5 ms·

I recall having read about elections in Africa and the troubles they faced. I can't find it now, but there was one particular website offering a very detailed b

I recall having read about elections in Africa and the troubles they faced. I can't find it now, but there was one particular website offering a very detailed but rigorous approach to determining the legitimacy of elections. I'll offer this article from the BBC as a stand in for the criteria (from 2016): https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190 Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs 1. Too many voters 2. A high turnout in specific areas 3. Large numbers of invalid votes 4. More votes than ballot papers issued 5. Results that don't match 6. Delay in announcing results I would encourage anyone from Venezuela to look into the history of elections in Africa. It is well documented and criteria well supported.

the_af 2y ago
> I would encourage anyone from Argentina Surely you meant Venezuela?
- notjoemama 2y ago
  Thank you! I had just been reading on another site about the US and it's "involvement" in a previous election in Argentina. Appreciate the correction. Oh my, I need to step away from the computer today. :/
sam36 2y ago
[flagged]
- knowaveragejoe 2y ago
  We're still clinging to this in 2024? Wow.
  - adamtaylor_13 2y ago
    Suppose there was legitimacy to this, which many believe, why wouldn’t we still talk about this in 2024? Are we not allowed to discuss history?
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      By 2024, most people should have figured out that there wasn't legitimacy to this.
      - adamtaylor_13 2y ago
        Why? What happened in 4 years that revealed to everyone beyond a doubt that it wasn’t legitimate? Where I live, no one questions that the election was rigged. Most believe it was. I haven’t done enough of my own research to know one way or the other.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Losing 60 out of 60 court cases that claimed election fraud should have been a data point. (Or 60 data points.)
        bloppe 2y ago
        The key is that every single challenge has been debunked, often in court and often by Republican judges. When every challenge has been debunked, it's time to accept that the vote was fair. The problem is that it's too easy to hallucinate new challenges. It's easy to claim some guy stuffed ballot boxes with no evidence, and if people want to believe that, they will unless given irrefutable proof to the contrary. But how do you prove irrefutably that Fidel Castro definitely did not stuff all the ballot boxes? Apparently, you can't.
    - bloppe 2y ago
      It's a bit like discussing whether God exists. Ya lots of people believe it and you can certainly talk about it. But this isn't really a forum for that kind of conversation.
  - aniviacat 2y ago
    If you consider the US election to clearly not have been rigged, then you should question the legitimacy of the signs listed in the top level comment. If the signs don't convince you that the US election was rigged, they shouldn't convince you of other elections being rigged, either. (I'm not from the US and don't care much about the US election. But I do think that the comment which sadly was flagged made a valid point about the signs not being useful indicators if they also apply to elections which are not rigged.)
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    People still complain about Brexit constantly in British newspaper comment sections.
motohagiography 2y ago
I have family who volunteered as international election monitors and these are the criteria they used as well. Ironic, really. I've been against electronic voting for over a decade for the same reasons. It's a ritual that if you don't do it correctly and with integrity, you get challenges to the results. Only question is how those challenges manifest.
GolberThorce 2y ago
This criteria is erroneous as the 2020 US election proved. The UN updated its Election Observation standards, and Venezuela's election mostly passes them.
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago
  [dead]
- sieabahlpark 2y ago
  [dead]
- bloppe 2y ago
  Which criterion specifically was violated during that election? A lot of people seem to think there was a delay in reporting results, but there's a differences between a reporting delay and a counting delay. Most districts report counts incrementally, so if it's taking a long time to open thousands of envelopes, and it's a close race, you get incremental updates, but no final verdict until enough are counted. Also, a crucial difference in the US is that each party sounds poll watchers to every single polling station to watch people count the results. Would be very interested to know if there are any serious claims that any of these other criteria were violated
  - GolberThorce 2y ago
    "so if it's taking a long time to open thousands of envelopes, and it's a close race, you get incremental updates, but no final verdict until enough are counted." Exactly. The criterion is delay in announcing results, but the election was legitimate so there's an issue with the criterion. "there's a differences between a reporting delay and a counting delay." not relevant to the standard
    - bloppe 2y ago
      I would say there's a very meaningful difference between "they're still counting the results, and releasing incremental counts, and all is being watched by poll watchers" vs. "we've finished counting, but we're not releasing the results for a while, and nobody is monitoring the process". The former sounds great. The latter sounds very suspicious. Maybe it's just an issue in how the standards are interpreted by some people.
kirmerzlikin 2y ago
Last year there was this HN post about people's efforts to validate results of the Nigerian elections. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35272227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35272227
goodcanadian 2y ago
One more tell tale sign is if a particular candidate's vote count correlates to voter turnout. That is a good sign of ballot box stuffing. [i.e. a candidate gets a higher percentage of the vote in districts with higher turnout]
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Couldn't it also just be one party being very "organised" in that area and getting their people out to vote?
soco 2y ago
7. Outliers. Like in the recent Romanian votes, in the same building there were 4 booths. On 3 of them a party got around 150 votes each, on the fourth zero. But did the authorities care? No, because it's not their party.

