Voting mechanisms

[TheDeamon]

RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!

Isn't this type of statement a kind of rhetorical loaded question suggesting that If Trump wins the election wasn't it will not have been rigged but if he losses it is.

On this forum no one would be allowed have such a statement stand so I find it odd that some are defending and or dismissing it.  (Dismissing it by redirecting focus to the debate on Ballots which is a valid debate however a distraction from what Trump is actually saying.)

If you disagree with me its a rigged discussion.

Trump has set it up so that unless the Dem's win big on Election-day they will lose. I don't see how that would not end any trust in the checks and balances within the system. A system that requires trust to run.

On the flip side, if Trump wins, the Democrats are going to insist it was "because of voter suppression," and a general "Trump cheated!" outcry as well.

[DonaldD]

On the flip side, if Trump wins, the Democrats are going to insist it was "because of voter suppression," and a general "Trump cheated!" outcry as well.

Not if the counts are not impeded significantly (or worse - ignored).

The Democrats won't be happy, but if the votes get counted, they get counted.  And sure, they will grumble about certain instances of voter suppression - as they have for years, because voter suppression is an actual Republican strategy - but there won't be a constitutional crisis.  The Democrats won't have the constitutional levers to impose their will on the country.

Whereas the Republicans are uniquely in a position to override the will of the voters if they so choose - as mentioned previously, I think 9 of the 10 most competitive (swing) states all have Republican legislatures, and Republicans hold the majority of federal Senators/states if it comes down to the Senate.

[wmLambert]

"Voter Suppression" is a genned-up phrase out of Democrat focus groups and think tanks to give vote-scamming a nicer feel. Everyone thinks fair voting is the best result. Every time someone says we should not "force" voter ID on citizens, and allow non-citizens a chance to express their feelings, they are vote-scamming. Saying that if we document who is legal to vote makes it hard for poor people to vote, does a disservice to those poor people.

The idea that people should earn the right to vote has been ridiculed. It has been described as poll-taxes, or worse. Some people though ownership of property should be required, or a term of national service. Heinlein did.

It should be a privilege to vote, not a right. In the current times, it seems to be more a numbers game to get votes, not trying to get good leadership.  When I see those "Man in the street" interviews, where the average interviewee is an embarrassment to him/herself and acknowledges their lack of basic knowledge on national issues. Local issues are even worse.

Mail-in ballots are designed to secure more numbers of votes - and blame all the security breeches on Covid-19. It is a crock - and the one good thing is that after this latest exercise in futility, we will have a much greater understanding in the effects of the security failings.

[DonaldD]

wmLambert, why do you assume you would be selected as one of the chosen? Because if critical thinking becomes a pre-requisite...

[yossarian22c]

"Voter Suppression" is a genned-up phrase out of Democrat focus groups and think tanks to give vote-scamming a nicer feel. Everyone thinks fair voting is the best result. Every time someone says we should not "force" voter ID on citizens, and allow non-citizens a chance to express their feelings, they are vote-scamming. Saying that if we document who is legal to vote makes it hard for poor people to vote, does a disservice to those poor people.

Anyone who cares anything about election security but only focuses on voter ID is either ignorant or really only interested in voter suppression. Touch screen voting machines without readable paper ballots are far and away the most dangerous thing to an accurate count of votes in the nation. Georgia according to the polls is a toss up. I would bet money Trump wins Georgia. Having a few people hack a few machines can get you an election and its almost impossible to detect. You need 10s or 100s of thousands of people to double or triple vote (things voter ID could prevent) in order to impact the outcome of an election. Which one of those scams can be kept secret?

[noel c.]

Donald,

“ ‘State legislative usurpation’ is specifically what I was warning about - given that I was warning about that issue, it's odd that you think I might be ‘okay’ with it - and sure, that would also end up sabotaging confidence in the election - a bit of a vicious cycle.”

These are your descriptors of that scenario. : “Call it what you will: a scam, a strategy, a happy coincidence; legislatures have the ability to exercise this authority.”

I do not think that a reasonable person could interpret your “happy coincidence” as anything other than a “strategy” to undercut, by your own statement, confidence in election results. I appreciate that you now distance yourself from earlier comments which I identified as a “scam”.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“Trump.
Quote
RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!

