Voting mechanisms

[TheDrake]

If we trust that online banking is relatively safe, why are we so concerned about online voting? If we trust mailing checks to each other, why are we so concerned about mail in ballots? Shouldn't there be an audit mechanism possible, just as there is counting paper ballots? And don't give me that crap about needing to ID someone. Most people don't even look much like the person in the picture from three and a half years ago. What average poll worker is going to look at the ID and say "that doesn't look like you". And if you think that there is a huge cabal working to stuff ballot boxes in an election that is spending a half billion dollars, but they can't come up with a fake ID for people, you are delusional.

[Seriati]

If we trust that online banking is relatively safe, why are we so concerned about online voting? 
 If we trust mailing checks to each other, why are we so concerned about mail in ballots?

Do you know how many bank accounts have been hacked?  It's not a small number.  When checks were regularly used (and accepted) they were bounced all over the place.  Used to be many stores had entire walls of pictures of people that had bounced checks.  Anyone with an found check book could walk out of a store with merchandise.

The truth is that mail-in ballots will contribute heavily to fraud.  Every politician knows that, their opposition or support has NOTHING to do with any principal other than whether they think that fraud will help or hurt them.

Shouldn't there be an audit mechanism possible, just as there is counting paper ballots?   And don't give me that crap about needing to ID someone.

What would that be?  Do you have a "neutral" person that is entitled to call you up, open your ballot and confirm that everyone you voted for is correctly indicated before its counted?  Like that won't be abused.

You already oppose voter ID, what do you audit against if you don't have voter ID?  In fact, the argument you are making is beyond absurd, to believe that you can simultaneously oppose IDs AND believe you're verifying the voter.  If you can do the latter, you'd already be able to do the former.

Most people don't even look much like the person in the picture from three and a half years ago. What average poll worker is going to look at the ID and say "that doesn't look like you". And if you think that there is a huge cabal working to stuff ballot boxes in an election that is spending a half billion dollars, but they can't come up with a fake ID for people, you are delusional.

Presenting a fake ID is a much bigger risk - and people get caught all the time - than falsifying a stack of mailed and not requested votes.

Go on record.  What is your acceptable level of fraudulent votes that will be counted.  There is zero chance that it won't happen under this plan, so that means you accept some "reasonable" level of it, what is that level?

[TheDeamon]

If we trust that online banking is relatively safe, why are we so concerned about online voting? If we trust mailing checks to each other, why are we so concerned about mail in ballots? Shouldn't there be an audit mechanism possible, just as there is counting paper ballots? And don't give me that crap about needing to ID someone. Most people don't even look much like the person in the picture from three and a half years ago. What average poll worker is going to look at the ID and say "that doesn't look like you". And if you think that there is a huge cabal working to stuff ballot boxes in an election that is spending a half billion dollars, but they can't come up with a fake ID for people, you are delusional.

In an online banking situation, (most normal) people don't object to a detailed virtual paper trail being generated which can forensically traced. In fact, most people expect that to be the case.

In a voting situation, you run into that whole matter of a secret ballot. The idea of a secret ballot that generates a detailed and forensically traceable trail of evidence back to the voter is a very extreme problem to overcome at the onset.

Then we get into problems of falsification of the data if you do somehow overcome the first problem re:secret ballot. A physical ballot can be audited to a degree, it either exists and can be examined, or it doesn't. A virtual ballot is incapable of being examined in any meaningful way, while it does clearly exist or not, you are going to be unable to decipher those bits to see if any tampering may have taken place.

There is more that can be gone into, but while there are valid physical security concerns that exist with paper ballots, mailed in or otherwise. That's still less of a risk factor at the macro level than completely virtual voting presents.

[TheDrake]

TheDaemon: damn, I forgot about the need for secrecy in voting. My entire argument is now destroyed, and I don't mean that facetiously.

[TheDeamon]

TheDaemon: damn, I forgot about the need for secrecy in voting. My entire argument is now destroyed, and I don't mean that facetiously.

Pretty much, the only way Virtual Voting works is if people decide they don't have a need to cast a secret ballot any longer, at which point a clear audit trail can exist. Although that isn't to rule out people lying when called out on voting for a particular candidate after the fact.

[TheDrake]

What would that be?  Do you have a "neutral" person that is entitled to call you up, open your ballot and confirm that everyone you voted for is correctly indicated before its counted?  Like that won't be abused.

Well, the way it is done now is to have two partisan people look at all the ballots. Remember the hanging chads?

As to the amount of fraud I'm willing to accept philosophically, zero. As to the reality, +/- 1% maybe? At that point it was a tossup anyway, subject to influences ranging from the weather to whose team is in the world series.

[yossarian22c]

Also online banks have fraud loss baked into their business model. They try to minimize it, but I still think its billions per year lost to fraudulent transactions. Its just the convenience to customers drives enough business that they can afford to lose a little money on the edges. There isn't much fraud loss acceptability in a close election.

