5 ms·

> It's near impossible to rig or suppress a physical election without a lot of effort No, sadly, it's not [1][2][3]. As some of the texts note, the premise th

by hpcjoe 6y ago

> It's near impossible to rig or suppress a physical election without a lot of effort No, sadly, it's not [1][2][3]. As some of the texts note, the premise that fraud happens or not is highly politicized. People on one side believe it happens/happened. On the other side, they believe it to be impossible. Though, curiously, those who believe it to be impossible also strongly believe in voter suppression, which would be a form of election fraud. See the Georgia US governor race from 2018 as an example of this dichotomy. Can't have suppression without fraud[4]. Can have fraud without suppression, as this would be one potential form of fraud. Suppression requires fraud. Arguments to the contrary aren't logical. Right now the one I am most concerned with is the vote harvesting operations, which appear to be completely legal in California, despite the rather significant perception of impropriety that handing ones ballot to a non-election person has. I'd be much happier if all these people were non-partisan deputized election workers/officials, oath bound under pain of criminal code to serve the same function. Instead, we have a single party set of "volunteers" to collect votes, with a huge chain of control issue, that is apparently acceptable in one state. Here in MI, I voted by "mail". I got my ballot, marked it, sealed and signed it, then dropped it off in the specific election drop box on the side of city hall. I would not ever hand it to a third party for any reason. For blockchain, I think its been a solution in search of a problem. And I think that this might actually be a reasonable problem to solve, and this one might work. For those worried about DDoS, this would simply require releasing ballots early, returning up to and including the official due date. By mail, electronic, in person via a phone app or similar. You can change your vote up to the end of election day. Only the final vote counts. No conditional ballots counted. Send official election people around to addresses that don't have votes on file starting a month before election day. And it would (if designed/built correctly) enable chain of control, identity/citizen confirmation, etc. That is, it could provide better, more accurate, more complete, more engagement. Or we can retain the mess we have now, with completely inconsistent voting across the states and territories, which is overtly suspect in a number of states, and in some ways, rigged. This is a step in the right direction. It need not be perfect, and we need to take it. [edit: fixed a mis-wording, and deleted a poorly worded sentence] [1] https://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/ https://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_styl... [2] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_million_mail-in_ballots_went_missing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_mil... [3] https://www.kuow.org/stories/it-s-easy-to-commit-election-fraud-in-washington-state https://www.kuow.org/stories/it-s-easy-to-commit-election-fr... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

benrbray 6y ago
> the premise that fraud happens or not is highly politicized. People on one side believe it happens/happened. On the other side, they believe it to be impossible. > Though, curiously, those who believe it to be impossible also strongly believe in voter suppression, which would be a form of election fraud.... Can't have suppression without fraud[4]. Can have fraud without suppression, as this would be one potential form of fraud. Suppression requires fraud. Arguments to the contrary aren't logical. No, you're missing the point. There is a difference between election fraud (the election itself meddled with by those who administer it) and voter fraud (whereby US or foreign citizens not involved in the administration of the election nevertheless interfere by submitting fraudulent ballots / hacking / etc). The correct statement is "the premise that VOTER FRAUD happens or not is highly politicised". Everyone agrees there is fraud, we just disagree about which kind: The Republican party frequently claims that voter fraud is common. Everyone else (including historians and cryptographers) claims that electoral fraud is a more common and widespread problem. In recent years we have seen: * voter registration purges * shutting down of polling places * refusal to provide voting infrastructure to native american reservations and other "remote" places * extreme gerrymandering * sabotage of the USPS * misinformation spread through social media (advertising false election dates, etc.) * inability of voting box manufacturers to make guarantees about security and dodginess when it comes to conflicts of interest (like investments/ownership by politicians or foreign entities) All of the above are examples of electoral fraud, not voter fraud.
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  > No, you're missing the point. There is a difference between election fraud (the election itself meddled with by those who administer it) and voter fraud (whereby US or foreign citizens not involved in the administration of the election nevertheless interfere by submitting fraudulent ballots / hacking / etc). No, I don't think I was "missing the point." I carefully used the word "fraud". Not "electoral fraud". Nor "voter fraud." Specifically, as I did not wish to set up a straw man argument. Your statement of "the premise that VOTER FRAUD happens or not is highly politicised" is, quite literally, the straw man argument. First off, fraud, of all forms occurs. Second, the nature of that fraud, who performs it, is who acknowledges it is the issue. Some groups do not believe in voter fraud. Yet, ballot harvesting, which falls clearly under potential fraud, occurs widely in some states, particular those with a strong political leaning in one particular direction. Some groups do not believe in suppression, yet poorly managed elections disenfranchising voters. Again, GA, MI, and others. Insisting that one or the other doesn't occur is simply factually wrong, there is ample evidence, trivially searchable, that all forms of fraud happen in elections. The democratic party erroneously thinks one form doesn't happen, and makes arguments like what you made. The republican party doesn't care about the other form, and allows it to happen. Both parties are at fault here. No one more so than the other.

by hpcjoe 6y ago

benrbray 6y ago

> the premise that fraud happens or not is highly politicized. People on one side believe it happens/happened. On the other side, they believe it to be impossible. > Though, curiously, those who believe it to be impossible also strongly believe in voter suppression, which would be a form of election fraud.... Can't have suppression without fraud[4]. Can have fraud without suppression, as this would be one potential form of fraud. Suppression requires fraud. Arguments to the contrary aren't logical. No, you're missing the point. There is a difference between election fraud (the election itself meddled with by those who administer it) and voter fraud (whereby US or foreign citizens not involved in the administration of the election nevertheless interfere by submitting fraudulent ballots / hacking / etc). The correct statement is "the premise that VOTER FRAUD happens or not is highly politicised". Everyone agrees there is fraud, we just disagree about which kind: The Republican party frequently claims that voter fraud is common. Everyone else (including historians and cryptographers) claims that electoral fraud is a more common and widespread problem. In recent years we have seen: * voter registration purges * shutting down of polling places * refusal to provide voting infrastructure to native american reservations and other "remote" places * extreme gerrymandering * sabotage of the USPS * misinformation spread through social media (advertising false election dates, etc.) * inability of voting box manufacturers to make guarantees about security and dodginess when it comes to conflicts of interest (like investments/ownership by politicians or foreign entities) All of the above are examples of electoral fraud, not voter fraud.

hpcjoe 6y ago
> No, you're missing the point. There is a difference between election fraud (the election itself meddled with by those who administer it) and voter fraud (whereby US or foreign citizens not involved in the administration of the election nevertheless interfere by submitting fraudulent ballots / hacking / etc). No, I don't think I was "missing the point." I carefully used the word "fraud". Not "electoral fraud". Nor "voter fraud." Specifically, as I did not wish to set up a straw man argument. Your statement of "the premise that VOTER FRAUD happens or not is highly politicised" is, quite literally, the straw man argument. First off, fraud, of all forms occurs. Second, the nature of that fraud, who performs it, is who acknowledges it is the issue. Some groups do not believe in voter fraud. Yet, ballot harvesting, which falls clearly under potential fraud, occurs widely in some states, particular those with a strong political leaning in one particular direction. Some groups do not believe in suppression, yet poorly managed elections disenfranchising voters. Again, GA, MI, and others. Insisting that one or the other doesn't occur is simply factually wrong, there is ample evidence, trivially searchable, that all forms of fraud happen in elections. The democratic party erroneously thinks one form doesn't happen, and makes arguments like what you made. The republican party doesn't care about the other form, and allows it to happen. Both parties are at fault here. No one more so than the other.