Quote
Breaking: Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election. This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path.

Quote
The fraud and abuse will be an embarrassment to our Country

Quote
Anybody, you don't have to know politics, they're going to mail out 80 million ballots. It's impossible. They have no idea. Who's mailing them? Mostly Democrat states and Democrat governors. Well, supposing they don't mail them to Republican neighborhoods. That means they're not going to get them. So they're going to complain and the election's going to be over.“

I am going to climb out on a limb, and interpret your collection of Trump statements as causal of mistrust in a mail-in ballot vote result, rather than reactive to vulnerabilities of mail-in ballots per se.

Both sides of the political polarity could avoid the topic entirely by simple elimination of a change to traditional voting protocols. COVID-19 justifications for such a radical deviation are complete rubbish if the public were only educated. Remaining rationalizations are one form, or another, of “convenience” arguments... hardly compelling as an excuse to undercut this election. That is, unless, public violence is the actual objective (Donald).

[DonaldD]

I do not think that a reasonable person could interpret your “happy coincidence” as anything other than a “strategy” to undercut, by your own statement, confidence in election results. I appreciate that you now distance yourself from earlier comments which I identified as a “scam”.

Yes, I get that sarcasm doesn't travel well, and your reading comprehension is severely hindered by blind partisanship, but even you, if you read closely, would see the word "you" in "call it what you will". Yes, Republicans seem to be promoting a strategy of voter suppression and distrust in the election in order to facilitate ignoring the voting results later.  That you ascribe this strategy to me in a way that I supposedly support is just silly.  Unless... you think I support Republicans in this election cycle.  Is that it - do you think I would vote for Trump or Republicans for the Senate?

But again, even if you missed the sarcasm, I was making a clear warning about the risk of Republican states overturning the electoral will of the voters, and even explained how the Democrats have no opportunity to do the same in this election because of the structure of existing state and federal legislatures. It takes a very special kind of filter to miss the whole point of several posts to interpret them in the very opposite way that they read.  Congrats.

Oh, and if we get specific, "happy coincidence" is a characterization; it is not a strategy.  it is not even a tactic.  It does not suggest any actions, nor even a position.  You probably meant something other than "strategy"

[yossarian22c]

I am going to climb out on a limb, and interpret your collection of Trump statements as causal of mistrust in a mail-in ballot vote result, rather than reactive to vulnerabilities of mail-in ballots per se.

Those quotes were in response to you saying I was projecting by saying Trump was undermining confidence in the results of the election.

Many of those quotes were just about fraud not specifically referencing mail in (though some were). How about this one?

The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged

Trump is clearly and consistently saying things like this that undermine confidence in the election (unless he's the winner).

[yossarian22c]

Meanwhile, Trump is almost guaranteed to win the election if he wins the national popular vote, and he actually wins a majority in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote (12 percent) more often than when he wins the most votes (10 percent).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-an-underdog-but-the-electoral-colleges-republican-tilt-improves-his-chances/

Current 538 analysis of the election. I think it overstates the odds of Trump pulling out a popular vote total win, but that is the uncertainty built into their model. I also think it understates the probability of Trump winning the electoral college. Without much changing I put his odds there around 25%. So I suppose in total I have the total odds of him winning at around the same as 538. But barring any major developments between now and election day I don't see Trump winning the popular vote at all.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“if you read closely, would see the word ‘you’ in ‘call it what you will’. Yes, Republicans seem to be promoting a strategy of voter suppression and distrust in the election in order to facilitate ignoring the voting results later.“

It only took three requests for clarification before your realization that I needed to pierce through your sarcasm, and see myself interpreting your hypothetical legislative voter nullification as a “happy coincidence”? Donald, the deficiency is in your writing. The most natural reading is that voter nullification is a happy face event.

“That you ascribe this strategy to me in a way that I supposedly support is just silly.  Unless... you think I support Republicans in this election cycle. Is that it - do you think I would vote for Trump or Republicans for the Senate?“

I think that you would be happy to throw the presidential election to any state legislature with a 3% Republican majority, which all swing states coincidentally have. Notwithstanding the 8% Republican majority in the Senate, Mike Pence has been the deciding Senate vote on thirteen occasions during the last four years.

