6 ms·

The best thing is for republicans to admit that they are lying about election fraud.

by sjg007 6y ago

aksss 6y ago
I'm not convinced about a critical amount of 'fraud' in the election, but I think you're off your rocker if you think the US election system generally has sufficient controls in place not to be easily abused. This year saw even more loosening of the control structure because of knee-jerk reactions to perceived pandemic limitations (warranted or not, I don't care). I also don't care what your politics are or which team you root for, but from a systems perspective there are very obvious control deficiencies in how elections are carried out in this country. Claims of fraud would be far, far, far easier to dismiss if a better control structure was in place. Maybe a national certification (a la NIST) that would be optional for states to adopt, but would at least would provide a framework for transparent state and local alignment (or misalignment) with best practice.
- sjg007 6y ago
  Nonsense. Go work a polling place or for the Secretary of State for any State and come back here if you still believe that.
  - aksss 6y ago
    Well, I have, and it's not nonsense IME. Our state currently has a candidate under felony investigation for election fraud. We have multiple counties whose decisions are made by razor-thin margins. I mean, to repeat someone else (I don't even remember who) politics is one of the few truly zero-sum games out there, with much to lose. To think that humans (particularly politicians) are above pushing the envelope to the point of breakage in such circumstances strains credibility. Your easy dismissal may strike some as being a bit naïve. If you're assuming all the bad ones get caught, I have a drug war to sell you.
    - kmbfjr 6y ago
      You are using one local example to bolster claims of fraud across at least four states, if not the entire nation. Trump lost by what, 8 million votes? Does dirty shit happen? Absolutely. Was it in this election? Yep. Was it enough to sway the outcome? No freaking way.
      - throwaway33292 6y ago
        I posted in a sibling thread but there is evidence that it was enough to sway the election. Check out the Navarro Report, for instance, which provides several dimensions of evidence for this claim. The cheating only really needs to occur in a handful of key urban counties to sway a national election, so it doesn’t actually need to be wide spread.
      - aksss 6y ago
        Context is important - I was responding to someone asking for local experience(“go work at a polling place”). But examples seem all too easy to find. A better response is to consider what concessions in the control structure can be made to restore confidence. You may have faith that everything is okay, but that does little to satisfy those with experience of fraud or hearing stories of fraud. One can see a local example and easily (and not irrationally) imagine that the systems work similarly in the neighboring city, county, or state. Whether your intention or not, it’s easy for your attitude to come across as accepting of deficiency - and an endorsement that may run out when the tables turn (and in American politics, they always do). The unending cycle of dismissal by each side to the other’s sincerely held concerns is getting us nowhere but a bad place.
        sjg007 6y ago
        Maybe take a course in statistical analysis then.
        aksss 6y ago
        I think you are not seeing the problem set for what it is. Your attitude seems to be: “there is no issue with the integrity of the number summmary.” Let’s say the problem at this point has nothing to do with who won - the problem at this point is that a great many of your countrymen are convinced they cannot trust the system. Your hope is they get over it. I can only tell you that from observing politics for a long time that the concerns over election integrity are getting worse in this country with each iteration, not better. In the face of this we are relaxing the control structure, not strengthening it. The result of continuing down this path should be easy to perceive.
