11 ms·

These are all predictions about the future, so of course they don't have concrete evidence. Holding them to that standard so they can be declared "false" or "m

These are all predictions about the future, so of course they don't have concrete evidence. Holding them to that standard so they can be declared "false" or "misinformation" is a rhetorical trick. It's pretty hard for anyone to be objective about any political issue, but for what it's worth I vote third party, so my opinion about this is as non-partisan as I think it can be. That disclaimer made, from a purely engineering perspective, mail-in voting doesn't seem very secure. The 2016 election was pretty close; it wouldn't take that many mistakes or deliberate malicious acts to sway the outcome, especially with no clear chain of custody over people's ballots.

winkeltripel 6y ago
So, When compared to paper ballots, I believe that your statements are true. Many states use electronic voting machines. These run unverified code, without verifiable paper receipts (IE a public database of all the votes + receipt numbers, against which individuals may check their votes, and from which the official tally is calculated). This also has no chain of custody. I would choose mail-in ballots over electronic vote systems every time.
BGZq7 6y ago
It's one thing to say that mail in voting could potentially have security issues. It's another to say that Democrats plan to light ballots on fire. In order to legitimately claim that with any certainty they would need actual proof of someone developing a plan or expressing an interest in doing so. They clearly don't have that. Maybe "false" or "misinformation" are not accurate enough terms but I think "unsubstantiated fear-mongering" is fair and would have the same effect.
- mynameishere 6y ago
  That is a metaphor. I guess people should not use colorful language when others might jump to any criticism.
- Joeri 6y ago
  The specific claim was that barack obama for certain would light ballots on fire. Accusing a specific individual in the public sphere of definitely intending to commit a crime sounds like it matches the legal definition of libel to me.
shuntress 6y ago
The concrete evidence comes from the past, not from the future. From a purely engineering perspective, the fact is that it works and works well. The simple solution of stating your name + address (or receiving a ballot addressed to you by mail) then having your name checked off the list when you return the ballot is friction-less, robust, and extremely difficult to attack at scale. Over-engineering the system's security would most likely do more harm than good.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Not from the US, I think mail in voting can be secure, but I would not recommend starting this election for the reasons you mentioned and people need to believe voting isn't manipulated. I know the US elections are pretty people centric, even though you are not allowed to vote the president directly. But if anyone could come up with an honest assessment of the problems the US is facing and offer some solutions or strategies, I think the chances to win are very high. You would have to beat building a wall towards Mexico. Trumpers need to make peace with lefties and vice versa. Nobody will win otherwise anyway. I believe Biden will win the presidential election though. Not by merit perhaps, but because of demographic and inclination of voters. If I recall the work of Democrats the last election cycle I see questionable FISA abuse and lying about Russia as the primary "achievements". I think there is room to do better. What do I see when I look at Trump? I don't think he takes his presidency that seriously. He didn't kill minorities as some said he would.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > even though you are not allowed to vote the president directly Yeah, you are. > He didn't kill minorities Covid kills minorities at a far higher rate than the general population. His incompetence in handling the epidemic has killed minorities (it's killed a lot of people, but disproportionately minorities).[1] 1. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/30/865413079/what-do-coronavirus-racial-disparities-look-like-state-by-state https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/30/8654130...
ipnon 6y ago
>A recent Washington Post analysis analyzed three states with all-mail elections — Colorado, Oregon and Washington — and found just 372 potential irregularities among 14.6 million votes, or 0.0025%.[0] They seem insecure, but they are not insecure. That is the problem. The perception that public elections are vulnerable to massive voter fraud is what drives these conspiracy theories, not the reality. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-potentially-fraudulent-ballots-in-states-with-universal-mail-voting-undercuts-trump-claims-about-election-risks/2020/06/08/1e78aa26-a5c5-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-...
- ses1984 6y ago
  Just because mail in ballots haven't been attacked doesn't mean they can't or won't. I'm all for more mail in ballots, just saying.
  - ipnon 6y ago
    I would say the prevailing evidence suggests we can continue using them confidently, and the prevailing sentiment suggests we should begin to introduce measures that increase public trust in the validity of voting by mail and our elections in general.
    - ses1984 6y ago
      I think we can have both. Let's promote mail in voting while trying to come up with ways to secure it that doesn't disenfranchise people.
- creddit 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_congressional_district_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_co...
  - ipnon 6y ago
    This is a great example of how voting by mail needs to be made even more secure so that all voters trust that elections are valid.
baddox 6y ago
There’s nothing special about “predictions about the future” that means they are incapable of being false or misleading. In fact, our legal system already handles cases like this. For example, fraudulent investment schemes are little more than predictions of what will happen in the future, yet those predictions are prosecuted as being fraudulent.