[TheDrake]

In this case, the voters are the customers. If voting is hard enough, it stops being a fair election even if there is no fraud. If you get X% more engagement and participation, how much Y% are you willing to accept in fraud? As said earlier, we could give up the secret ballot (whether by mail or in person) and reduce fraud, but we'd lose engagement and participation.

[DonaldD]

Not to mention - for it to be effective, vote fraud has to be sufficient to sway an election, and the cost/risk of getting caught has to be outweighed by the benefits associated with the activity.

But the benefits are spread out over each state, as it is represented by the Electoral College, and nobody knows, even a few months ahead of an election, which state will be the tipping point for the presidency.

So an effective presidential election vote fraud program would need to span multiple states, each with their own particular processes, be of such a volume as to substantively change the percentages of votes cast, and be highly likely to not be discoverable.

This is a basic fence-post security issue - you do not alter the presidential election by fraudulently affecting some small subset of votes in a single jurisdiction.  The cost is far too high for any reasonably likely benefit.  And you do not affect the presidential election by fraudulently affecting a small subset of votes in multiple jurisdictions.  Again, the although the benefit increases slightly, but probably not sufficiently to change the election, the risk of getting caught increases exponentially.

Similarly, you don't alter a presidential election be fraudulently affecting large numbers of votes in a single jurisdiction - the likelihood of that jurisdiction being the tipping point is small, and the chance of getting caught is huge.

The only reasonable means of actually altering the outcome of a presidential election is to change large numbers of votes in several if not many jurisdictions, and keeping such a broad conspiracy secret, and keeping the mechanisms hidden, is well nigh impossible.

[TheDrake]

Voter fraud isn't just about the presidency also, its about every person running for Senate, Congress, Governor, Mayor, and Sheriff.

[DonaldD]

Yup, and the benefits of electing a particular Sherriff are far outweighed by the cost of a) getting caught in a vote fraud conspiracy and b) actually organizing an effective one, since the ballots are still controlled (correct me if I get this wrong) by a statewide organization.

Trying to game such a system from outside of the state level organization is almost impossible.

[TheDrake]

Well, if you look at techniques used by Daley's machine, it was pretty easy for a crooked precinct captain to just fill out ballots for anyone who didn't show up and send them on to the state for certification. They couldn't put Republican volunteers in every poll location, so the unsupervised guys just piled up the votes. Not sure there's anything that would prevent someone from doing the same today.

[DonaldD]

We are still talking about ballots mailed to people's homes, right? Or via an online method requiring some form of government/citizen controls?

[TheDeamon]

Yup, and the benefits of electing a particular Sherriff are far outweighed by the cost of a) getting caught in a vote fraud conspiracy and b) actually organizing an effective one, since the ballots are still controlled (correct me if I get this wrong) by a statewide organization.

Trying to game such a system from outside of the state level organization is almost impossible.

Only in the current system, you make the voting online, and anyone with an internet connection can go ham on it.

[DonaldD]

Yup, and the benefits of electing a particular Sherriff are far outweighed by the cost of a) getting caught in a vote fraud conspiracy and b) actually organizing an effective one, since the ballots are still controlled (correct me if I get this wrong) by a statewide organization.

Trying to game such a system from outside of the state level organization is almost impossible.

Only in the current system, you make the voting online, and anyone with an internet connection can go ham on it.

There is always a risk with untried software, but - no, not really.

Most hacks are wetware hacks, and that works fine if your goal is to make money.  But spending even 15 minutes to acquire 1 vote is not a good investment. 

Whereas hacking the system itself to override votes is completely controllable - unlike with money, which once stolen, is stolen, or personal information (same) the goal here is to write /overwrite data on a destination store, data that can be regularly archived, and can have levels of protections embedded, and which can be check summed in any number of different ways.

No system is perfect, but let's not pretend it would be easy, or even possible to do without the attack being identified and corrected.

[TheDrake]

You could certainly require multifactor authentication. The problem goes back to the secrecy issue. Now your ISP knows if you voted and when you voted, or RSA does, or anyone who hacks them. Or issues a national security letter requiring them to hand over the data. Right now, there's an air gap between the authentication by poll workers, and filling out the ballot. Absentee ballots do not have names on them, so they are also free from associating names with votes.

Once you've created a phishing email, it doesn't really cost you an incremental 15 minutes for each voter.

As for hacks being identified, you're still going to have half the country that won't admit it happened.

[DonaldD]

Phishing is good for acquiring information - but that information is rarely of such a nature as automation could take advantage of it for particular purposes.  Purposes which, in this case, would lead to duplication in many votes, at worst - not all, but most.

