5 ms·

Yes. The US electorial system is compromised. By Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression. Both proven by facts. Whereas Trump just pulled his 'electora

Yes. The US electorial system is compromised. By Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression. Both proven by facts. Whereas Trump just pulled his 'electoral fraud' claims from a hat and his lawyer got laughed out of court.

AuryGlenz 6y ago
You could easily see the same for Democratic gerrymandering and policies that make it easy for people to commit fraud - lack of voter ID being the biggy.
- wtallis 6y ago
  Gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics have quantifiable effects on the outcome of elections. Voter ID requirements have quantifiable effects on the amount of voter fraud that is committed. Looking at any half-decent estimates of the size of those effects will show that you're drawing a false equivalence. There simply is no quantitative argument in support of voter ID requirements, because the kind of fraud they defend against is already practically non-existent and definitely not prevalent enough to sway the outcome of elections. Analyzing voter ID as a voter suppression technique shows it easily has more harmful impact on election integrity than its notional benefits of preventing the kind of fraud that doesn't really happen to begin with. And this is why any calls for the institution of voter ID requirements in the US should not be taken at face value. Your comment would have made a much stronger argument if you hadn't tossed in such an obvious, tired and deeply flawed talking point.
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    How would we know that the fraud that would be prevented with voter ID is insignificant? It seems we have no real election auditing in our country, which frankly should be something that's done automatically at least on a spot-check basis. One large category of fraud that it would prevent would be illegal immigrant voting. In my state you can register by having someone that is already registered vouch for you. That's it. No other identification needed. I'd honestly like to know what voter suppression tactics are happening in America. From what I've heard from Europeans they tend to be pretty amazed at how lax our process is.
    - wtallis 6y ago
      > How would we know that the fraud that would be prevented with voter ID is insignificant? The fraud made possible by not requiring voters to show ID is the possibility that someone could impersonate a registered voter and cast their ballot. There are natural limiting factors on how much this form of fraud can be scaled up. Any one person impersonating other registered voters can probably get away with at most casting one ballot per voting location, lest they be recognized as a repeat visitor. Each person voting fraudulently needs to pick a specific registered voter to impersonate at each location, and memorize basic information about this voter (eg. name and address), and physically travel to each voting location. And if any of the marks picked to impersonate end up trying to vote for themselves, the attempted duplicate voter will be detected. So each participant in such a fraud scheme is good for optimistically a dozen fraudulent in-person votes over the course of any one election day, and if committed at scale with a large number of people, the risk of detection quickly becomes very high. The real-world rate of detection of this kind of fraud is extremely low, so we can be confident that this impractical form of fraud is in fact seldom attempted. > It seems we have no real election auditing in our country, which frankly should be something that's done automatically at least on a spot-check basis. I don't think this statement is about voter ID. > One large category of fraud that it would prevent would be illegal immigrant voting. In my state you can register by having someone that is already registered vouch for you. That's it. No other identification needed. The Voter ID proposals that have been so controversial in the US in recent years (since ~2006) are not about showing ID to register to vote. They're about showing ID on election day, even if you're already legally registered and have been voting without trouble for decades. If you are saying "voter ID" but you mean to talk about tighter controls on the voter registration process rather than on the process of voting on election day, then you should use different terminology rather than using a term that has a different meaning in current common usage. But aside from that terminology issue: requiring people to show ID when registering to vote ahead of the election is not the only practical way to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. Even if a prospective voter does not show current government issued photo ID when registering to vote, they still have to provide identifying information as part of the registration process. This can be audited before election day.
      - 6y ago
  - syshum 6y ago
