4 ms·

> 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 impossib

> 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.
- benrbray 6y ago
  I think I should have been more careful with my "revised" statement, as I set up a straw man for my own position. You are absolutely right that both voter fraud and electoral fraud occur. We should take efforts to minimize both kinds. The divisive question is whether VOTER FRAUD or ELECTORAL FRAUD is currently a bigger threat to our government / society. I maintain that it is important to clearly distinguish between voter vs election fraud. As your comments have shown, conflating the two risks confusion. I think the idea that "both sides are the same" is ignorant at best and intentionally misleading at worst. I have so far seen no evidence that voter fraud has significantly impacted the outcome of any state or national elections. There is, however, overwhelming evidence that electoral fraud is widespread, and in most cases enabled by members of the Republican party, either through negligence or malice.
  - hpcjoe 6y ago
    Again, assigning blame to a single party is simply incorrect. It shows bias. From today[1]. And previous reporting on this identifies the party[2]. Not the GOP. Fraud occurs[3], and it is not only from one particular party or group. The idea is to simply reduce any potential impact from attempts at fraud. We aren't there yet. We need to be in order to have an election that people might accept. I am, however, of the belief that no matter how this November 3rd goes, about 50% of the population will not accept the outcome. Just like in 2016. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paterson-new-jersey-voter-fraud-new-election-city-council-race https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paterson-new-jersey-voter-f... [2] http://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/06/25/fraud-charges/ http://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/06/25/fraud-charges/ [3] https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-elections-511765 https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-ele...

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.

benrbray 6y ago
I think I should have been more careful with my "revised" statement, as I set up a straw man for my own position. You are absolutely right that both voter fraud and electoral fraud occur. We should take efforts to minimize both kinds. The divisive question is whether VOTER FRAUD or ELECTORAL FRAUD is currently a bigger threat to our government / society. I maintain that it is important to clearly distinguish between voter vs election fraud. As your comments have shown, conflating the two risks confusion. I think the idea that "both sides are the same" is ignorant at best and intentionally misleading at worst. I have so far seen no evidence that voter fraud has significantly impacted the outcome of any state or national elections. There is, however, overwhelming evidence that electoral fraud is widespread, and in most cases enabled by members of the Republican party, either through negligence or malice.
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  Again, assigning blame to a single party is simply incorrect. It shows bias. From today[1]. And previous reporting on this identifies the party[2]. Not the GOP. Fraud occurs[3], and it is not only from one particular party or group. The idea is to simply reduce any potential impact from attempts at fraud. We aren't there yet. We need to be in order to have an election that people might accept. I am, however, of the belief that no matter how this November 3rd goes, about 50% of the population will not accept the outcome. Just like in 2016. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paterson-new-jersey-voter-fraud-new-election-city-council-race https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paterson-new-jersey-voter-f... [2] http://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/06/25/fraud-charges/ http://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/06/25/fraud-charges/ [3] https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-elections-511765 https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-ele...