The problem with Republicans is that they have become democratized. Not so with Democrats, however I grant that Democratic majorities in state legislatures would guarantee your prediction :

“In this environment, I find it highly unlikely that not a single untrained, hot-headed "patriot" of one flavour or another will make a "mistake" and set off at least a limited armed skirmish somewhere in the country.  It would be almost a miracle if that didn't happen.”

“But again, even if you missed the sarcasm, I was making a clear warning about the risk of Republican states overturning the electoral will of the voters, and even explained how the Democrats have no opportunity to do the same in this election because of the structure of existing state and federal legislatures. It takes a very special kind of filter to miss the whole point of several posts to interpret them in the very opposite way that they read. Congrats.”

It takes a very “special kind of filter” to forget your reaction to my opposition. If you actually meant to say the opposite, then would have been the time for clarification.

“Oh, and if we get specific, ‘happy coincidence’ is a characterization; it is not a strategy.”

If we get specific, you conflated the two in a single string of synonyms. Don’t lay your sloppy writing style at my feet.

“... it is not even a tactic.  It does not suggest any actions, nor even a position.  You probably meant something other than ‘strategy’ “

Voter nullification through state legislature preemption of SCOTUS review is a “strategy”, and one that would only serve Democratic ends.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“Many of those quotes were just about fraud not specifically referencing mail in (though some were). How about this one?

Quote
The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged

Trump is clearly and consistently saying things like this that undermine confidence in the election (unless he's the winner).“

The people that Trump is presumably addressing, like me, need no convincing that fraud associated with unsolicited absentee ballot requests, and worse, unsolicited live ballots, will be rampant. I wish Trump would put a cork in it, and restate our concern properly; this election has been irreversibly compromised by state judges. No eventual “President” will be able to govern effectively. In the world that we live in, this is dangerous.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“Many of those quotes were just about fraud not specifically referencing mail in (though some were). How about this one?

Quote
The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged

Trump is clearly and consistently saying things like this that undermine confidence in the election (unless he's the winner).“

The people that Trump is presumably addressing, like me, need no convincing that fraud associated with unsolicited absentee ballot requests, and worse, unsolicited live ballots, will be rampant.

How do you feel about touch screen voting machines with no paper back up?

[yossarian22c]

Current 538 odds on different results:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

Trump wins the popular vote Regardless of whether he wins the Electoral College 10 in 100

Biden wins the popular vote Regardless of whether he wins the Electoral College 90 in 100

Trump wins more than 50% of the popular vote Regardless of whether he wins the Electoral College 7 in 100

Biden wins more than 50% of the popular vote Regardless of whether he wins the Electoral College 85 in 100

Trump wins in a landslide Defined as winning the popular vote by a double-digit margin <1 in 100

Biden wins in a landslide Defined as winning the popular vote by a double-digit margin 29 in 100

Trump wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College <1 in 100

Biden wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College 10 in 100
No one wins the Electoral College No candidate gets 270 electoral votes and Congress decides the election <1 in 100

Trump wins at least one state that Clinton won in 2016   33 in 100

Biden wins at least one state that Trump won in 2016   92 in 100

The map stays exactly the same as it was in 2016 Each candidate wins exactly the same states that his party won in 2016 <1 in 100

The election hinges on a recount Candidates are within half a percentage point in one or more decisive states 5 in 100

[DonaldD]

Texas governor Greg Abbott moves to suppress Democrat votes.

"How does limiting each county to a single drop off locations for ballots suppress Democratic votes, specifically?" one might ask... "each county gets one location - that should be completely fair!", am I right?

Of course, Abbott realizes that Democratic votes are clustered primarily in the largest urban centres in the state, as we saw in 2016 - Dallas, Houston, el Paso, Austin, San Antonio - each of which basically comprises single large counties that dwarf other counties in the state.  That means Abbott is limiting Houston, for instance, with its 3 counties (Harris pop. 4.7M,  Fort Bend pop. 810K, Montgomery pop. 610K) each to 1 drop-off location.  Think about that - Harris county, population of 4,700,000 people, which Clinton carried by 12% over Trump, gets one ballot drop off location. Dallas county, with a population of 2,600,000 and that Clinton carried by 26% only gets one drop off point. El Paso county, pop. 820,000 carried by Clinton by more than 33%, one drop-off point.  The exception to the large metropolises, Tarrant County (comprising Fort Worth) with a population of 1,800,000 was carried by Trump by 9% in 2016.

