5 ms·

You are right, you can't make people up, but this has happened throughout history by unscrupulous actors using either very old people or dead people and "castin

You are right, you can't make people up, but this has happened throughout history by unscrupulous actors using either very old people or dead people and "casting votes" in their name for certain candidates. I remember seeing a few examples of this firsthand on twitter in MI where a candidate was over 100 years old(and was dead) and voted!

wahern 4y ago
"Firsthand" and "Twitter" seem more than a little incongruent. But in any event, these claims were likely false. See https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2020/11/05/did-a-dead-118-year-old-man-vote-absentee-in-michigan-state-says-no/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2020/11/05/did-a-dead-11... and https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120
kevinmchugh 4y ago
You should expect some number of dead people to have voted in every election, totally aboveboard. There's always going to be someone who dies in a car accident on the way back from the polling place. Add early or by-mail voting and the attendant micromorts from a bigger gap between votes being cast and being counted, and you'll see more dead people having cast votes. Older people are much more likely to vote and much more likely to die. I'm aware that votes cast in the name of the long-deceased has been used for fraud in the past. But some of number of votes cast by dead people should be expected! Just way below the number needed to influence elections.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  Just way below the number needed to influence elections. People say this like there are no close elections, or are only talking about Presidential elections (and ignoring Florida 2020), but pretty much every year there are razor thin votes in statewide and congressional races. Good example is Iowa 2nd district in 2020 which was decided by 6 votes: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-election-challenge-close-iowa/story?id=76796759 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-elec... GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks was certified the winner in November by a mere six votes out of 400,000 cast, marking one of the closest House races in modern history. Given 400,000 votes, there is guaranteed more than 6 fraudulent, mistaken, or sabotages ballots. Maybe that affected the result, or just missed flipping the seat, who knows. But small time voting fraud can still be a big problem.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    It makes sense when you write it that way, but not in reality. There is a risk/reward to doing this. Part of your premise is that you can know when an election is going to come down to 6 votes. But in fact Meeks vs. Hart was newsworthy because results like that are incredibly rare. 99 times out of 100, if you try to juke the election, you're putting yourself at pretty grave legal risk and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > Part of your premise is that you can know when an election is going to come down to 6 votes. Not in reality, you appended that to your local model. It's true that there is only so much fraud you can get away with, and if the legitimate votes outnumber your ballot stuffing then your plan failed. Presumably fraudsters do not know what the final counts are going to be (unlike how many people in this thread "know" things they have no way of knowing), so this would not necessarily alter their plans on sites that are plausibly (in their estimation) swingable. > But in fact Meeks vs. Hart was newsworthy because results like that are incredibly rare. 99 times out of 100, if you try to juke the election, you're putting yourself at pretty grave legal risk and accomplishing absolutely nothing. This rests on the premise of omniscience, and while this is a fairly standard convention on the internet these days, there is no scientific evidence I've seen that substantiates the phenomenon.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Which part of the risk/reward equation I've presented do you disagree with? That the reward is higher than I think it is? Can you be specific as to how many votes you think you'd be able to swing with a scheme targeting e-day voting? Or is it that you think the risk is lower?
        mistermann 4y ago
        I'm disputing the claim that a premise of the argument is necessarily knowing the final vote count prior to launching the scheme. This knowledge is not actually necessary, although having it would certainly be beneficial.
tptacek 4y ago
I'm not sure how this attack even works. You can't make up dead people; you have to know who the dead people are. You can't cast votes for random dead people; they have to be dead people from the precinct you're EJ'ing. I buy that you could get 1-2 votes cast this way, but not how you could cast a material number of them. Meanwhile, getting caught just casting 1 such vote is a guaranteed prison sentence. You can't have a vast conspiracy across many dozens of precincts in order to rack up a material number of dead-person votes. It just doesn't make sense.
- soheil 4y ago
  Why are you so incredulous about this topic? The OP linked two sources showing that it did clearly happen: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2020/11/05/did-a-dead-118-year-old-man-vote-absentee-in-michigan-state-says-no/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2020/11/05/did-a-dead-11... https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    What clearly did happen? Both of those seem to be refuting the idea that votes were cast for dead people.
- theptip 4y ago
  Not an expert here but my read is that they were looking at the electoral register, and falsifying votes from real registered voters that just didn’t show up on the day. At least that’s what it sounds like in > Beren and her accomplices from the Board of Elections would then falsify the polling books and the List of Voters and Party Enrollment for the 39th Ward, 2nd Division, by recording the names, party affiliation, and order of appearances for voters who had not physically appeared at the polling station to cast his or her ballot in the election. Beren took pains to ensure that the number of ballots cast on the machines was a reflection of the number of voters signed into the polling books and the List of Voters.