How would that work?
option 1

• Phishing activity results in a bad actor being able to use an eligible voter's credentials to vote - and they do. 
• Eligible voter attempts to vote - and their credentials are rejected.
• Eligible voter complains that credentials did not work. Eligible voter has to identify themselves personally - annoying, I give you, and maybe not everyone will go through those hoops.
• Initial vote is deleted; Eligible voter logs their vote successfully.
• Lather, rinse, repeat.  Once there is a pattern, of course, the hack will become obvious.

Or the other way around, option 2

• Phishing activity results in a bad actor acquiring an eligible voter's credentials to vote. 
• Eligible voter attempts to vote - and their credentials work.  Their vote is logged.
• Bad actor attempts to use credentials to vote.  Fails
• Fraud attempt is logged, but the eligible voter's choice still stands.

Such an attack would be highly visible, and evident even prior to the election cutoff date.  Sure, a bad actor if successful could use such attacks to gum up the system, but to affect the electoral outcome?  That is far more difficult to do.

Phishing attacks work because each instance of personal information successfully stolen is potentially very valuable.  Each separate vote, however, is of almost no value to somebody attempting to affect an election.  Attacking the end points like this, for electoral purposes, can be made far too expensive for the value expected.

[TheDeamon]

Phishing is good for acquiring information - but that information is rarely of such a nature as automation could take advantage of it for particular purposes.  Purposes which, in this case, would lead to duplication in many votes, at worst - not all, but most.

How would that work?
option 1

• Phishing activity results in a bad actor being able to use an eligible voter's credentials to vote - and they do. 
• Eligible voter attempts to vote - and their credentials are rejected.
• Eligible voter complains that credentials did not work. Eligible voter has to identify themselves personally - annoying, I give you, and maybe not everyone will go through those hoops.
• Initial vote is deleted; Eligible voter logs their vote successfully.
• Lather, rinse, repeat.  Once there is a pattern, of course, the hack will become obvious.

"Initial vote is deleted; Eligible voter logs their vote successfully." Runs back into the problem of the vote being anonymous. If the vote is "being held" somewhere, for any length of time, the vote can be traced back to the credential used to cast the vote if the right person gets the relevant access and decides to find out. Which means anonymous voting isn't actually happening.

Or the other way around, option 2

• Phishing activity results in a bad actor acquiring an eligible voter's credentials to vote. 
• Eligible voter attempts to vote - and their credentials work.  Their vote is logged.
• Bad actor attempts to use credentials to vote.  Fails
• Fraud attempt is logged, but the eligible voter's choice still stands.

Such an attack would be highly visible, and evident even prior to the election cutoff date.  Sure, a bad actor if successful could use such attacks to gum up the system, but to affect the electoral outcome?  That is far more difficult to do.

Except you also have to deal with "operatoritis" and the matter that many voters are going to fumble through the process and likely trigger the system as attempted fraudulent voting as well.

[DonaldD]

"Initial vote is deleted; Eligible voter logs their vote successfully." Runs back into the problem of the vote being anonymous. If the vote is "being held" somewhere, for any length of time, the vote can be traced back to the credential used to cast the vote if the right person gets the relevant access and decides to find out. Which means anonymous voting isn't actually happening.

Absolute privacy is currently a fiction with paper ballots, never mind electronic.  There are controls that can be put in place, including the separation of data from meta-data, data distribution, encryption, tokenization and the use of unique keys that make electronic storage more anonymous than physical voting (it really isn't that difficult for someone with a modicum of training to palm and replace a paper ballot.)

And as far as absolute privacy, not just in practice but in the exceptional case of a hack on the voting infrastructure - what is the purpose of keeping the vote secret?  The secret ballot exists primarily so there can be confidence in the process of the vote collection - to safeguard choice - so that the outcome of an election is not the result of coercion.

The actual data point being guarded in this case is of little consequence on a personal basis - the government has access to, and electronically stores, far more sensitive information about each and every resident of the country, information if released that would be far more damaging.  Sure, if voters knew there was a strong likelihood that their voting choices would be easily accessible to just plain people - that would be bad.  But if it takes a security breach and a successful hack to access broad swathes of data that might or might not include a particular voter's selections during a single election cycle...? And all the hack gets out of it are how people voted (not financial records, bank account numbers, SSNs, passport info, etc...)  And even then, the only real risk is that the hackers are able, ahead of time, to convince people that the hack will take place, and to then use that knowledge to leverage voting choices... and of course, to keep that whole process itself secret, while making it broad enough to have actual electoral effects,  It seems like a truly trivial concern. 

Is this really the hill you want to die on? 

[Fenring]

And as far as absolute privacy, not just in practice but in the exceptional case of a hack on the voting infrastructure - what is the purpose of keeping the vote secret?  The secret ballot exists primarily so there can be confidence in the process of the vote collection - to safeguard choice - so that the outcome of an election is not the result of coercion.

Gotta agree, if this is the only hitch in a 'futuristic' voting system that would in every other way be superior, it doesn't sound like much of an objection to me.

