4 ms·

Lack of photographic voter id in certain states, Mail in voting/drop off boxes, Transporting of Votes to counting locations, and other issues that raise securi

Lack of photographic voter id in certain states, Mail in voting/drop off boxes, Transporting of Votes to counting locations, and other issues that raise security concerns. These are some of the bad practices that are generally rejected by countries that present themselves as democratic. Edit: also, how is it "their senate" this time, but "our democracy" in one of your previous comments? Have you lost your US citizenship in the last 2 hours?

Ekaros 4y ago
Yeah, it's exactly kind of stuff that would be criticised in banana republics. And it is somehow okay in USA... Then again CIA did have huge hand in those republics, so it is reasonable to expect they might have used similar tactics at home... You never known, specially knowing how much the mainstream political machine hated the democracy.
turtledove 4y ago
Your concerns just aren't based in facts. There are roughly 1 to 2 credible allegations of in person voting fraud per year. [1] Meanwhile, over ten percent of the country doesn't have a photo id. To date, there has been zero credible evidence that voter ID laws prevent meaningful fraud, and zero credible evidence that the fraud you are describing occurs. Mail in ballots, likewise, have no credible evidence of being used to commit fraud. They are widely used in North America and Europe, with forty countries allowing vote by mail. [2] It's perhaps slightly more likely batches of ballots could go missing, but the mail in systems allow you to validate that your ballot has been received. And counting locations is perhaps the most absurd concern. Ballot counting takes time and space and dedicated staff. Should the voting shut down libraries, schools, and all the distributed places where people vote for potentially weeks? The ballots are locked and transported securely and there's tons of oversight on them. Nothing about those is considered "bad practice" or unusual. [1] https://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf https://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajna... [2] https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/PDYRWL https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi...
- macilacilove 4y ago
  Well, don't vote for weeks. Vote for one day, on Saturday, count in place, allow anyone to watch from stamping to final count. Vote in person, _require_ photo id. Don't allow mail in voting except in very limited cases(overseas military maybe). There is complaint that people don't trust the elections, but there are common sense methods to improve said trust that don't involve following links to .edu websites. You know that a lot of people don't trust scientists. I am not saying there is fraud. (I do say however that the candidates of the two partes and the results would be quite different if above changes were introduced.)
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > Well, don't vote for weeks. They didn’t say anything about voting taking weeks, they were talking about counting. Counting the votes alone takes weeks. Cyber Ninjas took over 3 months to re-count votes from a single county in Arizona. What’s your proposal there? > There is complaint that people don't trust the elections, but there are common sense methods to improve said trust Far and away the biggest common sense thing that could be done to improve trust in elections is for the loser of the last election to stop saying he actually won but for the fraud can’t produce. > I am not saying there is fraud. Then why are all the measures you propose designed to stop fraudulent activity? If you don’t think there’s fraud then why the need for anti fraud provisions? If there’s no fraud how would the results be changed with anti fraud measures that don’t prevent any fraud (because it doesn’t exist in the first place)? And if there’s no fraud, what plans do you have to make sure your anti fraud proposals (that do nothing about fraud) don’t actually end up disenfranchising American citizens and deprive them of their rights? Because you had better go to the ends of the earth to prevent that if your changes are to just make you personally feel better about the process rather than fix any concrete and identifiable problem.
    - macilacilove 4y ago
      If you count at the polling locations, most countries manage it in 24 hours for the most part and public scools/libraries can reopen on monday. The purpose of the election is to 1 .: measure public support of candidates. 2.: convince the population that it has been fairly measured. It is quite clear that some of the last two elections failed at the convincing part. Give everyone mandatory 3 hours off on election day(which would be saturday so most people dont work anyway) and you are fine. Noone is "disenfranchised". This appears an excuse not a serious issue and just about every country managed to solve it. just to reiterate. Dont just focus on candidates lieing about fraud. They do it. Also focus on independent verifiability of the fairness of the process where the USA is severely lacking.

Ekaros 4y ago

Yeah, it's exactly kind of stuff that would be criticised in banana republics. And it is somehow okay in USA... Then again CIA did have huge hand in those republics, so it is reasonable to expect they might have used similar tactics at home... You never known, specially knowing how much the mainstream political machine hated the democracy.

turtledove 4y ago

Your concerns just aren't based in facts. There are roughly 1 to 2 credible allegations of in person voting fraud per year. [1] Meanwhile, over ten percent of the country doesn't have a photo id. To date, there has been zero credible evidence that voter ID laws prevent meaningful fraud, and zero credible evidence that the fraud you are describing occurs. Mail in ballots, likewise, have no credible evidence of being used to commit fraud. They are widely used in North America and Europe, with forty countries allowing vote by mail. [2] It's perhaps slightly more likely batches of ballots could go missing, but the mail in systems allow you to validate that your ballot has been received. And counting locations is perhaps the most absurd concern. Ballot counting takes time and space and dedicated staff. Should the voting shut down libraries, schools, and all the distributed places where people vote for potentially weeks? The ballots are locked and transported securely and there's tons of oversight on them. Nothing about those is considered "bad practice" or unusual. [1] https://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf https://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajna... [2] https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/PDYRWL https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi...

macilacilove 4y ago
Well, don't vote for weeks. Vote for one day, on Saturday, count in place, allow anyone to watch from stamping to final count. Vote in person, _require_ photo id. Don't allow mail in voting except in very limited cases(overseas military maybe). There is complaint that people don't trust the elections, but there are common sense methods to improve said trust that don't involve following links to .edu websites. You know that a lot of people don't trust scientists. I am not saying there is fraud. (I do say however that the candidates of the two partes and the results would be quite different if above changes were introduced.)
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > Well, don't vote for weeks. They didn’t say anything about voting taking weeks, they were talking about counting. Counting the votes alone takes weeks. Cyber Ninjas took over 3 months to re-count votes from a single county in Arizona. What’s your proposal there? > There is complaint that people don't trust the elections, but there are common sense methods to improve said trust Far and away the biggest common sense thing that could be done to improve trust in elections is for the loser of the last election to stop saying he actually won but for the fraud can’t produce. > I am not saying there is fraud. Then why are all the measures you propose designed to stop fraudulent activity? If you don’t think there’s fraud then why the need for anti fraud provisions? If there’s no fraud how would the results be changed with anti fraud measures that don’t prevent any fraud (because it doesn’t exist in the first place)? And if there’s no fraud, what plans do you have to make sure your anti fraud proposals (that do nothing about fraud) don’t actually end up disenfranchising American citizens and deprive them of their rights? Because you had better go to the ends of the earth to prevent that if your changes are to just make you personally feel better about the process rather than fix any concrete and identifiable problem.
  - macilacilove 4y ago
    If you count at the polling locations, most countries manage it in 24 hours for the most part and public scools/libraries can reopen on monday. The purpose of the election is to 1 .: measure public support of candidates. 2.: convince the population that it has been fairly measured. It is quite clear that some of the last two elections failed at the convincing part. Give everyone mandatory 3 hours off on election day(which would be saturday so most people dont work anyway) and you are fine. Noone is "disenfranchised". This appears an excuse not a serious issue and just about every country managed to solve it. just to reiterate. Dont just focus on candidates lieing about fraud. They do it. Also focus on independent verifiability of the fairness of the process where the USA is severely lacking.