3 ms·

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 ma

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?
- busymom0 6y ago
  If you look, there's plenty of evidence. When doing search, set the date range to be before 2015 because since 2015, pretty much all media has lost their minds and started reporting the exact opposite of what they used to report. It's as if they have all erased their history and search results now hide it thanks to Google. Here's Georgia: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/23/us/georgia-gets-tough-on-a-county-tradition-vote-buying.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/23/us/georgia-gets-tough-on-... Here's Florida: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/us/18-are-arrested-in-1997-miami-ballot-fraud.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/us/18-are-arrested-in-199... You can find plenty of examples of voter fraud, vast majority is through mail-in (including absentee and ballot harvesting) > The Miami Herald won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigation of a 1997 mayor’s race in Miami that was thrown out by the courts because of an estimated 5,000 fraudulent absentee ballots. > A 2003 mayor’s race in East Chicago, Indiana, was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court because of absentee ballot fraud, as well as other problems such as individuals voting whose registered residences were vacant lots. > A stolen election in Greene County, Alabama, involving hundreds of fraudulent absentee ballots resulted in 11 people being convicted of voter fraud. > In Essex County, New Jersey, there is an ongoing investigation of fraudulent absentee ballots in a 2007 state Senate race. Charges have already been filed against five people, including campaign workers who were submitting absentee ballots on behalf of voters who never received or voted the ballots. Even the democrats used to agree to this fact until Trump came along: In 2004, Jerry Nadler (Democrat) asserts that paper ballots, particularly in the absence of machines, are extremely susceptible to fraud: https://streamable.com/tbzu47 https://streamable.com/tbzu47 Future head of the Democrat Party Debbie Wasserman Schultz opposing mail-in ballots due to the risk of election fraud in 2008: https://streamable.com/2tyqp1 https://streamable.com/2tyqp1 This isn't just about mail-in voting. It's about absentee and ballot harvesting too which accompanies mail-in voting.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    The question isn't whether fraud is possible with mail-in ballots; it's about whether mail-in ballots materially change the likelihood of fraud, or ease of committing fraud successfully, relative to in-person voting. You accused me in your first reponse to me on this subthread of having a mind impossible to change. What I'm looking for is correlation; that would make me reconsider my position. While correlation is not causation, a causal explanation ("mail-in ballots make it easier to commit undetected fraud") without a correlation it predicts is highly suspect. Find correlation between the states that have had mail-in voting for longer periods of time, and for more people, and identified instances of voter fraud. Confirm there are more instances in those states than in states that have more curtailed access to mail-in voting. Tricky to get the numbers right (probably have to do a state-by-state search of laws to find when they enacted no-excuse absentee voting), but here's the list of states that allow it (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-1-states-with-no-excuse-absentee-voting.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-t...) and here's a collection of voter fraud incidents identified (https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?name=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24489 https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?name=&state...). I haven't spread-sheeted this, but at a first glance I'm not seeing a correlation between no-excuse-needed mail-in and fraud. Alaska allows no-excuse-needed and has 0 instances recorded. Texas does not allow it and has ~25 recorded. The President's administration itself commissioned a study on voter fraud and did not find widespread fraud activity (https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-Trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-...). To pop this entire discussion up a meta-level to the original topic: clearly this is, at least, a controversial issue. I think given the combination of the controversy, the President's one-sided take on it, and the authority from which he speaks granted him by his office, Twitter was at least justified in fact-checking him. This is a controversial topic, and he speaks as though it is not from a position of authority encouraging people to believe him without questioning the details. I appreciate you question, even if your conclusions disagree from mine; in contrast, the way Trump uses his Twitter feed to push one side of a topic juries are still out on is irresponsible as a President, and while Twitter taking "the medium is the message" somewhat literally in fact-checking him makes me slightly uncomfortable in terms of what larger rules they might employ, I'm glad somebody from an equivalent position of authority to his voice on their service is doing so. ... and we should probably all find the response of the most powerful civil servant in the United States being to threaten to close that institution in response, unconscionable.