The remainder of the counties, rural and suburban counties where Republicans do better than Democrats?  Some examples that Trump carried: Randall County, pop. 120K, Cochran County pop. 3000, Hardeman county pop. 4,000.

One keeps hoping that Republican politicians will show the tiniest glimmer of morality, yet time and again, they choose to destroy the country.

We've all seen the electoral results: since 1992, the Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote exactly once.

in 2016, Republicans won 55% of the seats in the House with just 49% of the vote
In 2018, Democrats won almost as many seats as the Republicans did in 2016 (54%) but it took 53.4% of the vote do so.

The Senate is, by design, even less representative.

These are the rules, of course.

But there is a problem when the minority party nationwide keeps using its status in government, afforded by those rules, to then further disenfranchise the majority in ways not foreseen by the rules that got them there in the first place.

[noel c.]

Y-22

“How do you feel about touch screen voting machines with no paper back up?”

Any method departing from the tried, and true, secret (paper) ballot, invites fraud. If electronic voting machines were made the national standard, we would have a situation closely approximating the one that we find ourselves in now.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“The Senate is, by design, even less representative.“

... And the Supreme Court even less so. How do you feel about major decisions handed down by the Warren Court?

“These are the rules, of course.”

Yes, that pesky Constitution again.

“But there is a problem when the minority party nationwide keeps using its status in government, afforded by those rules, to then further disenfranchise the majority in ways not foreseen by the rules that got them there in the first place.“

Yes, and the traditional solution has been winning elections.

Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party has historically objected to the rules governing our constitutional republic when they approved of “minority” government successes?

[DonaldD]

Do you honestly not see a problem with what Abbott has done, noel?

I wouldn't want to misinterpret your post as a statement of support, but you didn't actually mention anything in your post about his decree.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22

“How do you feel about touch screen voting machines with no paper back up?”

Any method departing from the tried, and true, secret (paper) ballot, invites fraud. If electronic voting machines were made the national standard, we would have a situation closely approximating the one that we find ourselves in now.

Such bs. All states have basically decided to expand their absentee ballot measures. And it takes 1 insider to break an election with touch screens. It takes a massive wide spread effort to affect an election with mail in ballots. There is no evidence that mail ins are leading to massive fraud.

[TheDeamon]

How do you feel about touch screen voting machines with no paper back up?

Hate them.

[TheDeamon]

Y-22

“How do you feel about touch screen voting machines with no paper back up?”

Any method departing from the tried, and true, secret (paper) ballot, invites fraud. If electronic voting machines were made the national standard, we would have a situation closely approximating the one that we find ourselves in now.

Such bs. All states have basically decided to expand their absentee ballot measures. And it takes 1 insider to break an election with touch screens. It takes a massive wide spread effort to affect an election with mail in ballots. There is no evidence that mail ins are leading to massive fraud.

Some states went a bit beyond "just expanding absentee voting." I don't have a problem with absentee voting. I do have a problem with states going from absentee voting is basically not allowed to mailing people unsolicited ballots with just months worth of planning though.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22

“How do you feel about touch screen voting machines with no paper back up?”

Any method departing from the tried, and true, secret (paper) ballot, invites fraud. If electronic voting machines were made the national standard, we would have a situation closely approximating the one that we find ourselves in now.

Such bs. All states have basically decided to expand their absentee ballot measures. And it takes 1 insider to break an election with touch screens. It takes a massive wide spread effort to affect an election with mail in ballots. There is no evidence that mail ins are leading to massive fraud.

Some states went a bit beyond "just expanding absentee voting." I don't have a problem with absentee voting. I do have a problem with states going from absentee voting is basically not allowed to mailing people unsolicited ballots with just months worth of planning though.

The only states that are doing that for the first time are California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.. The only swing state on that list is Nevada. So we wouldn't expect those ballots to have much impact on the race for president.

[DonaldD]

The only states that are doing that for the first time are California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.. The only swing state on that list is Nevada. So we wouldn't expect those ballots to have much impact on the race for president.

That's it?  Then what's with all the sturm und drang?  This sounds like a huge red herring that keeps getting thrown out as an excuse to attack the voting process.