However, and this is only perhaps a related point, we are entering a future where people's individual choices are being used against them in the social sphere, so there is a danger of coercion taking place from other citizens. For instance suppose a hack occurred when voting records were released; it might not adversely affect the legitimacy of the election, but that information could be used against the individuals to, say, blackmail them, in the event that they'd have difficulties if it got out (for instance if a person voted for Trump among the wrong company).   

[DonaldD]

I thought this would be obvious, but you really don't need to see someone's ballot to know their political position.

And seriously, the idea that someone could be blackmailed because of a single vote, after the fact, is the stuff of conspiracy theories.  Not to mention that by their very nature, hacked files could not be convincingly used to prove anything. It's not like a file will contain a photograph of a ballot with someone's signature on it, all their choices and maybe a picture or two.  There will be one dataset, necessarily decrypted, showing cross referenced binary data, another dataset, decrypted, showing binary data, a third dataset, decrypted, showing some kind of reference to the other datasets, and somebody is going to use those binary files to say "see, John Smith voted for Trump in 2020!"

If I'm John Smith, I tell them to go pound sand, and feel confident about doing so.  Posting that type of "evidence" on social media will be completely unconvincing to anybody not involved in designing the actual system (with the exception of those who want to believe, regardless)

You really want to make some money?  Just pick a bunch of people, anonymously contact them, telling them you know how they voted for Trump, and wait for the fools to bite. It's so much easier, and so much less dangerous.

[DonaldD]

And seriously - people are going to hack into government servers on the off chance they'll be able to out people on social media?  Really? That's verging on paranoia.

[Fenring]

And seriously - people are going to hack into government servers on the off chance they'll be able to out people on social media?  Really? That's verging on paranoia.

I think it's more likely that the hack happens and the sale of the data is a secondary result, but I was mostly making a devil's advocate argument in favor of secrecy after already saying I didn't thinks secrecy should be the end-all of deciding how voting happens. My point was that if coercion was going to happen at this point in history it would be lateral, not top-down.

[TheDrake]

Here's a good article about why the secret ballot was important and why it might not be now.

link

I agree with all the points about other options to expose someone's political views. You could worry more about someone hacking facebook, for instance. It wouldn't be a mystery what your views are.

[NobleHunter]

The article has a very optimistic view about how hard it would be to fire someone for voting "the wrong way." Or the risk to people voting against the prevailing opinion in their area, especially since if there is a risk they may not be putting their political views out on social media.

It would be nice if making people have to support their votes in public meant a lot of open discussion but I'm pretty sure it'll mean intimidation and coercion.

[DonaldD]

The Florida legislature had put into place a law restricting the rights of former felons to vote, based on the existence of outstanding debts associated to their incarceration. This was clearly in conflict with the ballot initiative amendment approved by Floridians that guaranteed former felons who had served their sentences the right to vote.

Now it seems like there is a grass roots initiative to pay off those debts in order to allow the disenfranchised former convicts their say in the democratic process.

Although it shouldn't take paying a poll tax in order for the will of the majority of Floridians to be respected by their government, it seems like this particular attempt at voter suppression won't be quite as effective as some people had hoped.

[Wayward Son]

That may not work, since no one keeps track of what these felons owe.

Which means they provided a way for them to vote which could not be used.  Which shows who is really running Florida.  (Hint: it's not the voters.) 

[yossarian22c]

This is an ugly court case as well.

Two felons challenged the law in court and initially won in both the federal district court and the court of appeals. In a second phase of the litigation, Judge Robert Hinkle held an eight-day trial and found that the "overwhelming majority" of felons would be too poor to pay the amounts owed, if they could find out what they owed. Hinkle said that the pay-to-play law had created "an administrative nightmare" and that it also amounted to an unconstitutional tax on voting.

His decision converted what had been a preliminary injunction barring the law from going into effect, into a permanent injunction.

But earlier this month, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, without explanation and two months after the court of appeals decision, stopped Hinkle's order from going into effect. At the same time, the appeals court, which now includes six Trump appointees, set a hearing in the case for Aug. 18, the day of the state primary.
...
The GOP-controlled Legislature, however, sought to limit the effects of the amendment by passing a law that conditioned the right to vote on payment of all fees, fines and restitution that were part of the sentence in each felon's case. The state, however, had no central listing of this information, and the Legislature created no system to help felons ascertain how much, if anything, they owed. Even the state ultimately agreed that it would take six years to create such a system.
...
The Supreme Court's failure to reinstate the status quo, said Sotomayor, "continues a trend of condoning disenfranchisement."

"Ironically," she wrote, the court majority has "wielded Purcell as a reason to forbid courts to make voting safer during a pandemic, overriding two federal courts because any safety related changes supposedly came too close to election day." And now, she concluded, "faced with an appellate court stay that disrupts a legal status quo and risks immense disenfranchisement — a situation that Purcell sought to avoid — the court balks."

