4 ms·

One person voting who is not allowed is as bad (in terms of fidelity of the vote to legal voters' intentions) as one person being kept from voting who is allowe

One person voting who is not allowed is as bad (in terms of fidelity of the vote to legal voters' intentions) as one person being kept from voting who is allowed. There is copious evidence that these purges, and the atmosphere of fear they create, cause far more harm than they prevent.

CaliforniaKarl 2y ago
From one of the articles about what happened in Virginia[0]: > “Governor Youngkin has been clear: every eligible Virginia citizen who wants to vote can do so by Same Day Registering through Election Day—that’s what our law says,” said Youngkin spokesman Christian Martinez. > A “final failsafe,” Martinez added, is the ability for residents to use same day registration to vote early or on Election Day. [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/02/politics/us-citizens-caught-in-virginias-voter-purge/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/02/politics/us-citizens-caught-i...
gotoeleven 2y ago
Maybe the best answer would be to just create a system where only people who are legally allowed to vote, and those that aren't allowed can't, and the provenance of any given ballot is very clear and secure.
- dymk 2y ago
  Just make a system that works, why hadn’t anyone else thought of that?
  - briandear 2y ago
    Nobody wants that. The more mayhem, the easier it is to cheat. Same reason the U.S. has such a complicated tax code.
- javawizard 2y ago
  Sounds great. How do you do that?
  - zo1 2y ago
    Are we talking about "Voter ID"? If so, isn't that being constantly derailed by the democrats? Just like all the issues with illegals and the border wall, which they don't seem to want to fix and make it impossible.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > Just like all the issues with illegals and the border wall, which they don't seem to want to fix and make it impossible. How do you reconcile that with: Senate Republicans block border security bill as they campaign on border chaos ( May 24, 2024 ) Nearly every GOP senator, along with six Democrats, voted to filibuster a bipartisan bill designed to crack down on migration and reduce border crossings. The vote caps a peculiar sequence of events after Senate Republican leaders insisted on a border security agreement last year and signed off on a compromise bill before they knifed it. Democrats, wary of their political vulnerability when it comes to migration, had acceded to a variety of GOP demands to raise the bar for asylum-seekers and tighten border controls. ~ multiple US news outlets. FWiW I'm not American, and it seems pretty clear that US Republicans vastly overhype the risks associated with the southern border, campaign hard on fear mongering, and tank any efforts by the Democrats to address those problems. Politically it's a common conservative tactic having been used in Australia, the UK, and elsewhere. What's curious is how people seem to fall for this and just accept what they're fed w/out looking into details.
      - Izkata 2y ago
        That's the bill that would have facilitated illegal immigration, not stopped it. It sounds decent at first, providing a mechanism to lock down the border, but the "average of 4000 encounters" are 4000 who apply for asylum with a hearing at some future date and are released into the country in the meantime.
      - abernard1 2y ago
        As you are not an American, let me educate on what that bill did. Much like the "Inflation Reduction Act" which was a clean energy bill that had nothing to do with inflation, the bill did the exact opposite of what it claimed. - It funded billions of dollars for the NGOs which were aiding illegal immigration - It normalized and allowed historically high illegal levels of immigration (10x normal) - It removed the standard process for adjudicating asylum by judges and made it part of the federal ICE - Required the US to fund lawyers for all people who were charged with illegal immigration (12 million in the last 4 years) - It gave $60 billion to Ukraine, 3x more than border security [1] - It gave $14 billion to Israel, $10B to Gaza, $2B for conflicts in the Red Sea, $4B to Taiwan During this period where 12 million (3.4% of US population) people have crossed the border for residency illegally, many of which have been flown in by the US federal government, the federal government has sued Texas repeatedly while they are trying to build a border wall. They have flown in percentages of whole populations to US swing states to try to build voters. And illegal immigrants count in the census which determines US electoral votes. The reason the GOP voted against it is because it was a wishlist for the Democratic party. There is nothing more complicated about it than that. If the GOP was such fear mongers, as you say, they'd vote for a bill that ameliorated their concerns. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billi...
- alistairSH 2y ago
  You mean the system we have already? The number of ineligible voters actively voting is inconsequential. Yes there are a few. Literally a few. It’s not the booger man the GOP would have is believe.
layman51 2y ago
I’m trying to think of this from the point of view of the “null hypothesis”. Typically, I have heard that you want to design your system so that Type II errors are more serious. This is where it gets confusing for me because your comment makes me think that people can’t agree on whether it’s a more serious mistake to allow an ineligible person to vote or whether we end up stopping (hopefully temporarily) an eligible voter from exercising their right.
briandear 2y ago
Atmosphere of fear? Hypobolic nonsense.

