5 ms·
There were 22,894 nursing facility residents in Georgia in 2019. [1] How many of them do you think had their ballots harvested? I think it's far harder to har
by VikingCoder 6y ago
There were 22,894 nursing facility residents in Georgia in 2019. [1]
How many of them do you think had their ballots harvested?
I think it's far harder to harvest ballots without getting caught than you seem to think it is.
[1] : https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-nursing-facility-residents/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-nursing-...
- dilap 6y agoSure, you might be right. I wouldn't say I'm confident it would be easy or confident it would be hard.
- VikingCoder 6y agoLet's say that you brought in signature experts to look for fraudulent ballots, based on detecting forged signatures. What do you think their false positive / false negative rates would look like?
- dilap 6y agoBeats me; given the historically low rate & the allegations of fraud, it seems to be you should do the review so that everyone can be confident in the results (in the event there was not significant fraud) or so that the fraud can be exposed (in the event there was). One data point is in Arizona where the judge allowed 100 randomly-sampled envelopes to be reviewed for a signature, the democratic expert witness said 16 of them were inconclusive. However, the Judge ruled that that was not evidence of fraud. I'm not really sure how exactly you can conclude that, and the fact that we are apprently counting votes in AZ with signatures that don't match certainly doesn't make me particularly confident in the results. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/04/arizona-judge-rejects-republican-effort-overturn-state-election-results/3821578001/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020...
- nl 6y agoThe whole point is that signature verification isn't a reliable indicator of fraud or anything. It never has been, and should never have been relied on. The ballots and the envelopes and the protection of them is the key.
- dilap 6y agoIn that case, what protects against fraud? Anything? I personally know of two ballots, not mine, that I could have filled and out returned, if I'd been so inclined. (People in apartment buildings I have access to who have moved out of state, but still got sent ballots, which were just setting in the foyer; I'm sure there are gazillions of other ways to get ballots.) If you're not even going to require the signatures to match, it seems like committing vote fraud would be ridiculously easy. (Of course, if you really want to have a secure election, make people vote in person and have a continuous chain of custody of those votes; use the ink-on-your-finger trick to prevent double-voting.)
- jaccarmac 6y agoThe fact that it's quite obvious if someone votes multiple times. To sway an election, you would need to submit a significant number of fraudulent ballots. This is likely to result in an extremely high number of detected duplicates. It is also extremely hard to pull off without involving a large number of people, any of whom could blow the entire conspiracy wide open.