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?

busymom0 6y ago
If you look, there's plenty of evidence. When doing search, set the date range to be before 2015 because since 2015, pretty much all media has lost their minds and started reporting the exact opposite of what they used to report. It's as if they have all erased their history and search results now hide it thanks to Google. Here's Georgia: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/23/us/georgia-gets-tough-on-a-county-tradition-vote-buying.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/23/us/georgia-gets-tough-on-... Here's Florida: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/us/18-are-arrested-in-1997-miami-ballot-fraud.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/us/18-are-arrested-in-199... You can find plenty of examples of voter fraud, vast majority is through mail-in (including absentee and ballot harvesting) > The Miami Herald won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigation of a 1997 mayor’s race in Miami that was thrown out by the courts because of an estimated 5,000 fraudulent absentee ballots. > A 2003 mayor’s race in East Chicago, Indiana, was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court because of absentee ballot fraud, as well as other problems such as individuals voting whose registered residences were vacant lots. > A stolen election in Greene County, Alabama, involving hundreds of fraudulent absentee ballots resulted in 11 people being convicted of voter fraud. > In Essex County, New Jersey, there is an ongoing investigation of fraudulent absentee ballots in a 2007 state Senate race. Charges have already been filed against five people, including campaign workers who were submitting absentee ballots on behalf of voters who never received or voted the ballots. Even the democrats used to agree to this fact until Trump came along: In 2004, Jerry Nadler (Democrat) asserts that paper ballots, particularly in the absence of machines, are extremely susceptible to fraud: https://streamable.com/tbzu47 https://streamable.com/tbzu47 Future head of the Democrat Party Debbie Wasserman Schultz opposing mail-in ballots due to the risk of election fraud in 2008: https://streamable.com/2tyqp1 https://streamable.com/2tyqp1 This isn't just about mail-in voting. It's about absentee and ballot harvesting too which accompanies mail-in voting.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  The question isn't whether fraud is possible with mail-in ballots; it's about whether mail-in ballots materially change the likelihood of fraud, or ease of committing fraud successfully, relative to in-person voting. You accused me in your first reponse to me on this subthread of having a mind impossible to change. What I'm looking for is correlation; that would make me reconsider my position. While correlation is not causation, a causal explanation ("mail-in ballots make it easier to commit undetected fraud") without a correlation it predicts is highly suspect. Find correlation between the states that have had mail-in voting for longer periods of time, and for more people, and identified instances of voter fraud. Confirm there are more instances in those states than in states that have more curtailed access to mail-in voting. Tricky to get the numbers right (probably have to do a state-by-state search of laws to find when they enacted no-excuse absentee voting), but here's the list of states that allow it (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-1-states-with-no-excuse-absentee-voting.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-t...) and here's a collection of voter fraud incidents identified (https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?name=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24489 https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?name=&state...). I haven't spread-sheeted this, but at a first glance I'm not seeing a correlation between no-excuse-needed mail-in and fraud. Alaska allows no-excuse-needed and has 0 instances recorded. Texas does not allow it and has ~25 recorded. The President's administration itself commissioned a study on voter fraud and did not find widespread fraud activity (https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-Trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-...). To pop this entire discussion up a meta-level to the original topic: clearly this is, at least, a controversial issue. I think given the combination of the controversy, the President's one-sided take on it, and the authority from which he speaks granted him by his office, Twitter was at least justified in fact-checking him. This is a controversial topic, and he speaks as though it is not from a position of authority encouraging people to believe him without questioning the details. I appreciate you question, even if your conclusions disagree from mine; in contrast, the way Trump uses his Twitter feed to push one side of a topic juries are still out on is irresponsible as a President, and while Twitter taking "the medium is the message" somewhat literally in fact-checking him makes me slightly uncomfortable in terms of what larger rules they might employ, I'm glad somebody from an equivalent position of authority to his voice on their service is doing so. ... and we should probably all find the response of the most powerful civil servant in the United States being to threaten to close that institution in response, unconscionable.