winkeltripel 6y ago

So, When compared to paper ballots, I believe that your statements are true. Many states use electronic voting machines. These run unverified code, without verifiable paper receipts (IE a public database of all the votes + receipt numbers, against which individuals may check their votes, and from which the official tally is calculated). This also has no chain of custody. I would choose mail-in ballots over electronic vote systems every time.

BGZq7 6y ago

It's one thing to say that mail in voting could potentially have security issues. It's another to say that Democrats plan to light ballots on fire. In order to legitimately claim that with any certainty they would need actual proof of someone developing a plan or expressing an interest in doing so. They clearly don't have that. Maybe "false" or "misinformation" are not accurate enough terms but I think "unsubstantiated fear-mongering" is fair and would have the same effect.

mynameishere 6y ago
That is a metaphor. I guess people should not use colorful language when others might jump to any criticism.
Joeri 6y ago
The specific claim was that barack obama for certain would light ballots on fire. Accusing a specific individual in the public sphere of definitely intending to commit a crime sounds like it matches the legal definition of libel to me.

shuntress 6y ago

The concrete evidence comes from the past, not from the future. From a purely engineering perspective, the fact is that it works and works well. The simple solution of stating your name + address (or receiving a ballot addressed to you by mail) then having your name checked off the list when you return the ballot is friction-less, robust, and extremely difficult to attack at scale. Over-engineering the system's security would most likely do more harm than good.

raxxorrax 6y ago

Not from the US, I think mail in voting can be secure, but I would not recommend starting this election for the reasons you mentioned and people need to believe voting isn't manipulated. I know the US elections are pretty people centric, even though you are not allowed to vote the president directly. But if anyone could come up with an honest assessment of the problems the US is facing and offer some solutions or strategies, I think the chances to win are very high. You would have to beat building a wall towards Mexico. Trumpers need to make peace with lefties and vice versa. Nobody will win otherwise anyway. I believe Biden will win the presidential election though. Not by merit perhaps, but because of demographic and inclination of voters. If I recall the work of Democrats the last election cycle I see questionable FISA abuse and lying about Russia as the primary "achievements". I think there is room to do better. What do I see when I look at Trump? I don't think he takes his presidency that seriously. He didn't kill minorities as some said he would.

triceratops 6y ago
> even though you are not allowed to vote the president directly Yeah, you are. > He didn't kill minorities Covid kills minorities at a far higher rate than the general population. His incompetence in handling the epidemic has killed minorities (it's killed a lot of people, but disproportionately minorities).[1] 1. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/30/865413079/what-do-coronavirus-racial-disparities-look-like-state-by-state https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/30/8654130...

ipnon 6y ago

>A recent Washington Post analysis analyzed three states with all-mail elections — Colorado, Oregon and Washington — and found just 372 potential irregularities among 14.6 million votes, or 0.0025%.[0] They seem insecure, but they are not insecure. That is the problem. The perception that public elections are vulnerable to massive voter fraud is what drives these conspiracy theories, not the reality. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-potentially-fraudulent-ballots-in-states-with-universal-mail-voting-undercuts-trump-claims-about-election-risks/2020/06/08/1e78aa26-a5c5-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-...

ses1984 6y ago
Just because mail in ballots haven't been attacked doesn't mean they can't or won't. I'm all for more mail in ballots, just saying.
- ipnon 6y ago
  I would say the prevailing evidence suggests we can continue using them confidently, and the prevailing sentiment suggests we should begin to introduce measures that increase public trust in the validity of voting by mail and our elections in general.
  - ses1984 6y ago
    I think we can have both. Let's promote mail in voting while trying to come up with ways to secure it that doesn't disenfranchise people.
creddit 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_congressional_district_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_co...
- ipnon 6y ago
  This is a great example of how voting by mail needs to be made even more secure so that all voters trust that elections are valid.

baddox 6y ago

There’s nothing special about “predictions about the future” that means they are incapable of being false or misleading. In fact, our legal system already handles cases like this. For example, fraudulent investment schemes are little more than predictions of what will happen in the future, yet those predictions are prosecuted as being fraudulent.