First, there is no non-trivial amounts of ballot fraud and secondly, with the exception of Nevada, the putative, theoretical fraud would be limited to states that are not even in play in the presidential election?

[wmLambert]

...The only states that are doing that for the first time are California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.. The only swing state on that list is Nevada. So we wouldn't expect those ballots to have much impact on the race for president.

When scamming is experienced, it just gets worse. The experts at scamming, sell their services to other places.

[DonaldD]

...The only states that are doing that for the first time are California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.. The only swing state on that list is Nevada. So we wouldn't expect those ballots to have much impact on the race for president.

When scamming is experienced, it just gets worse. The experts at scamming, sell their services to other places.

Ah, except the argument is that this is a new thing, and the only reason mail in vote fraud was not rampant in the past is because mail in voting of this type wasn't even in those states, where they have no experience to control fraud..

So in all those states where it isn't a new thing, there has already been shown to be negligible levels of fraud.  I know I'm talking to a wall here but one lives in hope.

 

[TheDrake]

...The only states that are doing that for the first time are California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.. The only swing state on that list is Nevada. So we wouldn't expect those ballots to have much impact on the race for president.

When scamming is experienced, it just gets worse. The experts at scamming, sell their services to other places.

Ah, except the argument is that this is a new thing, and the only reason mail in vote fraud was not rampant in the past is because mail in voting of this type wasn't even in those states, where they have no experience to control fraud..

So in all those states where it isn't a new thing, there has already been shown to be negligible levels of fraud.  I know I'm talking to a wall here but one lives in hope.

But didn't you hear about the SEVEN MISSING BALLOT SCANDAL?

My biggest concern is that with operations this large, mistakes are inevitable. A handful of ballots are lost or misplaced, and suddenly it is total evidence of widespread malfeasance. Or even for that matter, actual small scale fraud is committed, and that is total evidence of widespread malfeasance. As if a multi-state large scale fraud conspiracy could ever be kept under wraps. Not one principled person coming forward, not one person spilling the beans to friends or family, not one investigative journalist finds anything out (or they are all part of the Conspiracy).

[wmLambert]

...The only states that are doing that for the first time are California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.. The only swing state on that list is Nevada. So we wouldn't expect those ballots to have much impact on the race for president.

When scamming is experienced, it just gets worse. The experts at scamming, sell their services to other places.

Ah, except the argument is that this is a new thing, and the only reason mail in vote fraud was not rampant in the past is because mail in voting of this type wasn't even in those states, where they have no experience to control fraud..

So in all those states where it isn't a new thing, there has already been shown to be negligible levels of fraud.  I know I'm talking to a wall here but one lives in hope.

The problem with that is that mail-in voting is NOT devoid of problems. Too many of these conversations have substituted "Absentee ballots" for mail-in ballots. The ballots going through the mail that follow traditional absentee ballot procedures are sometimes late, but usually follow the voter's own desires to vote. Unsolicited ballots are the opposite, with no way to really vet. They are dangerous by definition, aren't they? In Michigan, we keep receiving mail-in ballot requests for people that don't live here. If someone responded it would be illegal but probably go though.

The major factor is the sheer volume. What can be done in a small vote becomes uncountable with this one.

[DonaldD]

The problem with that is that mail-in voting is NOT devoid of problems. Too many of these conversations have substituted "Absentee ballots" for mail-in ballots. The ballots going through the mail that follow traditional absentee ballot procedures are sometimes late, but usually follow the voter's own desires to vote. Unsolicited ballots are the opposite, with no way to really vet. They are dangerous by definition, aren't they? In Michigan, we keep receiving mail-in ballot requests for people that don't live here. If someone responded it would be illegal but probably go though.

The major factor is the sheer volume. What can be done in a small vote becomes uncountable with this one.

No - unsolicited ballots are already in use in a number of states, and the changes were noted above.  There is simply no evidence, none, of significant, non trivial voter fraud either by mail or in-person.  If you can find evidence of such, provide it.  And no, I'm not talking about mistakes made in registrations, or voter lists with dead people on - I am talking about votes that that were fraudulently cast in significant numbers.

[wmLambert]

...But didn't you hear about the SEVEN MISSING BALLOT SCANDAL?

