4 ms·

It's fine to suggest it if you have evidence, but fearmongering baseless claims is extremely dangerous. I believe they already have terms to avoid lots of dange

It's fine to suggest it if you have evidence, but fearmongering baseless claims is extremely dangerous. I believe they already have terms to avoid lots of dangerous language that incites hate/violence, do you disagree with those too? I think when these platforms become mouthpieces for one way communications, like this case, they deserve criticism for what is said.

fareesh 6y ago
Is it not sufficient to discuss the potential for abuse in such a scenario? Does one necessarily need evidence of prior abuse to voice their concern about a potentially broken system? For instance, in this case the ballots are being automatically mailed to everyone who is registered to vote. Today my roommate is registered to vote. Tomorrow he hypothetically dies of COVID-19. Day after tomorrow, his ballot arrives in the mail. I sign his signature and cast his vote. Fraud. We are in a status quo where otherwise healthy people are dying by the hundreds and thousands on a weekly basis, plus the other hundreds and thousands dying of typical causes. Their ballots are all being mailed out. Can you explain how the system will be protected from the abuse I am describing? Do I need to provide you with evidence that this is happening before I am allowed to criticize the proposed system? Anyway - now I have described some hypothetical ways in which the system can be abused. Now I reckon that someone who is better informed about this can reply to this comment and correct wherever I am mistaken and provide references as to how what I am saying is incorrect. Should a technology company that is running a social media platform now network with expert committees of all topics to provide arguments against electoral candidates whenever they posit something similar to what I have outlined above? Why is it not better to let their opposing candidates do it themselves? How about a feature where the opponents' replies are pinned below the tweet?
- prepperpotts 6y ago
  no one denies that voter fraud is possible. the more important question is whether voter fraud is a serious threat to the voting process, and there's no evidence of this. collecting ballots from the mailboxes of dead people is not exactly a scalable enough way to rig an election for the democrats to warrant serious concern — especially considering how the hardest-struck communities vote democratic anyway. and besides, if you wanted to request a ballot for your sick roommate to perpetuate voter fraud, you could already pull that off in most states. mail-in-ballot fraud concern-trolling is a long-established propaganda effort that doesn't have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis
  - downerending 6y ago
    That's a point. But it might be that large-scale fraud hasn't really happened yet because the opportunity hasn't really happened yet. We're starting to hear a few accounts of "ballot harvesting", and I suspect we'll go through several generations of fixes before this becomes as reliable as in-person voting. (Personally, I don't really care. I give my ballot to my wife to vote anyway.)
    - mrnook 6y ago
      lol that's technically voter fraud too
  - fareesh 6y ago
    What is the number of fraudulent votes required to make it a serious threat? Hundreds? Thousands? How would you know a priori if it is a serious threat without the final tally? Gore v Bush 2000 had a very close total in Florida. Would it not be a serious threat in a similar situation?

fareesh 6y ago

Is it not sufficient to discuss the potential for abuse in such a scenario? Does one necessarily need evidence of prior abuse to voice their concern about a potentially broken system? For instance, in this case the ballots are being automatically mailed to everyone who is registered to vote. Today my roommate is registered to vote. Tomorrow he hypothetically dies of COVID-19. Day after tomorrow, his ballot arrives in the mail. I sign his signature and cast his vote. Fraud. We are in a status quo where otherwise healthy people are dying by the hundreds and thousands on a weekly basis, plus the other hundreds and thousands dying of typical causes. Their ballots are all being mailed out. Can you explain how the system will be protected from the abuse I am describing? Do I need to provide you with evidence that this is happening before I am allowed to criticize the proposed system? Anyway - now I have described some hypothetical ways in which the system can be abused. Now I reckon that someone who is better informed about this can reply to this comment and correct wherever I am mistaken and provide references as to how what I am saying is incorrect. Should a technology company that is running a social media platform now network with expert committees of all topics to provide arguments against electoral candidates whenever they posit something similar to what I have outlined above? Why is it not better to let their opposing candidates do it themselves? How about a feature where the opponents' replies are pinned below the tweet?

prepperpotts 6y ago
no one denies that voter fraud is possible. the more important question is whether voter fraud is a serious threat to the voting process, and there's no evidence of this. collecting ballots from the mailboxes of dead people is not exactly a scalable enough way to rig an election for the democrats to warrant serious concern — especially considering how the hardest-struck communities vote democratic anyway. and besides, if you wanted to request a ballot for your sick roommate to perpetuate voter fraud, you could already pull that off in most states. mail-in-ballot fraud concern-trolling is a long-established propaganda effort that doesn't have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis
- downerending 6y ago
  That's a point. But it might be that large-scale fraud hasn't really happened yet because the opportunity hasn't really happened yet. We're starting to hear a few accounts of "ballot harvesting", and I suspect we'll go through several generations of fixes before this becomes as reliable as in-person voting. (Personally, I don't really care. I give my ballot to my wife to vote anyway.)
  - mrnook 6y ago
    lol that's technically voter fraud too
- fareesh 6y ago
  What is the number of fraudulent votes required to make it a serious threat? Hundreds? Thousands? How would you know a priori if it is a serious threat without the final tally? Gore v Bush 2000 had a very close total in Florida. Would it not be a serious threat in a similar situation?