7 ms·

I think you are being dishonest and therefore impossible to change your mind.

shadowgovt 6y ago
Hey, resorting to an ad hominem is always easier than discussing the point or defending the facts you present. Your summary statement, "every one agreed that mail-in ballot has massive fraud," can't be reconciled with a fact that several states have had no-excuse-needed vote by mail for decades. and nothing has indicated that their fraud rate is higher than the election result fraud rate in other states. If your experience has been that everyone is in agreement on the topic, I suggest it's because you're getting your information from sources with a specific political leaning. The consensus is not aligned with that statement; In fact, the general consensus in the statistical community is the opposite.
- busymom0 6y ago
  It was not an ad hom attack. Saying someone is being dishonest is not an ad hom attack when you didn't even make any point. You made a single statement "These sources fail to prove that Twitter fact checking is wrong." without any exact points on any of the sources I provided. You gave a 1 line "not true" comment. An ad hom attack is when I am not "criticizing the points you are making" but you never really made any points except just say "fails to prove." That's like you writing a research paper filled with sources and your professor gives you a 0/100 with a one line response "fails to prove." My comment literally states from a NYTimes article that stats agree with me: > “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised & more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.” 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-... This case from just last week had a 19% fraud: > Close Results In Paterson Vote Plagued By Fraud Claims; Over 3K Ballots Seemingly Set Aside > A county spokesman said 16,747 vote-by-mail ballots were received, but the county's official results page shows 13,557 votes were counted — with uncounted ballots representing 19 percent of all votes cast > The spokesman later told the Paterson Press that the additional 2,390 disqualifications were due to the election board comparing signatures on the ballots to those previously on file for voters, and the new ones not matching up. The spokesman also would not explain the breakdown of what ward those ballots were from, or which candidates were voted for in those disqualified ballots. According to the Paterson Press, four wards had more votes go uncounted than the winner's margin of victory — meaning the uncounted ballots possibly could have tipped the election in favor of one of the candidates. Unless you can actually counter my sources without crying victim of "ad hom" attack which I certainly didn't, my original statement stands true.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    The counter argument looks like this. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud... But in addition to direct counterarguments, there's also the need to consider effects and what beliefs about what is happening predict should be observable. How does one reconcile these cherry picks against the larger pattern that states that allow no-excuse-needed mail-in voting don't have higher fraud rates than states that do?
    - busymom0 6y ago
      Using snopes as a "fact check" is the same as using CNN to claim Trump is a Russian puppet. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes_and_editorializing_fact_checks_137551.html# https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes...!
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        You're attacking the source instead of the information. And you continue to refrain from addressing the question: if mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud, why are the states that have allowed it for decades not showing more fraud than states that don't?
        busymom0 6y ago
        You still haven't answered this from NYTimes article in my very first comment, so I have the luxury to wait for your response to this stat: > “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised & more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.” - Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor Archive if the NYTimes link shows paywall: http://archive.is/6ZEMO http://archive.is/6ZEMO
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        The question is my response. The facts the NYTimes cites imply there should be predictable, observable outcomes in races in states that have allowed more mail-in balloting for decades. Where is evidence of those outcomes?

Hey, resorting to an ad hominem is always easier than discussing the point or defending the facts you present. Your summary statement, "every one agreed that mail-in ballot has massive fraud," can't be reconciled with a fact that several states have had no-excuse-needed vote by mail for decades. and nothing has indicated that their fraud rate is higher than the election result fraud rate in other states. If your experience has been that everyone is in agreement on the topic, I suggest it's because you're getting your information from sources with a specific political leaning. The consensus is not aligned with that statement; In fact, the general consensus in the statistical community is the opposite.

busymom0 6y ago
It was not an ad hom attack. Saying someone is being dishonest is not an ad hom attack when you didn't even make any point. You made a single statement "These sources fail to prove that Twitter fact checking is wrong." without any exact points on any of the sources I provided. You gave a 1 line "not true" comment. An ad hom attack is when I am not "criticizing the points you are making" but you never really made any points except just say "fails to prove." That's like you writing a research paper filled with sources and your professor gives you a 0/100 with a one line response "fails to prove." My comment literally states from a NYTimes article that stats agree with me: > “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised & more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.” 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-... This case from just last week had a 19% fraud: > Close Results In Paterson Vote Plagued By Fraud Claims; Over 3K Ballots Seemingly Set Aside > A county spokesman said 16,747 vote-by-mail ballots were received, but the county's official results page shows 13,557 votes were counted — with uncounted ballots representing 19 percent of all votes cast > The spokesman later told the Paterson Press that the additional 2,390 disqualifications were due to the election board comparing signatures on the ballots to those previously on file for voters, and the new ones not matching up. The spokesman also would not explain the breakdown of what ward those ballots were from, or which candidates were voted for in those disqualified ballots. According to the Paterson Press, four wards had more votes go uncounted than the winner's margin of victory — meaning the uncounted ballots possibly could have tipped the election in favor of one of the candidates. Unless you can actually counter my sources without crying victim of "ad hom" attack which I certainly didn't, my original statement stands true.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  The counter argument looks like this. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud... But in addition to direct counterarguments, there's also the need to consider effects and what beliefs about what is happening predict should be observable. How does one reconcile these cherry picks against the larger pattern that states that allow no-excuse-needed mail-in voting don't have higher fraud rates than states that do?
  - busymom0 6y ago
    Using snopes as a "fact check" is the same as using CNN to claim Trump is a Russian puppet. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes_and_editorializing_fact_checks_137551.html# https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes...!
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      You're attacking the source instead of the information. And you continue to refrain from addressing the question: if mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud, why are the states that have allowed it for decades not showing more fraud than states that don't?
      - busymom0 6y ago
        You still haven't answered this from NYTimes article in my very first comment, so I have the luxury to wait for your response to this stat: > “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised & more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.” - Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor Archive if the NYTimes link shows paywall: http://archive.is/6ZEMO http://archive.is/6ZEMO
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        The question is my response. The facts the NYTimes cites imply there should be predictable, observable outcomes in races in states that have allowed more mail-in balloting for decades. Where is evidence of those outcomes?