the_af 2y ago

> I would encourage anyone from Argentina Surely you meant Venezuela?

notjoemama 2y ago
Thank you! I had just been reading on another site about the US and it's "involvement" in a previous election in Argentina. Appreciate the correction. Oh my, I need to step away from the computer today. :/

sam36 2y ago

[flagged]

knowaveragejoe 2y ago
We're still clinging to this in 2024? Wow.
- adamtaylor_13 2y ago
  Suppose there was legitimacy to this, which many believe, why wouldn’t we still talk about this in 2024? Are we not allowed to discuss history?
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    By 2024, most people should have figured out that there wasn't legitimacy to this.
    - adamtaylor_13 2y ago
      Why? What happened in 4 years that revealed to everyone beyond a doubt that it wasn’t legitimate? Where I live, no one questions that the election was rigged. Most believe it was. I haven’t done enough of my own research to know one way or the other.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Losing 60 out of 60 court cases that claimed election fraud should have been a data point. (Or 60 data points.)
      - bloppe 2y ago
        The key is that every single challenge has been debunked, often in court and often by Republican judges. When every challenge has been debunked, it's time to accept that the vote was fair. The problem is that it's too easy to hallucinate new challenges. It's easy to claim some guy stuffed ballot boxes with no evidence, and if people want to believe that, they will unless given irrefutable proof to the contrary. But how do you prove irrefutably that Fidel Castro definitely did not stuff all the ballot boxes? Apparently, you can't.
  - bloppe 2y ago
    It's a bit like discussing whether God exists. Ya lots of people believe it and you can certainly talk about it. But this isn't really a forum for that kind of conversation.
- aniviacat 2y ago
  If you consider the US election to clearly not have been rigged, then you should question the legitimacy of the signs listed in the top level comment. If the signs don't convince you that the US election was rigged, they shouldn't convince you of other elections being rigged, either. (I'm not from the US and don't care much about the US election. But I do think that the comment which sadly was flagged made a valid point about the signs not being useful indicators if they also apply to elections which are not rigged.)
- HPsquared 2y ago
  People still complain about Brexit constantly in British newspaper comment sections.

motohagiography 2y ago

I have family who volunteered as international election monitors and these are the criteria they used as well. Ironic, really. I've been against electronic voting for over a decade for the same reasons. It's a ritual that if you don't do it correctly and with integrity, you get challenges to the results. Only question is how those challenges manifest.

GolberThorce 2y ago

This criteria is erroneous as the 2020 US election proved. The UN updated its Election Observation standards, and Venezuela's election mostly passes them.

stefantalpalaru 2y ago
[dead]
sieabahlpark 2y ago
[dead]
bloppe 2y ago
Which criterion specifically was violated during that election? A lot of people seem to think there was a delay in reporting results, but there's a differences between a reporting delay and a counting delay. Most districts report counts incrementally, so if it's taking a long time to open thousands of envelopes, and it's a close race, you get incremental updates, but no final verdict until enough are counted. Also, a crucial difference in the US is that each party sounds poll watchers to every single polling station to watch people count the results. Would be very interested to know if there are any serious claims that any of these other criteria were violated
- GolberThorce 2y ago
  "so if it's taking a long time to open thousands of envelopes, and it's a close race, you get incremental updates, but no final verdict until enough are counted." Exactly. The criterion is delay in announcing results, but the election was legitimate so there's an issue with the criterion. "there's a differences between a reporting delay and a counting delay." not relevant to the standard
  - bloppe 2y ago
    I would say there's a very meaningful difference between "they're still counting the results, and releasing incremental counts, and all is being watched by poll watchers" vs. "we've finished counting, but we're not releasing the results for a while, and nobody is monitoring the process". The former sounds great. The latter sounds very suspicious. Maybe it's just an issue in how the standards are interpreted by some people.

kirmerzlikin 2y ago

Last year there was this HN post about people's efforts to validate results of the Nigerian elections. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35272227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35272227

goodcanadian 2y ago

One more tell tale sign is if a particular candidate's vote count correlates to voter turnout. That is a good sign of ballot box stuffing. [i.e. a candidate gets a higher percentage of the vote in districts with higher turnout]

HPsquared 2y ago
Couldn't it also just be one party being very "organised" in that area and getting their people out to vote?

soco 2y ago

7. Outliers. Like in the recent Romanian votes, in the same building there were 4 booths. On 3 of them a party got around 150 votes each, on the fourth zero. But did the authorities care? No, because it's not their party.