5 ms·

The election happened a week ago. I think we can afford to wait a month for a proper investigation. More importantly, a pretty sizable portion of the population

The election happened a week ago. I think we can afford to wait a month for a proper investigation. More importantly, a pretty sizable portion of the population thinks there is something strange about the results. Now, you can just stick your fingers in your ears and call 71 million people stupid, or you can recognize that for the health of the democratic system, it’s best to investigate any anomalies. This shouldn’t be a controversial opinion, but apparently in these hyper partisan times, it is.

bena 6y ago
71 million people aren't disputing the results. A very, very small percentage of those are disputing it. And those claims have no merit. Any valid claims of anomalies will be investigated. Claims without proof should be dismissed. This shouldn't be a controversial opinion, but apparently when one side is hyper partisan, it is.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't think 71 million people are stupid. They're being lied to - being told that these kinds of anomalies, which happen every election year, are unprecedented and we can't be confident in the result until they're fully investigated. (There's no reason investigations into problems can't continue after everyone acknowledges the result!) If I were confident that a month of preemptive investigations would lead to greater confidence, I'd be all in favor. But this seems unlikely, because so many of the people pushing for investigations have already declared the only result they'll accept. What seems much more likely is a repeat of 2000, where trust in the electoral system is shattered, and a huge chunk of the losing party starts to argue that any election which didn't go their way was corruptly stolen from them.
jcranmer 6y ago
In the past, the incidents of fraudulent voting occurs at roughly 1 vote per 10 million - 1 billion. (Vote-by-mail is at the high end of that range; in-person-vote is at the low end). In modern times--that is, since 2000--I'm not aware of a single election where fraud was sufficient to change the results of the election, and I'm including that 2018 North Carolina race in that list [1]. To allege that there was sufficient fraud to overturn the results of this election requires fraud to exist at over 1000× the rate it has normally existed. Consequently, the evidence needed to sustain this allegation should be 1000× as prevalent. However, the claimed evidence is no better than it usually is. You get the same, tired complaints about things like out-of-state mail ballots from people who forget that students and military (and indeed the sitting president!) are legal residents of states they do not presently physically reside in. [1] The number of allegedly fraudulent ballots in that race is close to the margin of victory for the Republican candidate, but my guesstimate is that if the fraud hadn't happened, then the Republican still would have won, just by a very close margin.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I don’t know how past instances of fraud are relevant. This election had an immensely high percentage of mail in votes. By definition it is not like past elections. Also, finding errors has already overturned numerous representative races. This is a factual thing. It’s not Donald Trump throwing a fit. The people saying there are no legitimate issues to investigate are delusional and it’s dangerous for democracy.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    > Also, finding errors has already overturned numerous representative races. This is a factual thing. It’s not Donald Trump throwing a fit. Source?
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020/11/06/oakland-county-election-2020-race-results/6184186002/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020...
      - bena 6y ago
        Just in case you aren't aware, "one" isn't typically contained within the definition of "numerous". And, that's not a story detailing fraud. A Republican put in the results incorrectly, a Democrat noticed the error, and it was corrected, changing the results of a local election from a Democrat winning to a Republican winning. If the Democrats were really looking to perpetuate fraud, they could have just turned a blind eye to the error. But they didn't. Because this is America, and here, right matters.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > I don’t know how past instances of fraud are relevant. This election had an immensely high percentage of mail in votes. And as I mentioned, historical fraud rates for mail-in votes is on the order of 1 in 10s of millions. This includes states that conduct their entire election by mail, e.g., Oregon. > Also, finding errors has already overturned numerous representative races. This is a factual thing. It’s not Donald Trump throwing a fit. Which ones? You're saying it so authoritatively, you should be be able to provide a precise, verifiable list to back up your claims.
rsynnott 6y ago
> Now, you can just stick your fingers in your ears and call 71 million people stupid The _vast_ majority of those 71 million aren't claiming that there's a problem. Certainly, there are some conspiracy theorists amongst them, and I'd be comfortable calling them stupid, yes.

bena 6y ago

71 million people aren't disputing the results. A very, very small percentage of those are disputing it. And those claims have no merit. Any valid claims of anomalies will be investigated. Claims without proof should be dismissed. This shouldn't be a controversial opinion, but apparently when one side is hyper partisan, it is.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I don't think 71 million people are stupid. They're being lied to - being told that these kinds of anomalies, which happen every election year, are unprecedented and we can't be confident in the result until they're fully investigated. (There's no reason investigations into problems can't continue after everyone acknowledges the result!) If I were confident that a month of preemptive investigations would lead to greater confidence, I'd be all in favor. But this seems unlikely, because so many of the people pushing for investigations have already declared the only result they'll accept. What seems much more likely is a repeat of 2000, where trust in the electoral system is shattered, and a huge chunk of the losing party starts to argue that any election which didn't go their way was corruptly stolen from them.

jcranmer 6y ago

In the past, the incidents of fraudulent voting occurs at roughly 1 vote per 10 million - 1 billion. (Vote-by-mail is at the high end of that range; in-person-vote is at the low end). In modern times--that is, since 2000--I'm not aware of a single election where fraud was sufficient to change the results of the election, and I'm including that 2018 North Carolina race in that list [1]. To allege that there was sufficient fraud to overturn the results of this election requires fraud to exist at over 1000× the rate it has normally existed. Consequently, the evidence needed to sustain this allegation should be 1000× as prevalent. However, the claimed evidence is no better than it usually is. You get the same, tired complaints about things like out-of-state mail ballots from people who forget that students and military (and indeed the sitting president!) are legal residents of states they do not presently physically reside in. [1] The number of allegedly fraudulent ballots in that race is close to the margin of victory for the Republican candidate, but my guesstimate is that if the fraud hadn't happened, then the Republican still would have won, just by a very close margin.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
I don’t know how past instances of fraud are relevant. This election had an immensely high percentage of mail in votes. By definition it is not like past elections. Also, finding errors has already overturned numerous representative races. This is a factual thing. It’s not Donald Trump throwing a fit. The people saying there are no legitimate issues to investigate are delusional and it’s dangerous for democracy.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  > Also, finding errors has already overturned numerous representative races. This is a factual thing. It’s not Donald Trump throwing a fit. Source?
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020/11/06/oakland-county-election-2020-race-results/6184186002/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2020...
    - bena 6y ago
      Just in case you aren't aware, "one" isn't typically contained within the definition of "numerous". And, that's not a story detailing fraud. A Republican put in the results incorrectly, a Democrat noticed the error, and it was corrected, changing the results of a local election from a Democrat winning to a Republican winning. If the Democrats were really looking to perpetuate fraud, they could have just turned a blind eye to the error. But they didn't. Because this is America, and here, right matters.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > I don’t know how past instances of fraud are relevant. This election had an immensely high percentage of mail in votes. And as I mentioned, historical fraud rates for mail-in votes is on the order of 1 in 10s of millions. This includes states that conduct their entire election by mail, e.g., Oregon. > Also, finding errors has already overturned numerous representative races. This is a factual thing. It’s not Donald Trump throwing a fit. Which ones? You're saying it so authoritatively, you should be be able to provide a precise, verifiable list to back up your claims.

rsynnott 6y ago

> Now, you can just stick your fingers in your ears and call 71 million people stupid The _vast_ majority of those 71 million aren't claiming that there's a problem. Certainly, there are some conspiracy theorists amongst them, and I'd be comfortable calling them stupid, yes.