[wmLambert]

One of the most important aspects is how the most corrupt machine politics are in Democrat strongholds. I've studied the record of vote-scamming for decades. What is always factual and proven is that almost all the illegal voting comes from the Left. Court case after court case has shown illegal Democrats cheating and sabotaging. The MSM also comes back with projected accusations that both sides do it, which has never been true. There is always 1 out of 100 vote scams done by a non-Leftist, and the media is sure to latch onto those, but they are few and far between - except you'd never know it by how it is reported.

According to Bob Haueter, chief of staff to the California Assembly Republican Caucus, and an expert on manual recounts, a Democrat lawyer intimately involved in "stealing" elections from Republicans through hand recounts admitted to the process and even shared the techniques involved.

Paid Democrat operatives charged with slashing tires of 25 Republican get-outthe-
vote vans in Milwaukee on the morning of Election Day.

Misleading telephone calls made by Democrat operatives targeting Republican
voters in Ohio with the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place
information.

Intimidating and deceiving mailings and telephone calls paid for by the DNC
threatening Republican volunteers in Florida with legal action.

Union-coordinated intimidation and violence campaign targeting Republican
campaign offices and volunteers resulting in a broken arm for a GOP volunteer in
Florida.

The record indicates that in 2004, voter registration fraud was mainly the work of so-called
“nonpartisan” groups such as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN) and NAACP National Voter Fund. Examples:

Joint task force in Wisconsin found “clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2
election in Milwaukee,” including more than 200 felon voters, more than 100
double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having
voted in the city.

NAACP National Voter Fund worker in Ohio paid crack cocaine in exchange for
a large number of fraudulent voter registration cards in names of Dick Tracy,
Mary Poppins and other fictional characters.

Former ACORN worker said there was “a lot of fraud committed” by group in
Florida, as ACORN workers submitted thousands of fraudulent registrations in a
dozen states across the country, resulting in a statewide investigation of the group
in Florida and multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN/Project Vote
workers for voter registration fraud in several states.

In the 1980's, in New Jersey, the Republican Party was incensed with all the Democrat voter scams, so launched pro-active state agents to post signs and have a presence to threaten action in case of voter scams. Democrats alleged that the Republican task force hired off-duty police officers to monitor polls and posted signs in minority areas warning against vote fraud. The RNC denied these allegations and agreed to a “Consent Decree.” Under the terms of the Consent Decree the RNC agreed to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial composition of such districts is a
factor. This decree provided Democrats with a platform from which to charge Republicans with voter
intimidation in elections since 1982. Pure projection.

An internal Kerry-Edwards/DNC manual obtained by the press in October 2004 urged Democrat operatives to launch “pre-emptive strikes” alleging Republican voter intimidation against minority voters, “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch ‘pre-emptive strike.’” IOW, We can do it, but accuse them even if they don't.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean charged that Republicans caused long lines at polling places on Election Day to suppress the minority vote. Others made the same charge. However; Democrat election officials in Franklin County and the U.S. Department of
Justice have refuted this allegation.

There is case after case of Democrats accusing GOP of trying to manipulate the vote - usually just before or during ballot season, which is always repudiated afterward and found to have been baseless. In my years of research, it is almost always the Left vote-xcamming - but projecting it onto the GOP.

The idea that generates this criminal action by Democrats is their mantra that "the ends justify the means." I've seen local cases where children of Democrat candidates have been so indoctrinated to their mantra, that they think slashing tires and throwing bricks through windows of GOP get out the vote centers is totally acceptable. You see that in current rioting and looting.

Since many IT experts and hackers are Left-wing AntiFa types, the odds that they will work overtime to subvert any system is a no-brainer. Only a fool would say they wouldn't do all they could to scam the vote.

In the outlawed in the UK book, Spycatcher", written by Peter Wright, the actual James Bond "Q" in both MI-5 and MI-6, he explained how the old KGB scammed the PM election to elect a Soviet mole. Anything can be done, so we must be alert.

[DonaldD]

Since many IT experts and hackers are Left-wing AntiFa types, the odds that they will work overtime to subvert any system is a no-brainer. Only a fool would say they wouldn't do all they could to scam the vote.

Because... that's what you would do in their position?

[TheDrake]

Republicans don't focus on illegal voting. They use legal methods to subtract Democratic Party voters. Including thwarting the return of ex-felons to the voting rolls, removing polling stations from blue counties, or scrubbing out active voters from registration rolls. It also is far from so lopsided as you suggest. You can do your own research.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

You'll find Republicans and Democrats in the list, though sadly there are no totals. Even if there were, I'm sure you'd dismiss objective evidence and just state that there are a lot more Democrats getting away with it. An awful lot of these involve mere handfuls of ballots, in the smallest case one guy voting absentee in two states.

