comment most relevant to the topic of the fact check? Fact check disputed evidence of absentee voter fraud, and firs link shows evidence. I put the first link first to establish a common frame that the fact checkers were wrong, and the second-to-third are more advanced topics. First link demonstrates the question we should ask: Who deserve the power of determining what is true or not? Does a committee at twitter deserve that power? > What does "unaccounted for" mean? That is the crux of the problem with the mail in ballot chain of trust, isn't it? You wouldn't have to ask this question at a physical voting spot, where this would be irregular and systems are in place to document the chain-of-trust to the degree necessary for voting.

mgkimsal 6y ago

didn't ignore it - was responding specifically to text/headline of one of the other articles, which pretty clearly had "28 million" as the click bait, then later says "no evidence of fraud was found". What does "unaccounted for" mean? "Would you be happy if 1/5 of the people that showed up at the voting office was unaccounted for?" huh? how does that compare to ballots mailed out that were not returned? Again - "unaccounted for" is... nebulous. If 100m were mailed out, and 20m were not returned... are they "unaccounted for"? There's context missing here. What are the historical averages? If in any given year, 20% of mailed out ballots are not returned, and that's pretty average for 10-15-20 years... 20% "unaccounted for" is a non-issue. If the average is 4%, and in one election it's 20% or more... yeah, that's an issue that needs investigation. That information was not provided in the articles I saw, instead they just appear to rely on "big" numbers.

asabjorn 6y ago
> didn't ignore it - was responding specifically to text/headline of one of the other articles Why did you move on from the comment most relevant to the topic of the fact check? Fact check disputed evidence of absentee voter fraud, and firs link shows evidence. I put the first link first to establish a common frame that the fact checkers were wrong, and the second-to-third are more advanced topics. First link demonstrates the question we should ask: Who deserve the power of determining what is true or not? Does a committee at twitter deserve that power? > What does "unaccounted for" mean? That is the crux of the problem with the mail in ballot chain of trust, isn't it? You wouldn't have to ask this question at a physical voting spot, where this would be irregular and systems are in place to document the chain-of-trust to the degree necessary for voting.