wahern 4y ago

"Firsthand" and "Twitter" seem more than a little incongruent. But in any event, these claims were likely false. See https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2020/11/05/did-a-dead-118-year-old-man-vote-absentee-in-michigan-state-says-no/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2020/11/05/did-a-dead-11... and https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120

kevinmchugh 4y ago

You should expect some number of dead people to have voted in every election, totally aboveboard. There's always going to be someone who dies in a car accident on the way back from the polling place. Add early or by-mail voting and the attendant micromorts from a bigger gap between votes being cast and being counted, and you'll see more dead people having cast votes. Older people are much more likely to vote and much more likely to die. I'm aware that votes cast in the name of the long-deceased has been used for fraud in the past. But some of number of votes cast by dead people should be expected! Just way below the number needed to influence elections.

WillPostForFood 4y ago
Just way below the number needed to influence elections. People say this like there are no close elections, or are only talking about Presidential elections (and ignoring Florida 2020), but pretty much every year there are razor thin votes in statewide and congressional races. Good example is Iowa 2nd district in 2020 which was decided by 6 votes: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-election-challenge-close-iowa/story?id=76796759 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-elec... GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks was certified the winner in November by a mere six votes out of 400,000 cast, marking one of the closest House races in modern history. Given 400,000 votes, there is guaranteed more than 6 fraudulent, mistaken, or sabotages ballots. Maybe that affected the result, or just missed flipping the seat, who knows. But small time voting fraud can still be a big problem.
- tptacek 4y ago
  It makes sense when you write it that way, but not in reality. There is a risk/reward to doing this. Part of your premise is that you can know when an election is going to come down to 6 votes. But in fact Meeks vs. Hart was newsworthy because results like that are incredibly rare. 99 times out of 100, if you try to juke the election, you're putting yourself at pretty grave legal risk and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Part of your premise is that you can know when an election is going to come down to 6 votes. Not in reality, you appended that to your local model. It's true that there is only so much fraud you can get away with, and if the legitimate votes outnumber your ballot stuffing then your plan failed. Presumably fraudsters do not know what the final counts are going to be (unlike how many people in this thread "know" things they have no way of knowing), so this would not necessarily alter their plans on sites that are plausibly (in their estimation) swingable. > But in fact Meeks vs. Hart was newsworthy because results like that are incredibly rare. 99 times out of 100, if you try to juke the election, you're putting yourself at pretty grave legal risk and accomplishing absolutely nothing. This rests on the premise of omniscience, and while this is a fairly standard convention on the internet these days, there is no scientific evidence I've seen that substantiates the phenomenon.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Which part of the risk/reward equation I've presented do you disagree with? That the reward is higher than I think it is? Can you be specific as to how many votes you think you'd be able to swing with a scheme targeting e-day voting? Or is it that you think the risk is lower?
      - mistermann 4y ago
        I'm disputing the claim that a premise of the argument is necessarily knowing the final vote count prior to launching the scheme. This knowledge is not actually necessary, although having it would certainly be beneficial.

tptacek 4y ago

I'm not sure how this attack even works. You can't make up dead people; you have to know who the dead people are. You can't cast votes for random dead people; they have to be dead people from the precinct you're EJ'ing. I buy that you could get 1-2 votes cast this way, but not how you could cast a material number of them. Meanwhile, getting caught just casting 1 such vote is a guaranteed prison sentence. You can't have a vast conspiracy across many dozens of precincts in order to rack up a material number of dead-person votes. It just doesn't make sense.

soheil 4y ago
Why are you so incredulous about this topic? The OP linked two sources showing that it did clearly happen: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2020/11/05/did-a-dead-118-year-old-man-vote-absentee-in-michigan-state-says-no/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2020/11/05/did-a-dead-11... https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120
- Thorrez 4y ago
  What clearly did happen? Both of those seem to be refuting the idea that votes were cast for dead people.
theptip 4y ago
Not an expert here but my read is that they were looking at the electoral register, and falsifying votes from real registered voters that just didn’t show up on the day. At least that’s what it sounds like in > Beren and her accomplices from the Board of Elections would then falsify the polling books and the List of Voters and Party Enrollment for the 39th Ward, 2nd Division, by recording the names, party affiliation, and order of appearances for voters who had not physically appeared at the polling station to cast his or her ballot in the election. Beren took pains to ensure that the number of ballots cast on the machines was a reflection of the number of voters signed into the polling books and the List of Voters.