CaliforniaKarl 2y ago

From one of the articles about what happened in Virginia[0]: > “Governor Youngkin has been clear: every eligible Virginia citizen who wants to vote can do so by Same Day Registering through Election Day—that’s what our law says,” said Youngkin spokesman Christian Martinez. > A “final failsafe,” Martinez added, is the ability for residents to use same day registration to vote early or on Election Day. [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/02/politics/us-citizens-caught-in-virginias-voter-purge/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/02/politics/us-citizens-caught-i...

gotoeleven 2y ago

Maybe the best answer would be to just create a system where only people who are legally allowed to vote, and those that aren't allowed can't, and the provenance of any given ballot is very clear and secure.

dymk 2y ago
Just make a system that works, why hadn’t anyone else thought of that?
- briandear 2y ago
  Nobody wants that. The more mayhem, the easier it is to cheat. Same reason the U.S. has such a complicated tax code.
javawizard 2y ago
Sounds great. How do you do that?
- zo1 2y ago
  Are we talking about "Voter ID"? If so, isn't that being constantly derailed by the democrats? Just like all the issues with illegals and the border wall, which they don't seem to want to fix and make it impossible.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > Just like all the issues with illegals and the border wall, which they don't seem to want to fix and make it impossible. How do you reconcile that with: Senate Republicans block border security bill as they campaign on border chaos ( May 24, 2024 ) Nearly every GOP senator, along with six Democrats, voted to filibuster a bipartisan bill designed to crack down on migration and reduce border crossings. The vote caps a peculiar sequence of events after Senate Republican leaders insisted on a border security agreement last year and signed off on a compromise bill before they knifed it. Democrats, wary of their political vulnerability when it comes to migration, had acceded to a variety of GOP demands to raise the bar for asylum-seekers and tighten border controls. ~ multiple US news outlets. FWiW I'm not American, and it seems pretty clear that US Republicans vastly overhype the risks associated with the southern border, campaign hard on fear mongering, and tank any efforts by the Democrats to address those problems. Politically it's a common conservative tactic having been used in Australia, the UK, and elsewhere. What's curious is how people seem to fall for this and just accept what they're fed w/out looking into details.
    - Izkata 2y ago
      That's the bill that would have facilitated illegal immigration, not stopped it. It sounds decent at first, providing a mechanism to lock down the border, but the "average of 4000 encounters" are 4000 who apply for asylum with a hearing at some future date and are released into the country in the meantime.
    - abernard1 2y ago
      As you are not an American, let me educate on what that bill did. Much like the "Inflation Reduction Act" which was a clean energy bill that had nothing to do with inflation, the bill did the exact opposite of what it claimed. - It funded billions of dollars for the NGOs which were aiding illegal immigration - It normalized and allowed historically high illegal levels of immigration (10x normal) - It removed the standard process for adjudicating asylum by judges and made it part of the federal ICE - Required the US to fund lawyers for all people who were charged with illegal immigration (12 million in the last 4 years) - It gave $60 billion to Ukraine, 3x more than border security [1] - It gave $14 billion to Israel, $10B to Gaza, $2B for conflicts in the Red Sea, $4B to Taiwan During this period where 12 million (3.4% of US population) people have crossed the border for residency illegally, many of which have been flown in by the US federal government, the federal government has sued Texas repeatedly while they are trying to build a border wall. They have flown in percentages of whole populations to US swing states to try to build voters. And illegal immigrants count in the census which determines US electoral votes. The reason the GOP voted against it is because it was a wishlist for the Democratic party. There is nothing more complicated about it than that. If the GOP was such fear mongers, as you say, they'd vote for a bill that ameliorated their concerns. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billi...
alistairSH 2y ago
You mean the system we have already? The number of ineligible voters actively voting is inconsequential. Yes there are a few. Literally a few. It’s not the booger man the GOP would have is believe.

layman51 2y ago

I’m trying to think of this from the point of view of the “null hypothesis”. Typically, I have heard that you want to design your system so that Type II errors are more serious. This is where it gets confusing for me because your comment makes me think that people can’t agree on whether it’s a more serious mistake to allow an ineligible person to vote or whether we end up stopping (hopefully temporarily) an eligible voter from exercising their right.

briandear 2y ago

Atmosphere of fear? Hypobolic nonsense.