[DonaldD]

Republicans don't focus on illegal voting. They use legal methods to subtract Democratic Party voters. Including thwarting the return of ex-felons to the voting rolls, removing polling stations from blue counties, or scrubbing out active voters from registration rolls. It also is far from so lopsided as you suggest. You can do your own research.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

You'll find Republicans and Democrats in the list, though sadly there are no totals. Even if there were, I'm sure you'd dismiss objective evidence and just state that there are a lot more Democrats getting away with it. An awful lot of these involve mere handfuls of ballots, in the smallest case one guy voting absentee in two states.

Here is an analysis of the Heritage database, focussing on the 5 vote-by-mail states.

Ignoring the size of the states' populations, the worst rate of fraud was in Colorado, with an annual rate of less than 2.5 fraudulent votes per year. As the authors point out, this is inconsequential; such rates, if concentrated within a single neighbourhood, are unlikely to affect the outcome of even school board elections, never mind state-level or national elections.

And of course, Trump's own voting integrity commission found so little evidence of vote fraud that it was disbanded without even issuing a report...

[TheDeamon]

Meanwhile, in some mail in races, they've had a City Council election in New Jersey where multiple (Democrat) council members were charged with voter fraud because of antics with mail-in voting.

Some other areas were reporting something on the order of 20% of received ballots being invalidated because the signatures didn't match, among other disqualification criteria.

[TheDrake]

Meanwhile, in some mail in races, they've had a City Council election in New Jersey where multiple (Democrat) council members were charged with voter fraud because of antics with mail-in voting.

Some other areas were reporting something on the order of 20% of received ballots being invalidated because the signatures didn't match, among other disqualification criteria.

Really, the signatures didn't match? Heavens to murgatroyd! My signature has devolved to a sideways E. Signatures don't matter. Have you seen anyone in retail lately who even looked to match your signature to ID? Or even asked for ID? Sure, there are a lot of ways that someone can steal a local election with 20,000 votes or less. That's not the conversation about the EC and millions of votes.

[TheDeamon]

Some other areas were reporting something on the order of 20% of received ballots being invalidated because the signatures didn't match, among other disqualification criteria.

Really, the signatures didn't match? Heavens to murgatroyd! My signature has devolved to a sideways E. Signatures don't matter. Have you seen anyone in retail lately who even looked to match your signature to ID? Or even asked for ID? Sure, there are a lot of ways that someone can steal a local election with 20,000 votes or less. That's not the conversation about the EC and millions of votes.
[/quote]

Yes, but with the margins with which some states were won in 2016, a 20% disqualification rate in the right districts could have a very significant outcome in which way the EC vote turns. And naturally adjudicating THAT is likely going to take longer than the mandated timeline for the choosing of electors and the casting of their votes.

But by the flip side, they probably DO have a longer timeline for resolving the outcome of congressional races however.

It's likely a number of Congressional seats won't have outcomes finalized until around Christmas, and then it becomes a game of what the final form of the Congressional Delegation decides to do with the likely to still be disputed Electoral College vote decisions. Where it will likely be congress, using shenanigans not seen since reconstruction to decide which EC votes they'll honor, and which they won't. And even then, they may just decide to "vote it out" on the House Floor depending on how many states have their ballots disqualified and which way they want to interpret things from there.

Whomever is Speaker of the House on January 4th may quite possibly be Acting PotUS on January 20th depending on how big of a mess things have become.

[TheDeamon]

Although I would say in many respects, I almost want to see a 5% or higher (mail in) ballot disqualification rate to happen in the initial count where the margin of victory is less than 2%.

Depending on controls in place, that means they should be able to start trying to contact the voter to validate they did in fact cast a ballot.

Won't it be interesting to find out how many of those either cannot be found, deny they voted, are found to have been deceased well before any voting was possible, or haven't lived in that area for years(and naturally deny they voted)?

[DonaldD]

This should be interesting: Judge orders Trump campaign to produce evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania

(CNN)  A federal judge in Pennsylvania told the Trump campaign and the Republican Party that they must produce evidence they have of vote-by-mail fraud in the state by Friday.
...
"The Court finds that instances of voter fraud are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case," District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan wrote on Thursday, telling Republicans that they need to provide evidence of fraud to the Democratic Party and the Sierra Club, which are part of the lawsuit.
...
Ranjan, the judge overseeing the suit, was appointed by Trump.

A hearing about the evidence is set for late September.

I think everybody wants to see this evidence. 

[DonaldD]

It is now a full business day after Judge Ranjan's Friday deadline for the Trump campaign to produce it's evidence of voter fraud (or to state that they have no such evidence) and I am unaware that the campaign has responded.  In fact, they had not as of the Friday deadline.