- TylerE 6y ago
  This is the problem in a nutshell. People saying there "has to be" something, and "anyone who doesn't see it is a moron". While offering nothing even resembling proof. It's just, at best, being charitable, "a hunch".
  - throwaway33292 6y ago
    Have you read the Navarro Report (two parts), or the paper written by John Lott at the DOJ? You may not agree with their politics but these are Economics PhDs from Harvard and UCLA, not exactly knuckle draggers. There was also hours upon hours of witness testimony given to state legislatures. The media didn’t really cover any of this material, instead just repeated ad homs and contradictions (not rebuttals) and touted all the tossed court cases, all of which were for procedural reasons like standing and laches so evidence was never considered. I would say there’s actually a significant amount of evidence, but nobody wants to hear it because it implicates players on both sides of the aisle.
    - sjg007 6y ago
      Debunked nonsense.
      - throwaway33292 6y ago
        Nah.
        dang 6y ago
        We've banned this account for abusing HN with flamewar and political battle. Those things are not what this site is for. Creating accounts to do that will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - neogodless 6y ago
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-navarro/trump-adviser-navarro-violated-law-against-political-activity-federal-watchdog-idUSKBN28H2OU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-navarro/trum... https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/24/controversial-gun-advocate-justice-department-440251 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/24/controversial-gun-a... If your sources for "proof" are from anyone that is pro-Trump and repeatedly tears into Trumps opposition, you might want to start with the assumption that motivated reasoning is in play. You can be well-educated, and still have a bias and be inclined to argue for your side to win.
- anemoiac 6y ago
  With regard to those questioning the general integrity of such a large, heterogeneous system as the US electoral process, I don’t think the relevant question is “Is there any reason to believe that some amount of voter fraud may have occurred.” Instead, we should be asking, “If voter fraud did occur, is there any reason to believe that it would disproportionately favor one party over the other?” It’s a big leap from “the system’s latent vulnerabilities likely resulted in at least some failure” to “the system’s vulnerabilities were systematically exploited to the benefit of one party.” I haven’t encountered any convincing evidence in support of the latter conclusion.
  - minikites 6y ago
    I think escalation is the problem here, similar to concerns about "the algorithm" (YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, etc). Some people who begin with reasonable questions in the vein of example #2 are radicalized into believing falsehoods because they are getting their answers from poison information sources.
- minikites 6y ago
  >I think you're off your rocker if you think the US election system generally has sufficient controls in place not to be easily abused. It is easily abused, conservatives are only mad when they lose: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno... > A senior vice president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce, Steve Baas, had a thought. “Do we need to start messaging ‘widespread reports of election fraud’ so we are positively set up for the recount regardless of the final number?” he wrote in an email on April 6 to conservative strategists. “I obviously think we should.” > Scott Jensen, a Republican political tactician and former speaker of the State Assembly, responded within minutes. “Yes. Anything fishy should be highlighted,” he wrote. “Stories should be solicited by talk radio hosts.” From 2016. Weird how familiar it sounds.
foolinaround 6y ago
how about following Ted Cruz's request, even if it is an academic excercise at this point, that will assuage the hot tempers on both sides?

