4 ms·

That's a big lie promoted by the republicans who don't like mail-in voting because democrats use it more [1]. There is still absolutely no evidence that any fra

That's a big lie promoted by the republicans who don't like mail-in voting because democrats use it more [1]. There is still absolutely no evidence that any fraud ever happened with that system. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-mail-in-voting/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-mail-in-vo...

arkh 2y ago
[flagged]
- valar_m 2y ago
  This is an extremely poor analogy, and it doesn't change the objective fact that mail-in voting is provably, measurably secure.
  - arkh 2y ago
    In France, vote by mail was used between 1946 and 1975. It was stopped due to too much fraud (even if less than 2% of the population used it). Just the fact requiring a valid ID is a contentious idea in the US is baffling when seen from here. I think more people in the US should check how elections are done in other countries (and not just 3rd world ones).
    - gadders 2y ago
      The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust looked into it in the UK as well in the early 2000's and from their Exec Summary: - There have been at least 42 convictions for electoral fraud in the UK in the period 2000–2007. - Greater use of postal voting has made UK elections far more vulnerable to fraud and resulted in several instances of large-scale fraud. - The benefits of postal and electronic voting have been exaggerated, particularly in relation to claims about increased turnout and social inclusion https://www.jrrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Purity-of-Elections-in-the-UK-Executive-Summary-2008.pdf https://www.jrrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Purity-of...
      - valar_m 2y ago
        Direct quote from the source you linked: >>It is unlikely that there has been a significant increase in electoral malpractice since the introduction of postal voting on demand in 2000; available figures suggest that 32 convictions were made from 1994–99. In both periods, the offences arose almost exclusively from local elections, and related to a tiny proportion of all elections contested. Again, the facts are clear, but that doesn't stop the baseless fearmongering. A direct quote from your source: >>There is no evidence to date suggesting that electoral malpractice has occurred as a result of pilots of various forms of electronic voting. However, serious questions about the security of electronic voting from organised fraud remain unanswered. It flatly concedes that no evidence of voter fraud from electronic voting exists, but then somehow concludes that serious questions remain unanswered. Simply absurd.
    - valar_m 2y ago
      None of this changes the fact that mail-in voting in the United States is objectively and measurably secure, and that instances of fraud are so miniscule that claims of it having an impact on election outcomes are provably false. Those are simply the facts.
- sixstringtheory 2y ago
  That kind of thing happens to people that do lock their doors all the time. So clearly, the usage of locks and lack thereof are not the issue.
- angoragoats 2y ago
  This is a laughably bad analogy, so bad that I suspect you’re being disingenuous.
gadders 2y ago
No evidence yet. I guess we might find out more in the next 4 years when it is investigated properly. If you want to put elections beyond doubt and make everyone accept the result you should have voter ID and paper ballots. The public holiday idea is probably not a bad one.
- valar_m 2y ago
  What do you mean? There is no evidence at all that Trump won by voter fraud.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I believe the claim was, with Trump in power there will now be a proper investigation of voter fraud in the 2020 election. I have doubts. First, as someone else pointed out, there already has been lots of investigation in Republican-run states, and they turned up very little. Second, Trump seems to have the ego-driven need to deny that he lost. He seems to have the tendency to hire people who tell him what he wants to hear, and to fire those that don't. That's not likely to drive an impartial investigation.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  If evidence did exist, would CNN rush to report it? Would they bury it until they were forced to report on it? If they did report on it, would they minimize it with spin?
- sixstringtheory 2y ago
  Investigate anything hard enough and it’ll tell you whatever you want to hear. Hard to imagine any result to that investigation that would be universally accepted. Why not apply a little bit of technology to the problem so we can verify our vote was counted, and that only legitimate votes were counted?
  - gadders 2y ago
    The obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/

arkh 2y ago

[flagged]

valar_m 2y ago
This is an extremely poor analogy, and it doesn't change the objective fact that mail-in voting is provably, measurably secure.
- arkh 2y ago
  In France, vote by mail was used between 1946 and 1975. It was stopped due to too much fraud (even if less than 2% of the population used it). Just the fact requiring a valid ID is a contentious idea in the US is baffling when seen from here. I think more people in the US should check how elections are done in other countries (and not just 3rd world ones).
  - gadders 2y ago
    The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust looked into it in the UK as well in the early 2000's and from their Exec Summary: - There have been at least 42 convictions for electoral fraud in the UK in the period 2000–2007. - Greater use of postal voting has made UK elections far more vulnerable to fraud and resulted in several instances of large-scale fraud. - The benefits of postal and electronic voting have been exaggerated, particularly in relation to claims about increased turnout and social inclusion https://www.jrrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Purity-of-Elections-in-the-UK-Executive-Summary-2008.pdf https://www.jrrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Purity-of...
    - valar_m 2y ago
      Direct quote from the source you linked: >>It is unlikely that there has been a significant increase in electoral malpractice since the introduction of postal voting on demand in 2000; available figures suggest that 32 convictions were made from 1994–99. In both periods, the offences arose almost exclusively from local elections, and related to a tiny proportion of all elections contested. Again, the facts are clear, but that doesn't stop the baseless fearmongering. A direct quote from your source: >>There is no evidence to date suggesting that electoral malpractice has occurred as a result of pilots of various forms of electronic voting. However, serious questions about the security of electronic voting from organised fraud remain unanswered. It flatly concedes that no evidence of voter fraud from electronic voting exists, but then somehow concludes that serious questions remain unanswered. Simply absurd.
  - valar_m 2y ago
    None of this changes the fact that mail-in voting in the United States is objectively and measurably secure, and that instances of fraud are so miniscule that claims of it having an impact on election outcomes are provably false. Those are simply the facts.
sixstringtheory 2y ago
That kind of thing happens to people that do lock their doors all the time. So clearly, the usage of locks and lack thereof are not the issue.
angoragoats 2y ago
This is a laughably bad analogy, so bad that I suspect you’re being disingenuous.

gadders 2y ago

No evidence yet. I guess we might find out more in the next 4 years when it is investigated properly. If you want to put elections beyond doubt and make everyone accept the result you should have voter ID and paper ballots. The public holiday idea is probably not a bad one.

valar_m 2y ago
What do you mean? There is no evidence at all that Trump won by voter fraud.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I believe the claim was, with Trump in power there will now be a proper investigation of voter fraud in the 2020 election. I have doubts. First, as someone else pointed out, there already has been lots of investigation in Republican-run states, and they turned up very little. Second, Trump seems to have the ego-driven need to deny that he lost. He seems to have the tendency to hire people who tell him what he wants to hear, and to fire those that don't. That's not likely to drive an impartial investigation.
palmfacehn 2y ago
If evidence did exist, would CNN rush to report it? Would they bury it until they were forced to report on it? If they did report on it, would they minimize it with spin?
sixstringtheory 2y ago
Investigate anything hard enough and it’ll tell you whatever you want to hear. Hard to imagine any result to that investigation that would be universally accepted. Why not apply a little bit of technology to the problem so we can verify our vote was counted, and that only legitimate votes were counted?
- gadders 2y ago
  The obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/