The order was in response to a motion to compel brought by the Sierra Club and Ranjan concluded that the “Court finds that instances of voter fraud are relevant to the claim and defenses in this case, particularly since (the campaign is) reserving their right to introduce such evidence or retail an expert regarding the same.”

Ranjan ordered that the campaign “produce such evidence in their possession, and if they have none, state as much.”

He said a deadline of Friday for the campaign to respond.

Nothing had been filed by the campaign as of 4 p.m. Friday.

Is anybody honestly surprised?

[TheDrake]

Does anyone know where I can get an N95 mask that isn't a cheap knockoff? Since Texas doesn't have an absentee option unless you can prove you will not be able to get to a polling station, I'll be taking my chances at a polling station. I need protection, because I am an overweight asthmatic smoker over 50, and I've had pneumonia twice in the past year, one of which necessitated an ER stay with a pulseox of 89 requiring multiple rounds of treatment before release.

Naturally I'll look for early voting, maybe lurking in the parking lot until the lines go down. Why N95? Because the line is probably going to be about 40% jackass anti-maskers. Thanks Texas.

[cherrypoptart]

No, I've only been able to get the KN95s but the latest one I got had a credible looking thing on its advertisement that it is one of those that have been FDA tested and approved.

"Disposable KN95 Face Masks, Non-Woven 5-Layer Disposable Mask, Elastic Ear Loops, Adjustable Nose Wire, Light Weight, Perfect for Office, 5 Units/Bag
Visit the Unknown Store
4.3 out of 5 stars    179 ratings | 24 answered questions
Price:   $14.99 ($3.00 / Count)  & FREE Returns
Disclaimer: This Disposable KN95 Non-Medical Face Mask is included on the FDA Emergency Use Authorization List. The FDA sampled and CDC tested a limited number of masks from this manufacturer and found that the filtration efficiency was above 95%.
Standard: GB2626-2006
5-Layer Non-Woven KN95 Disposable Protective Face Mask
Designed to offer more protection than a standard disposable 3-Ply mask
Comfortable to fit with elastic ear loops and adjustable nose wire, light weight"


I got it and have been wearing it and it seems okay. I don't have stock in the company so hopefully I won't get in trouble for posting all that. I'm actually looking for better masks too so if there is a problem with this one or people have better ones they know about I'd also appreciate that information.

Now what I do is double up on the masks and wear my copper mask with this KN95 mask, the copper compression mask on top.

"Copper Compression Face Mask - 2 Pack - Highest Copper Content Reusable Face Masks for Men and Women (White)"

The more the merrier. I tried with another mask on top of that, a cheap little mask I got for free, but it wasn't comfortable so I'll just go with the two. Part of the problem with the KN95s even if they do filter 95% is that the fit may not be tight enough especially when you use them for a while and the straps get loose so that's where the compression mask may help, to keep the KN95 snug, plus it's another layer of protection. If people have suggestions for added safety, much obliged. Most people are happy with wearing their mask to protect others just in case they have the virus and that's fine but that's not really enough for me. I want to wear a mask that doesn't just protect others from me but also is effective at protecting me from them.

I went to the dollar store one time right when it opened which is when I like to go to stores now to give the viral droplets time to settle overnight and I see the employees all maskless so when I come in they dutifully put on their masks but that pretty much defeated the purpose of my well laid plans.

I got some goggles but they are anti-fog which I thought was good but it turns out that means they have ventilation holes in them. I used them anyway since all I've been using before I got them was just sunglasses and a hat. Now I finally got my face shield so I may wear that next time with the goggles. Hopefully that will be enough. Quite an outfit already. I had someone take a selfie a respectable distance off but I'm pretty sure they did it to get me in the background. Oh well at least I had my mask and hat and stuff so hopefully it protects me not only from the risks of viruses but also from the risk of going viral.

[DonaldD]

Wow.  So in their continuing effort to hijack citizens' ability to vote, Trump's Postmaster Bagman Louis DeJoy' Postal Service forbids employees from signing absentee ballots as witnesses while working.

In a nationwide rule change that went unnoticed this summer, the U.S. Postal Service has forbidden employees from signing absentee ballots as witnesses while on duty. The change could make it more difficult for Alaskans, particularly rural residents, to vote by mail.

It's bizarre how so many of the USPS changes recently either have the direct effect of impeding the ability to vote, or just coincidentally have that side effect.

[TheDrake]

Wow.  So in their continuing effort to hijack citizens' ability to vote, Trump's Postmaster Bagman Louis DeJoy' Postal Service forbids employees from signing absentee ballots as witnesses while working.

In a nationwide rule change that went unnoticed this summer, the U.S. Postal Service has forbidden employees from signing absentee ballots as witnesses while on duty. The change could make it more difficult for Alaskans, particularly rural residents, to vote by mail.

It's bizarre how so many of the USPS changes recently either have the direct effect of impeding the ability to vote, or just coincidentally have that side effect.