The best thing is for republicans to admit that they are lying about election fraud.

by sjg007 6y ago

The best thing is for republicans to admit that they are lying about election fraud.

I'm not convinced about a critical amount of 'fraud' in the election, but I think you're off your rocker if you think the US election system generally has sufficient controls in place not to be easily abused. This year saw even more loosening of the control structure because of knee-jerk reactions to perceived pandemic limitations (warranted or not, I don't care). I also don't care what your politics are or which team you root for, but from a systems perspective there are very obvious control deficiencies in how elections are carried out in this country. Claims of fraud would be far, far, far easier to dismiss if a better control structure was in place. Maybe a national certification (a la NIST) that would be optional for states to adopt, but would at least would provide a framework for transparent state and local alignment (or misalignment) with best practice.

sjg007 6y ago
Nonsense. Go work a polling place or for the Secretary of State for any State and come back here if you still believe that.
- aksss 6y ago
  Well, I have, and it's not nonsense IME. Our state currently has a candidate under felony investigation for election fraud. We have multiple counties whose decisions are made by razor-thin margins. I mean, to repeat someone else (I don't even remember who) politics is one of the few truly zero-sum games out there, with much to lose. To think that humans (particularly politicians) are above pushing the envelope to the point of breakage in such circumstances strains credibility. Your easy dismissal may strike some as being a bit naïve. If you're assuming all the bad ones get caught, I have a drug war to sell you.
  - kmbfjr 6y ago
    You are using one local example to bolster claims of fraud across at least four states, if not the entire nation. Trump lost by what, 8 million votes? Does dirty shit happen? Absolutely. Was it in this election? Yep. Was it enough to sway the outcome? No freaking way.
    - throwaway33292 6y ago
      I posted in a sibling thread but there is evidence that it was enough to sway the election. Check out the Navarro Report, for instance, which provides several dimensions of evidence for this claim. The cheating only really needs to occur in a handful of key urban counties to sway a national election, so it doesn’t actually need to be wide spread.
    - aksss 6y ago
      Context is important - I was responding to someone asking for local experience(“go work at a polling place”). But examples seem all too easy to find. A better response is to consider what concessions in the control structure can be made to restore confidence. You may have faith that everything is okay, but that does little to satisfy those with experience of fraud or hearing stories of fraud. One can see a local example and easily (and not irrationally) imagine that the systems work similarly in the neighboring city, county, or state. Whether your intention or not, it’s easy for your attitude to come across as accepting of deficiency - and an endorsement that may run out when the tables turn (and in American politics, they always do). The unending cycle of dismissal by each side to the other’s sincerely held concerns is getting us nowhere but a bad place.
      - sjg007 6y ago
        Maybe take a course in statistical analysis then.
        aksss 6y ago
        I think you are not seeing the problem set for what it is. Your attitude seems to be: “there is no issue with the integrity of the number summmary.” Let’s say the problem at this point has nothing to do with who won - the problem at this point is that a great many of your countrymen are convinced they cannot trust the system. Your hope is they get over it. I can only tell you that from observing politics for a long time that the concerns over election integrity are getting worse in this country with each iteration, not better. In the face of this we are relaxing the control structure, not strengthening it. The result of continuing down this path should be easy to perceive.
TylerE 6y ago
This is the problem in a nutshell. People saying there "has to be" something, and "anyone who doesn't see it is a moron". While offering nothing even resembling proof. It's just, at best, being charitable, "a hunch".
- throwaway33292 6y ago
  Have you read the Navarro Report (two parts), or the paper written by John Lott at the DOJ? You may not agree with their politics but these are Economics PhDs from Harvard and UCLA, not exactly knuckle draggers. There was also hours upon hours of witness testimony given to state legislatures. The media didn’t really cover any of this material, instead just repeated ad homs and contradictions (not rebuttals) and touted all the tossed court cases, all of which were for procedural reasons like standing and laches so evidence was never considered. I would say there’s actually a significant amount of evidence, but nobody wants to hear it because it implicates players on both sides of the aisle.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Debunked nonsense.
    - throwaway33292 6y ago
      Nah.
      - dang 6y ago
        We've banned this account for abusing HN with flamewar and political battle. Those things are not what this site is for. Creating accounts to do that will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - neogodless 6y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-navarro/trump-adviser-navarro-violated-law-against-political-activity-federal-watchdog-idUSKBN28H2OU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-navarro/trum... https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/24/controversial-gun-advocate-justice-department-440251 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/24/controversial-gun-a... If your sources for "proof" are from anyone that is pro-Trump and repeatedly tears into Trumps opposition, you might want to start with the assumption that motivated reasoning is in play. You can be well-educated, and still have a bias and be inclined to argue for your side to win.
anemoiac 6y ago
With regard to those questioning the general integrity of such a large, heterogeneous system as the US electoral process, I don’t think the relevant question is “Is there any reason to believe that some amount of voter fraud may have occurred.” Instead, we should be asking, “If voter fraud did occur, is there any reason to believe that it would disproportionately favor one party over the other?” It’s a big leap from “the system’s latent vulnerabilities likely resulted in at least some failure” to “the system’s vulnerabilities were systematically exploited to the benefit of one party.” I haven’t encountered any convincing evidence in support of the latter conclusion.
- minikites 6y ago
  I think escalation is the problem here, similar to concerns about "the algorithm" (YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, etc). Some people who begin with reasonable questions in the vein of example #2 are radicalized into believing falsehoods because they are getting their answers from poison information sources.
minikites 6y ago
>I think you're off your rocker if you think the US election system generally has sufficient controls in place not to be easily abused. It is easily abused, conservatives are only mad when they lose: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno... > A senior vice president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce, Steve Baas, had a thought. “Do we need to start messaging ‘widespread reports of election fraud’ so we are positively set up for the recount regardless of the final number?” he wrote in an email on April 6 to conservative strategists. “I obviously think we should.” > Scott Jensen, a Republican political tactician and former speaker of the State Assembly, responded within minutes. “Yes. Anything fishy should be highlighted,” he wrote. “Stories should be solicited by talk radio hosts.” From 2016. Weird how familiar it sounds.

foolinaround 6y ago

how about following Ted Cruz's request, even if it is an academic excercise at this point, that will assuage the hot tempers on both sides?