    US is one of the, if not the only, develop democratic nation that allows both Mail in voiting and Voting with out ID In the EU most require Photo ID to vote, and Require Photo ID to obtain a mail in ballot (in the few nations that all mail in voiting) US has some of the, if not the most lack voting requirements in OECD.
    - starfallg 6y ago
      >US is one of the, if not the only, develop democratic nation that allows both Mail in voiting and Voting with out ID Categorically untrue. As a Canadian living in the UK for nearly 20 years. In both the UK and Canada, I can vote without a ID let alone photo ID. We bring in our poll cards and they let you vote. Then they cross your name and address off a list so you can't come in to vote again. The polling stations coverage is very good and you can only vote in your designated station, which is usually within walkable distance unless you live on a farm. We also trialed photo ID for voting here in the UK. It was a massive failure. I can also get a postal ballot with no problems. Whatever the problem in the US is, it can be fixed without photo ID.
      - syshum 6y ago
        >>Whatever the problem in the US is, it can be fixed without photo ID. This is true, Photo ID is not the only way to improve Election Security, but many US states do not have assigned Polling Stations anymore, these open polling stations methods need something more than just poling card, plus there is early voting as well. Also the UK has other methods of verification done at the time of registration that do not occur in the States, US Voter rolls are infamously insecure, outdated and have all kinds of issues, UK seems to secure their election on registration side instead of the voting site US does not do either, and any attempt to add security either during registration or on voting day is attributed to racism or classism or some other bigotry
        starfallg 6y ago
        >US does not do either, and any attempt to add security either during registration or on voting day is attributed to racism or classism or some other bigotry The US already has a registration system. The information just need to be current and the system designed in such a way where a registered person can only vote once (which is not what campaigners are against). Over here, the local council sends you a letter regularly for you to update your details in the electoral register. If you don't respond then you are not registered to vote in upcoming elections. They send you a poll card which tell you where to go vote. If you don't have your poll card you can still vote by turning up at the correct polling station. You can't vote at another station. You have to provide your name and address and they will look you up on the electoral register. If the staff suspect you are fraudulent, they will call the police. After you are provided with a ballot, they cross you name out from the list so that it can't be reused. There are a small number of cases of error or fraud is very low as you need a lot of information on a large scale over a large area across many polling stations to do meaningful election fraud undetected.
whatthesmack 6y ago
I don't believe any of the electoral fraud claims were actually judged... it's all been rejected for a lack of standing. People saying courts rejected the fraud claims are generally mistaken, because the evidence never got presented.
- mewse 6y ago
  Were there actually any fraud claims in court? I seem to recall that when actually in court, the attorneys were all very careful to explain that they weren't making any claims of fraud.
- cmurf 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... Not all for lack of standing. The evidence that has been presented for fraud is ordinary and could not have affected the outcome of the election. That's consistent with what every one of the ~3000 county clerks in the U.S. will tell you about every election. A much bigger issue is election fraud including voter suppression. What has pissed off Republicans this time around, is expansive mail-in balloting as a result of COVID mitigation. It managed to expand the voting pool against their wishes by making it generally easier for people to vote. It's difficult for judges to look at this and go, "ok so your legislative intent is to make it hard for some people to vote, but these are still legally cast votes per the legislature's own legislation, and you just don't like the outcome so you want me to disenfranchise them?" That's a no. A judge isn't going to do that.
  - no-s 6y ago
    >> The evidence that has been presented for fraud is ordinary and could not have affected the outcome of the election. I feel this is a dangerous cop-out. Some people feel this should be examined[1]. The evidence of actual problems in the election is suppressed by refusal to allow court proceedings and audit. This in turn renders remarks like yours more anecdotal than quantifiable. I'm not saying this is Venezuela, but there does indeed appear there are trout in the milk. [1]https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com

