4 ms·

>widespread systemic I am so frustrated that the discussion space is so often forced around this topic. The claim is not that there was “widespread systemic”

>widespread systemic I am so frustrated that the discussion space is so often forced around this topic. The claim is not that there was “widespread systemic” wrongdoing, the claim is that it would only take a very tiny amount of weight to push an election in direction that benefits the one doing the pushing.

ajross 4y ago
That's sort of a specious point, though. In two party systems, elections are always close more or less by definition. If you want to show wrongdoing, you need to show actual wrongdoing and not just that it's possible. I'd argue that the fact that no single group/party/cabal/whatever has managed to disproportionately cheat stands are very good evidence that this is not, in fact, happening.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  Okay fine, but that is a different argument. This obsession with the phrase “widespread systemic” is a distraction that prevents people from actually talking to one another.
  - ajross 4y ago
    I submit that a still bigger problem preventing people from actually talking to one another about this is the lack of evidence of an actual stolen election.
    - thepasswordis 4y ago
      https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/
      - ajross 4y ago
        And of course I got trolled into engaging. But fine: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-website-funded-by-right-wing-groups-gains-followers-with-debunked-voting-fraud-claims.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-website-fund... https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guide-statistical-claims-about-2020-election https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guid... All that stuff is just junk, you realize. And you can tell because none of it makes sense! It's got a bunch of numbers and a long list of links to click on that makes you feel like there must be evience (which is the whole point), but when you actually drill down... there's nothing there. It's all argumentation of the form "Why would X be true if we know Y?", leading you to suspect that the "real" reason must be "Z" without saying it. That's not argument, it's a gish gallop. And it's fooled you. I mean, just to make a point using the same logic[1]: if elections were this easy to cheat, then why aren't the cheaters winning all the time? Why do both sides share power at all? How does it not devolve into a single party illuminati running everything? I submit that it doesn't because elections aren't being stolen. [1] But in favor of bland conservatism about "stuff works normally" and not a particular criminal conspiracy.
        thepasswordis 4y ago
        Surely you can see the humor in linking to the nytimes here, given the topic of this thread.
- daveevad 4y ago
  > the fact that no single group/party/cabal/whatever has managed to disproportionately cheat there's at least one feature about elections in the US that makes detecting cheating pretty difficult. there's no good way for me to verify that my vote was recorded a specific way subsequent to casting it.
  - ajross 4y ago
    Which jurisdictions implement that feature? Prior to advent of modern cryptography it wasn't even possible (well, without giving up the secret ballot, which is how you get vote buying and coercion).
    - daveevad 4y ago
      I am not aware of any precisely because of the concerns you raised with buying and coercion. I am not aware how modern cryptography allows this either, while preserving secret ballot. Please let me know if there are advancements that render my opinion incorrect. I just think it is a really interesting information-security problem that seems intractable. My personal opinion is paper ballots and in-person voting is probably the most effective pair of policies at preventing wide-spread voting fraud.
      - ajross 4y ago
        Yeah, no one actually does this. The point about cryptography was me being glib, but the math does exist. The relevant subfield is "homomorphic encryption" and I remember seeing a paper over the last few years (probably linked here on HN if I had to guess) claiming to have an election-relevant algorithm that was supposed to be workable in practice. I can't find it right now though.

ajross 4y ago

That's sort of a specious point, though. In two party systems, elections are always close more or less by definition. If you want to show wrongdoing, you need to show actual wrongdoing and not just that it's possible. I'd argue that the fact that no single group/party/cabal/whatever has managed to disproportionately cheat stands are very good evidence that this is not, in fact, happening.

thepasswordis 4y ago
Okay fine, but that is a different argument. This obsession with the phrase “widespread systemic” is a distraction that prevents people from actually talking to one another.
- ajross 4y ago
  I submit that a still bigger problem preventing people from actually talking to one another about this is the lack of evidence of an actual stolen election.
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/
    - ajross 4y ago
      And of course I got trolled into engaging. But fine: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-website-funded-by-right-wing-groups-gains-followers-with-debunked-voting-fraud-claims.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-website-fund... https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guide-statistical-claims-about-2020-election https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guid... All that stuff is just junk, you realize. And you can tell because none of it makes sense! It's got a bunch of numbers and a long list of links to click on that makes you feel like there must be evience (which is the whole point), but when you actually drill down... there's nothing there. It's all argumentation of the form "Why would X be true if we know Y?", leading you to suspect that the "real" reason must be "Z" without saying it. That's not argument, it's a gish gallop. And it's fooled you. I mean, just to make a point using the same logic[1]: if elections were this easy to cheat, then why aren't the cheaters winning all the time? Why do both sides share power at all? How does it not devolve into a single party illuminati running everything? I submit that it doesn't because elections aren't being stolen. [1] But in favor of bland conservatism about "stuff works normally" and not a particular criminal conspiracy.
      - thepasswordis 4y ago
        Surely you can see the humor in linking to the nytimes here, given the topic of this thread.
daveevad 4y ago
> the fact that no single group/party/cabal/whatever has managed to disproportionately cheat there's at least one feature about elections in the US that makes detecting cheating pretty difficult. there's no good way for me to verify that my vote was recorded a specific way subsequent to casting it.
- ajross 4y ago
  Which jurisdictions implement that feature? Prior to advent of modern cryptography it wasn't even possible (well, without giving up the secret ballot, which is how you get vote buying and coercion).
  - daveevad 4y ago
    I am not aware of any precisely because of the concerns you raised with buying and coercion. I am not aware how modern cryptography allows this either, while preserving secret ballot. Please let me know if there are advancements that render my opinion incorrect. I just think it is a really interesting information-security problem that seems intractable. My personal opinion is paper ballots and in-person voting is probably the most effective pair of policies at preventing wide-spread voting fraud.
    - ajross 4y ago
      Yeah, no one actually does this. The point about cryptography was me being glib, but the math does exist. The relevant subfield is "homomorphic encryption" and I remember seeing a paper over the last few years (probably linked here on HN if I had to guess) claiming to have an election-relevant algorithm that was supposed to be workable in practice. I can't find it right now though.