5 ms·

It can simultaneously be the case that everyone gets mailed a ballot AND it was the most secure election to date. It's certainly not axiomatic that mail in vot

It can simultaneously be the case that everyone gets mailed a ballot AND it was the most secure election to date. It's certainly not axiomatic that mail in voting has a higher rate of fraud than any other system. Washington State is 100% mail in for years, and there's no evidence that things are any more fraudulent here than anywhere else, but it is much easier for people to vote.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
In what ways was the election made more secure? What states increased their voter integrity laws by means of legislature or policy or governor’s order? I’m not being facetious. I looked for added regulations, I only found relaxed rules because of Covid. Now. What Covid does that means you can’t sign your ballot, IDK, separate topic.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  If it was made more accessible, but not less secure, then the rate of fraud is lower. More participants means the impact of fraud is lower if everything else stays the same. I don't see any evidence that there was any reduction in "voter integrity". (Whatever that means.)
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    No. You aren’t talking security. You are talking about a rate of fraud. If I occasionally steal $5 from you sometimes when we meet, your solution to this isn’t to just meet up more and count the number of times I don’t steal from you as higher. > I don't see any evidence that there was any reduction in "voter integrity". Must not have looked very hard. PA, NV, WI, MT, GA, and others and others all changed their rules about curing, harvesting, signatures required, naked ballots allowed. Changes per state. In PA the big deal is that the Gov did this unilaterally, but the PA constitution clearly defines that voting laws are by legislature only, the gov did this under emergency powers. If you aren’t aware that many states relaxed their voting requirements along with unsolicited mail voting - you need a new news source.
    - LordDragonfang 6y ago
      Making it easier for people to vote (and make sure their vote is counted correctly, as is the overwhelming primary use case in "curing") is not fraud, it's democracy. The fact that one party is (and historically has been) opposed to this is not something to be proud of.
      - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        How is temporarily removing the signature requirement from the secrecy envelope, and removing the requirement for the election office to compare that signature to a previous signature making it “easier to vote” vs weakening the election integrity? What about Covid changes your ability to abide by the election laws the legislature in the states had determined?
        LordDragonfang 6y ago
        Signatures are an awful security measure in this day and age. It's compared by underpaid and overworked poll workers, definitely not by handwriting experts. There's also the problem that they're often having to compare a digital pen-and-stylis signature to a "wet" signature on the ballot. Additionally, most people below the age of 30, and anyone without reason to spend time signing legal documents, won't have a consistent signature that matches the one on file that they provided when they were 16. It's also no coincidence to the discussion that those signatures also have a comparatively extremely high rejection rate among black people. All of these are demographics that tend to vote a particular way, by the way, which is why you hear the other side complaining. Once again, it's purely about expanding democracy.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      I'm aware that these changes were made. I'm challenging the idea that these things reduce voter integrity. You seem to think it's obvious and axiomatic that these processes meaningfully improve voter integrity. Do you have evidence that they make things more secure? Or could it be they are security theater?

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

In what ways was the election made more secure? What states increased their voter integrity laws by means of legislature or policy or governor’s order? I’m not being facetious. I looked for added regulations, I only found relaxed rules because of Covid. Now. What Covid does that means you can’t sign your ballot, IDK, separate topic.

Pfhreak 6y ago
If it was made more accessible, but not less secure, then the rate of fraud is lower. More participants means the impact of fraud is lower if everything else stays the same. I don't see any evidence that there was any reduction in "voter integrity". (Whatever that means.)
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  No. You aren’t talking security. You are talking about a rate of fraud. If I occasionally steal $5 from you sometimes when we meet, your solution to this isn’t to just meet up more and count the number of times I don’t steal from you as higher. > I don't see any evidence that there was any reduction in "voter integrity". Must not have looked very hard. PA, NV, WI, MT, GA, and others and others all changed their rules about curing, harvesting, signatures required, naked ballots allowed. Changes per state. In PA the big deal is that the Gov did this unilaterally, but the PA constitution clearly defines that voting laws are by legislature only, the gov did this under emergency powers. If you aren’t aware that many states relaxed their voting requirements along with unsolicited mail voting - you need a new news source.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    Making it easier for people to vote (and make sure their vote is counted correctly, as is the overwhelming primary use case in "curing") is not fraud, it's democracy. The fact that one party is (and historically has been) opposed to this is not something to be proud of.
    - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      How is temporarily removing the signature requirement from the secrecy envelope, and removing the requirement for the election office to compare that signature to a previous signature making it “easier to vote” vs weakening the election integrity? What about Covid changes your ability to abide by the election laws the legislature in the states had determined?
      - LordDragonfang 6y ago
        Signatures are an awful security measure in this day and age. It's compared by underpaid and overworked poll workers, definitely not by handwriting experts. There's also the problem that they're often having to compare a digital pen-and-stylis signature to a "wet" signature on the ballot. Additionally, most people below the age of 30, and anyone without reason to spend time signing legal documents, won't have a consistent signature that matches the one on file that they provided when they were 16. It's also no coincidence to the discussion that those signatures also have a comparatively extremely high rejection rate among black people. All of these are demographics that tend to vote a particular way, by the way, which is why you hear the other side complaining. Once again, it's purely about expanding democracy.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    I'm aware that these changes were made. I'm challenging the idea that these things reduce voter integrity. You seem to think it's obvious and axiomatic that these processes meaningfully improve voter integrity. Do you have evidence that they make things more secure? Or could it be they are security theater?