4 ms·

Regarding the AP article you mentioned: https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-Trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud https:

Regarding the AP article you mentioned: https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-Trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-... It does not mention mail-in voting anywhere. Also this line: > In a letter to Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who are both Republicans and led the commission, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said the documents show there was a “pre-ordained outcome” and that drafts of a commission report included a section on evidence of voter fraud that was “glaringly empty.” This tries to confuse the reader for political reasons as if it was a Republican who made the conclusion. But it wasn't, Matthew Dunlap is a life long Democrat. Since AP mentions "who are both Republicans", then they should have also mentioned that Matthew Dunlap is a democrat but they didn't - which shows there is a bias in this article and they are trying to sell a specific side of the story. Another easy way to point out the bias in the article is that later on, it quotes the vice chair of the commission: > “For some people, no matter how many cases of voter fraud you show them, there will never be enough for them to admit that there’s a problem,” “It appears that Secretary Dunlap is willfully blind to the voter fraud in front of his nose,” Kobach said there have been more than 1,000 convictions for voter fraud since 2000, and that the commission presented 8,400 instances of double voting in the 2016 election in 20 states. “Had the commission done the same analysis of all 50 states, the number would have been exponentially higher,” Yet despite all these, the article's headline is "Trump commission did not find widespread voter fraud". The correct headline would be "Trump commission found more than 1000 convictions for voter fraud Democrat Matthew Dunlap says that's not enough proof for voter fraud." Also "there hadn’t been any prosecutions for double voting or any non-citizen voting in years" is simply 100% false. > California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, Democrat (described as activist, engineer, and civil servant) confirmed double-voting in one case and suspected double-voting by a number of other registered voters on Super Tuesday: https://www.scribd.com/document/456618983/CA-SOS-Duplicate-Voting-Response-to-EIPC https://www.scribd.com/document/456618983/CA-SOS-Duplicate-V... ^Seems like this has been deleted but this article talks about it: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/california-confirms-one-case-of-double-voting-and-possibly-more-during-super-tuesday-election https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/california-confirms-... You can filter this page by all double-voting fraud criminal convictions. There's 8 pages of names all the way till 2019 for double voting: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24503 https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=Al... https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/database-swells-1285-proven-cases-voter-fraud-america https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/datab... I am aware of flaws in cherry-picking authorities. That's exactly what everyone else is doing (including the media since 2015) while accusing the other side what they are guilty of. From Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - "accuse them of what you are doing"

shadowgovt 6y ago
> Matthew Dunlap is a life long Democrat Irrelevant. The relevant fact is "The now-disbanded voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud, according to an analysis of administration documents released Friday." The individuals who had to FOIA the informtion because the Executive refrained from turning it over voluntarily don't factor into the outcome of the FOIA'd data. Kobach's commentary on what the commission didn't find is irrelevant, and he did not provide evidence to back up his commentary anyway. Political allegiance is a smokescreen here. The facts show "Trump commission did not find widespread voter fraud." You and I disagree on that interpretation because, IIUC, you think 1,000 instances is significant. It is not. Not across decades of data and millions of votes. In fact, it basically shows the integrity-maintaining systems in place are working as intended. Saul Alisnky's rules cut both ways. If you don't want people cherrypicking, stop doing it.
- busymom0 6y ago
  It's 1,285 convictions now. And that's just the ones which were caught. > 1,000 instances is significant Now that's just silly. You are conflating "1285 convictions" with "number of votes" which is wrong. 1 person can manipulate thousands of votes - and they have. Read the convictions. Entire elections have been overturned. It takes 270 to win. I also stated the "there hadn’t been any prosecutions for double voting or any non-citizen voting in years" is simply 100% false but you didn't reply. You can see all the way till 2019, there's been several convictions of double voting: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24503 https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=Al... The article is literally saying one thing while the data says exact opposite and yet you are trusting the article instead of the raw data. I don't know what else to tell you.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    I don't know why we should focus on the error in statement made by "Republican commission member and election lawyer J. Christian Adams." I didn't comment because I agree with you; his statement appears erroneous. We'll agree to disagree on what the data says in the report; you claim it's significant, I (and statisticians and voting law scholars and some Congresspeople) claim it's not. All of this is an irrelevant distraction to the top-level question of whether it's acceptable that the President of the United States---a country that clearly enshrines freedom of speech, and of the press, for the purpose of disputing the facts as accepted by civil servants---should respond to a private corporation exercising those rights by threatening to shut it down. Every recursion we add to this thread is further evidence of why those rights are baked into the Constitution and why they're necessary, and casts a dark cloud on any civil servant who would attempt to thwart them. Hypothetical: imagine instead of Twitter, the President had chosen Hacker News as his primary avenue for broadcasting short messages to the public. And instead of the two of us dithering on this topic, it were https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang using his editorial voice as site moderator to drop a top-level fact-check subthread under the President's threads. In response, the President threatens to shut down HN. Acceptable or no?

shadowgovt 6y ago

> Matthew Dunlap is a life long Democrat Irrelevant. The relevant fact is "The now-disbanded voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud, according to an analysis of administration documents released Friday." The individuals who had to FOIA the informtion because the Executive refrained from turning it over voluntarily don't factor into the outcome of the FOIA'd data. Kobach's commentary on what the commission didn't find is irrelevant, and he did not provide evidence to back up his commentary anyway. Political allegiance is a smokescreen here. The facts show "Trump commission did not find widespread voter fraud." You and I disagree on that interpretation because, IIUC, you think 1,000 instances is significant. It is not. Not across decades of data and millions of votes. In fact, it basically shows the integrity-maintaining systems in place are working as intended. Saul Alisnky's rules cut both ways. If you don't want people cherrypicking, stop doing it.

busymom0 6y ago
It's 1,285 convictions now. And that's just the ones which were caught. > 1,000 instances is significant Now that's just silly. You are conflating "1285 convictions" with "number of votes" which is wrong. 1 person can manipulate thousands of votes - and they have. Read the convictions. Entire elections have been overturned. It takes 270 to win. I also stated the "there hadn’t been any prosecutions for double voting or any non-citizen voting in years" is simply 100% false but you didn't reply. You can see all the way till 2019, there's been several convictions of double voting: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24503 https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=Al... The article is literally saying one thing while the data says exact opposite and yet you are trusting the article instead of the raw data. I don't know what else to tell you.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I don't know why we should focus on the error in statement made by "Republican commission member and election lawyer J. Christian Adams." I didn't comment because I agree with you; his statement appears erroneous. We'll agree to disagree on what the data says in the report; you claim it's significant, I (and statisticians and voting law scholars and some Congresspeople) claim it's not. All of this is an irrelevant distraction to the top-level question of whether it's acceptable that the President of the United States---a country that clearly enshrines freedom of speech, and of the press, for the purpose of disputing the facts as accepted by civil servants---should respond to a private corporation exercising those rights by threatening to shut it down. Every recursion we add to this thread is further evidence of why those rights are baked into the Constitution and why they're necessary, and casts a dark cloud on any civil servant who would attempt to thwart them. Hypothetical: imagine instead of Twitter, the President had chosen Hacker News as his primary avenue for broadcasting short messages to the public. And instead of the two of us dithering on this topic, it were https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang using his editorial voice as site moderator to drop a top-level fact-check subthread under the President's threads. In response, the President threatens to shut down HN. Acceptable or no?