Sounds bad, but shouldn't have any practical impact. From the Alaska voter website, which is the state mentioned in the article:

In the current pandemic, there are few situations where an official is reasonably accessible. If it isn’t easy for you to get to an authorized official, your ballot can be witnessed by anyone over the age of 18. The division just received confirmation from the USPS that postal employees are prohibited from serving as witnesses in their official capacity while on duty, due in part to the potential operational impacts.

Now, I'm not sure how they officially define "easy". It seems it would apply in the rural areas the article indicates where postal employees are the only reasonable option.

[rightleft22]

Wow.  So in their continuing effort to hijack citizens' ability to vote, Trump's Postmaster Bagman Louis DeJoy' Postal Service forbids employees from signing absentee ballots as witnesses while working.

In a nationwide rule change that went unnoticed this summer, the U.S. Postal Service has forbidden employees from signing absentee ballots as witnesses while on duty. The change could make it more difficult for Alaskans, particularly rural residents, to vote by mail.

It's bizarre how so many of the USPS changes recently either have the direct effect of impeding the ability to vote, or just coincidentally have that side effect.

Sounds bad, but shouldn't have any practical impact. From the Alaska voter website, which is the state mentioned in the article:

In the current pandemic, there are few situations where an official is reasonably accessible. If it isn’t easy for you to get to an authorized official, your ballot can be witnessed by anyone over the age of 18. The division just received confirmation from the USPS that postal employees are prohibited from serving as witnesses in their official capacity while on duty, due in part to the potential operational impacts.

Now, I'm not sure how they officially define "easy". It seems it would apply in the rural areas the article indicates where postal employees are the only reasonable option.

It may not have any impact however this missing with the post office is very much bad and should be troubling across the political spectrum.

Sadly the strongest voices on this site which should be coming out against this type of thing remain silent. The ends justify the means... but they have forgotten which ends they are aiming for.

[TheDrake]

I'm not a fan of the postal changes, especially the timing of them. There's not a lot that can be done about it, since for once they are being careful to be able to legitimately claim that they are necessary operational changes to accomplish fiscal goals.

Some things are just silly to complain about, like routine mailbox removal. When the vast majority of people who receive mail have a way to send it without a blue box.

What can we do other than gnash our teeth? Well, for one thing, we could individually refrain from mailing or ordering anything that is not critically necessary in the month of October.

Letters to the Editor: Want an honest election? If it isn’t a ballot, don’t mail it in October

[rightleft22]

Maybe
But it smells, and it smells bad and deeply troubling in a long line of things that are troubling.

When do we say enough

[yossarian22c]

Maybe
But it smells, and it smells bad and deeply troubling in a long line of things that are troubling.

When do we say enough

Hopefully November 3rd.

[Wayward Son]

Speaking of voting mechanisms, if you (or someone you know) wants to know about how to vote by mail on Nov. 3, Represent.US has a page that details on how to go about it.  It has a map of all 50 states.  You click on your state, and it takes you to the entry with deadlines, rules, etc. for your state.  It also provides links to the applications, including some downloadable pdf files you can fill out yourself.  One-stop shopping for your vote-by-mail needs.

[Wayward Son]

Here's another good site/article: The Best Way to Vote in Every State.  An extremely comprehensive guide to making sure your ballot gets counted, no matter where in America you live.

Find your state and make sure your vote is counted! (No matter which side of the aisle you stand.)

[DonaldD]

Not an actual surprise, but GOP election lawyer issues stern rebuke to Trump Admin concerning mail in vote fraud (or the lack thereof).

Longtime Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg in a new op-ed issued a blunt rebuke to GOP claims of widespread voter fraud as President Trump looks to cast doubt over election procedures heading into November.

Ginsberg, who has represented four Republican presidential candidates and played a key role in cases like Bush v. Gore in the 2000 election, wrote in The Washington Post that a “lack of evidence” makes claims of fraud from Trump and other Republicans “unsustainable” and that the GOP is needlessly inciting concerns over the presidential race.

“The truth is that after decades of looking for illegal voting, there’s no proof of widespread fraud. At most, there are isolated incidents — by both Democrats and Republicans. Elections are not rigged. Absentee ballots use the same process as mail-in ballots — different states use different labels for the same process,” Ginsberg wrote.

[TheDeamon]

Not an actual surprise, but GOP election lawyer issues stern rebuke to Trump Admin concerning mail in vote fraud (or the lack thereof).

“The truth is that after decades of looking for illegal voting, there’s no proof of widespread fraud. At most, there are isolated incidents — by both Democrats and Republicans. Elections are not rigged. Absentee ballots use the same process as mail-in ballots — different states use different labels for the same process,” Ginsberg wrote.

Except where it isn't the same process. False equivalence. No verification of voter address prior to sending the ballot, no recent voter signature requirement on file(to cross-reference on getting the ballot back), and the list goes on.