4 ms·

If it is possible to carry out election rigging conspiracies in the US, then how can we be so confident that no such conspiracies were carried out by people tha

If it is possible to carry out election rigging conspiracies in the US, then how can we be so confident that no such conspiracies were carried out by people that viciously hate the former president? Surely if it is possible for conspirators to get away with it in other countries, and there is no magical means of preventing it here, then it's possible for them to get away with it here as well. They have courts and investigations and evidence in other countries as well, and that has seemingly not prevented election rigging there.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Surely if it is possible for conspirators to get away with it in other countries I'm not convinced that it is. Sure, election rigging happens, but that's not the “getting away with it” that would be at issue. Either people who get away with it undetected in the very short term are so good that they manage to suppress all evidence completely and it never comes out (which seems an implausible binodality in outcomes), or it usually is quite evident in even the very short-term, and either fails to do enough to change results, does enough to change results but is corrected by institutional processes, or it does enough to change results and is allowed to stand by corrupt institutions despite being widely decried. There's not a whole lot of modern cases where election fraud is discovered only long-after the event rather than virtually in real-time. Is vote rigging and conspiracy to rig votes possible in the modern world? Yes. Is it ever both significant and not immediately evident? It's not impossible, but it doesn't seem to be the case. If it were, you'd expect there to be examples of cases undetectable in the short-run but later discovered.
- jtxxwl2 6y ago
  >Either people who get away with it undetected in the very short term are so good that they manage to suppress all evidence completely and it never comes out (which seems an implausible binodality in outcomes) Why do you think that's implausible? What evidence of election fraud would you expect to be left behind that would be difficult to dispose of? >is allowed to stand by corrupt institutions despite being widely decried. By whom? >If it were, you'd expect there to be examples of cases undetectable in the short-run but later discovered. Why would that be expected? Many crimes are much harder to prove if the perpetrator is not caught in the act. Why would you not expect election fraud to be among them?
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    This isn't someone slashing your tires overnight when you are parked on a street. It involves thousands of people directly and an extreme amount of information collecting and statistics analysis.
    - jtxxwl2 6y ago
      Not thousands of random people picked off the street, though. It involves thousands of people that overwhelmingly share a seething hatred of one of the two candidates.
    - f430 6y ago
      > This isn't someone slashing your tires overnight when you are parked on a street. Happens only in the ghettos tbh
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        I think you missed the point to a pretty extreme degree here. This is about the likelihood of something occurring with no evidence left behind.
        2lwxxtj 6y ago
        Not necessarily no evidence left behind, just no "smoking guns" that can be trivially discovered by private citizens without power of subpoena or warrant.
    - 2lwxxtj 6y ago
      Not thousands of random people picked off the street, though. It involves thousands of people that overwhelmingly share a seething hatred of one of the two candidates.
yibg 6y ago
The threshold isn’t just “it’s possible”. There needs to be some evidence. All sorts of things are possible, doesn’t mean we go around thinking they are true, or even assume they are potentially true. It’s not Impossible I’ve murdered someone, doesn’t mean I should be presumed a murderer.
- jtxxwl2 6y ago
  Yes, absolutely. We must use the evidence available and draw inferences, assuming that there is no magic soil type phenomenon involved. In this case, the evidence available includes 5 years of statements and actions performed by members of one political party which demonstrate beyond any doubt that they overwhelmingly possess a seething hatred of one of the candidates. It also includes undisputed evidence that election officials instituted rules for some election facilities that greatly hindered the ability of outside election observers to ensure no fraud was taking place. And it also includes undisputed evidence that these same election facilities are totally politically dominated by that one political party, and have been for decades. We can therefore infer that it is overwhelmingly likely that they engaged in fraud.
- 2lwxxtj 6y ago
  Yes, absolutely. We must use the evidence available and draw inferences, assuming that there is no magic soil type phenomenon involved. In this case, the evidence available includes 5 years of statements and actions performed by members of one political party which demonstrate beyond any doubt that they overwhelmingly possess a seething hatred of one of the candidates. It also includes undisputed evidence that election officials instituted rules for some election facilities that greatly hindered the ability of outside election observers to ensure no fraud was taking place. And it also includes undisputed evidence that these same election facilities are totally politically dominated by that one political party, and have been for decades. We can therefore infer that it is overwhelmingly likely that they engaged in fraud.
  - mrtesthah 6y ago
    There is no “overwhelming evidence” of any election or voter fraud. Such claims have been debunked[1]. Your use of that adjective does not make them true, and your assertion is literally theorization of a conspiracy. 1. https://voterprotectionprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/000A-Myths-and-Facts-of-the-2020-Presidential-Election-20210113-FINAL.pdf https://voterprotectionprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/0...