AuryGlenz 6y ago

You could easily see the same for Democratic gerrymandering and policies that make it easy for people to commit fraud - lack of voter ID being the biggy.

wtallis 6y ago
Gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics have quantifiable effects on the outcome of elections. Voter ID requirements have quantifiable effects on the amount of voter fraud that is committed. Looking at any half-decent estimates of the size of those effects will show that you're drawing a false equivalence. There simply is no quantitative argument in support of voter ID requirements, because the kind of fraud they defend against is already practically non-existent and definitely not prevalent enough to sway the outcome of elections. Analyzing voter ID as a voter suppression technique shows it easily has more harmful impact on election integrity than its notional benefits of preventing the kind of fraud that doesn't really happen to begin with. And this is why any calls for the institution of voter ID requirements in the US should not be taken at face value. Your comment would have made a much stronger argument if you hadn't tossed in such an obvious, tired and deeply flawed talking point.
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  How would we know that the fraud that would be prevented with voter ID is insignificant? It seems we have no real election auditing in our country, which frankly should be something that's done automatically at least on a spot-check basis. One large category of fraud that it would prevent would be illegal immigrant voting. In my state you can register by having someone that is already registered vouch for you. That's it. No other identification needed. I'd honestly like to know what voter suppression tactics are happening in America. From what I've heard from Europeans they tend to be pretty amazed at how lax our process is.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > How would we know that the fraud that would be prevented with voter ID is insignificant? The fraud made possible by not requiring voters to show ID is the possibility that someone could impersonate a registered voter and cast their ballot. There are natural limiting factors on how much this form of fraud can be scaled up. Any one person impersonating other registered voters can probably get away with at most casting one ballot per voting location, lest they be recognized as a repeat visitor. Each person voting fraudulently needs to pick a specific registered voter to impersonate at each location, and memorize basic information about this voter (eg. name and address), and physically travel to each voting location. And if any of the marks picked to impersonate end up trying to vote for themselves, the attempted duplicate voter will be detected. So each participant in such a fraud scheme is good for optimistically a dozen fraudulent in-person votes over the course of any one election day, and if committed at scale with a large number of people, the risk of detection quickly becomes very high. The real-world rate of detection of this kind of fraud is extremely low, so we can be confident that this impractical form of fraud is in fact seldom attempted. > It seems we have no real election auditing in our country, which frankly should be something that's done automatically at least on a spot-check basis. I don't think this statement is about voter ID. > One large category of fraud that it would prevent would be illegal immigrant voting. In my state you can register by having someone that is already registered vouch for you. That's it. No other identification needed. The Voter ID proposals that have been so controversial in the US in recent years (since ~2006) are not about showing ID to register to vote. They're about showing ID on election day, even if you're already legally registered and have been voting without trouble for decades. If you are saying "voter ID" but you mean to talk about tighter controls on the voter registration process rather than on the process of voting on election day, then you should use different terminology rather than using a term that has a different meaning in current common usage. But aside from that terminology issue: requiring people to show ID when registering to vote ahead of the election is not the only practical way to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. Even if a prospective voter does not show current government issued photo ID when registering to vote, they still have to provide identifying information as part of the registration process. This can be audited before election day.
    - 6y ago
- syshum 6y ago
  US is one of the, if not the only, develop democratic nation that allows both Mail in voiting and Voting with out ID In the EU most require Photo ID to vote, and Require Photo ID to obtain a mail in ballot (in the few nations that all mail in voiting) US has some of the, if not the most lack voting requirements in OECD.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    >US is one of the, if not the only, develop democratic nation that allows both Mail in voiting and Voting with out ID Categorically untrue. As a Canadian living in the UK for nearly 20 years. In both the UK and Canada, I can vote without a ID let alone photo ID. We bring in our poll cards and they let you vote. Then they cross your name and address off a list so you can't come in to vote again. The polling stations coverage is very good and you can only vote in your designated station, which is usually within walkable distance unless you live on a farm. We also trialed photo ID for voting here in the UK. It was a massive failure. I can also get a postal ballot with no problems. Whatever the problem in the US is, it can be fixed without photo ID.
    - syshum 6y ago
      >>Whatever the problem in the US is, it can be fixed without photo ID. This is true, Photo ID is not the only way to improve Election Security, but many US states do not have assigned Polling Stations anymore, these open polling stations methods need something more than just poling card, plus there is early voting as well. Also the UK has other methods of verification done at the time of registration that do not occur in the States, US Voter rolls are infamously insecure, outdated and have all kinds of issues, UK seems to secure their election on registration side instead of the voting site US does not do either, and any attempt to add security either during registration or on voting day is attributed to racism or classism or some other bigotry
      - starfallg 6y ago
        >US does not do either, and any attempt to add security either during registration or on voting day is attributed to racism or classism or some other bigotry The US already has a registration system. The information just need to be current and the system designed in such a way where a registered person can only vote once (which is not what campaigners are against). Over here, the local council sends you a letter regularly for you to update your details in the electoral register. If you don't respond then you are not registered to vote in upcoming elections. They send you a poll card which tell you where to go vote. If you don't have your poll card you can still vote by turning up at the correct polling station. You can't vote at another station. You have to provide your name and address and they will look you up on the electoral register. If the staff suspect you are fraudulent, they will call the police. After you are provided with a ballot, they cross you name out from the list so that it can't be reused. There are a small number of cases of error or fraud is very low as you need a lot of information on a large scale over a large area across many polling stations to do meaningful election fraud undetected.

whatthesmack 6y ago

I don't believe any of the electoral fraud claims were actually judged... it's all been rejected for a lack of standing. People saying courts rejected the fraud claims are generally mistaken, because the evidence never got presented.

mewse 6y ago
Were there actually any fraud claims in court? I seem to recall that when actually in court, the attorneys were all very careful to explain that they weren't making any claims of fraud.
cmurf 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... Not all for lack of standing. The evidence that has been presented for fraud is ordinary and could not have affected the outcome of the election. That's consistent with what every one of the ~3000 county clerks in the U.S. will tell you about every election. A much bigger issue is election fraud including voter suppression. What has pissed off Republicans this time around, is expansive mail-in balloting as a result of COVID mitigation. It managed to expand the voting pool against their wishes by making it generally easier for people to vote. It's difficult for judges to look at this and go, "ok so your legislative intent is to make it hard for some people to vote, but these are still legally cast votes per the legislature's own legislation, and you just don't like the outcome so you want me to disenfranchise them?" That's a no. A judge isn't going to do that.
- no-s 6y ago
  >> The evidence that has been presented for fraud is ordinary and could not have affected the outcome of the election. I feel this is a dangerous cop-out. Some people feel this should be examined[1]. The evidence of actual problems in the election is suppressed by refusal to allow court proceedings and audit. This in turn renders remarks like yours more anecdotal than quantifiable. I'm not saying this is Venezuela, but there does indeed appear there are trout in the milk. [1]https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com