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Surely if it is possible for conspirators to get away with it in other countries I'm not convinced that it is. Sure, election rigging happens, but that's not the “getting away with it” that would be at issue. Either people who get away with it undetected in the very short term are so good that they manage to suppress all evidence completely and it never comes out (which seems an implausible binodality in outcomes), or it usually is quite evident in even the very short-term, and either fails to do enough to change results, does enough to change results but is corrected by institutional processes, or it does enough to change results and is allowed to stand by corrupt institutions despite being widely decried. There's not a whole lot of modern cases where election fraud is discovered only long-after the event rather than virtually in real-time. Is vote rigging and conspiracy to rig votes possible in the modern world? Yes. Is it ever both significant and not immediately evident? It's not impossible, but it doesn't seem to be the case. If it were, you'd expect there to be examples of cases undetectable in the short-run but later discovered.

jtxxwl2 6y ago
>Either people who get away with it undetected in the very short term are so good that they manage to suppress all evidence completely and it never comes out (which seems an implausible binodality in outcomes) Why do you think that's implausible? What evidence of election fraud would you expect to be left behind that would be difficult to dispose of? >is allowed to stand by corrupt institutions despite being widely decried. By whom? >If it were, you'd expect there to be examples of cases undetectable in the short-run but later discovered. Why would that be expected? Many crimes are much harder to prove if the perpetrator is not caught in the act. Why would you not expect election fraud to be among them?
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  This isn't someone slashing your tires overnight when you are parked on a street. It involves thousands of people directly and an extreme amount of information collecting and statistics analysis.
  - jtxxwl2 6y ago
    Not thousands of random people picked off the street, though. It involves thousands of people that overwhelmingly share a seething hatred of one of the two candidates.
  - f430 6y ago
    > This isn't someone slashing your tires overnight when you are parked on a street. Happens only in the ghettos tbh
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      I think you missed the point to a pretty extreme degree here. This is about the likelihood of something occurring with no evidence left behind.
      - 2lwxxtj 6y ago
        Not necessarily no evidence left behind, just no "smoking guns" that can be trivially discovered by private citizens without power of subpoena or warrant.
  - 2lwxxtj 6y ago
    Not thousands of random people picked off the street, though. It involves thousands of people that overwhelmingly share a seething hatred of one of the two candidates.

yibg 6y ago

The threshold isn’t just “it’s possible”. There needs to be some evidence. All sorts of things are possible, doesn’t mean we go around thinking they are true, or even assume they are potentially true. It’s not Impossible I’ve murdered someone, doesn’t mean I should be presumed a murderer.

jtxxwl2 6y ago
Yes, absolutely. We must use the evidence available and draw inferences, assuming that there is no magic soil type phenomenon involved. In this case, the evidence available includes 5 years of statements and actions performed by members of one political party which demonstrate beyond any doubt that they overwhelmingly possess a seething hatred of one of the candidates. It also includes undisputed evidence that election officials instituted rules for some election facilities that greatly hindered the ability of outside election observers to ensure no fraud was taking place. And it also includes undisputed evidence that these same election facilities are totally politically dominated by that one political party, and have been for decades. We can therefore infer that it is overwhelmingly likely that they engaged in fraud.
2lwxxtj 6y ago
Yes, absolutely. We must use the evidence available and draw inferences, assuming that there is no magic soil type phenomenon involved. In this case, the evidence available includes 5 years of statements and actions performed by members of one political party which demonstrate beyond any doubt that they overwhelmingly possess a seething hatred of one of the candidates. It also includes undisputed evidence that election officials instituted rules for some election facilities that greatly hindered the ability of outside election observers to ensure no fraud was taking place. And it also includes undisputed evidence that these same election facilities are totally politically dominated by that one political party, and have been for decades. We can therefore infer that it is overwhelmingly likely that they engaged in fraud.
- mrtesthah 6y ago
  There is no “overwhelming evidence” of any election or voter fraud. Such claims have been debunked[1]. Your use of that adjective does not make them true, and your assertion is literally theorization of a conspiracy. 1. https://voterprotectionprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/000A-Myths-and-Facts-of-the-2020-Presidential-Election-20210113-FINAL.pdf https://voterprotectionprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/0...