My biggest concern is that with operations this large, mistakes are inevitable. A handful of ballots are lost or misplaced, and suddenly it is total evidence of widespread malfeasance. Or even for that matter, actual small scale fraud is committed, and that is total evidence of widespread malfeasance. As if a multi-state large scale fraud conspiracy could ever be kept under wraps. Not one principled person coming forward, not one person spilling the beans to friends or family, not one investigative journalist finds anything out (or they are all part of the Conspiracy).

For sure. Every single misplaced ballot was discovered in that single trash can.  No one believes those seven were all of them. Since vote-scamming records have been kept, the trend is that in Democrat strongholds, especially with no GOP poll watchers - or poll watchers who signed in as GOP but were really not. the ballots are taken into backrooms and massaged until the outcome is what the counters want. In Dade County, they were breaking off chads to help Kerry. You've seen the same thing done since it was first filmed in 1978. The scamming exists.

Anything that makes it harder to vet ballots and easier to scam should be stopped. The result is usually a court challenge throwing out the numbers and ordering a new election. How many states has that already been done in the past few months?

In this election, many "old school" scammers have warned their Democrat leaders this year to urge their base to vote at the polls, because those are the votes that will be counted, while the mail-in ballots that are primarily Democrat may be thrown out. That gives a huge benefit to their opponents. This past few days have seen more and more calls for Democrats to go to the polls to vote.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“Do you honestly not see a problem with what Abbott has done, noel?”

Honestly, no, Donald.

Abbot took fire from Texas Republicans, Allan West among them, for allowing early voting by executive order at the stations you are concerned about. This is in addition to postal service delivery, or personal hand submission on November 3rd. I am limited to the later two in my state, and do not feel even slightly “suppressed“.

You still failed to answer my question (again). Do you have problems with constitutional allotment of two senators per state, and if so, would your issues vanish if Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia were admitted? Along the same lines of minority over-representation, do you believe that the Supreme Court should be structured in a way more politically responsive than it is at present?

“I wouldn't want to misinterpret your post as a statement of support, but you didn't actually mention anything in your post about his decree.”

I am actually neutral on the issue. Abbott claims mass ballot delivery (ballot harvesting) was taking place in early voting. Somehow, closing down satellite stations was supposed to alleviate the problem. I only care that controls exist to limit one ballot submittal per voter.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“Such bs. All states have basically decided to expand their absentee ballot measures.”

Yes.

“And it takes 1 insider to break an election with touch screens.”

If your “insider” is to “break an election”, they must insert programming into a centralized computer well before. However, the central computer would have to connect to the internet at some point prior to reloading corrupted software onto voting machines. Ultimately, it is detectable.

Old fashioned paper fraud is easier to pull off where unsolicited ballots are involved, and is much harder to detect directly. Ballot harvesting from elderly communities, and retirement home settings, are among the more notable expressions of voter extortion. Purchased ballots come in all varieties, and along with ballot extortion, inflate both turnout and the percentage of winning votes detectable through statistical methods. The problem is that other causes can produce the same statistical results. That is why you are safe in asserting “there is no proof”, and I am justified in ignoring you under the premise that dollar bills will not remain unattended if left laying on the sidewalk. You lock your house, and car, for the same reason. This is not esoteric paranoia, and I am baffled the apparent need to resort to arguments grounded in common sense.

In elections recently won by less than one percentage point, my concern is not trivial.

“It takes a massive wide spread effort to affect an election with mail in ballots. There is no evidence that mail ins are leading to massive fraud.”

The fraud must be “widespread“, but does not require massive effort. How difficult is it to mail in your dead mother’s ballots?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-18/la-county-man-accused-of-voting-in-three-elections-as-his-dead-mother%3f_amp=true

As jobs go, canvassing retirement housing complexes, or homes, for unsolicited ballots is time consuming but not particularly difficult.

[yossarian22c]

If your “insider” is to “break an election”, they must insert programming into a centralized computer well before. However, the central computer would have to connect to the internet at some point prior to reloading corrupted software onto voting machines. Ultimately, it is detectable.

See Georgia.
https://apnews.com/article/877ee1015f1c43f1965f63538b035d3f

A computer server crucial to a lawsuit against Georgia election officials was quietly wiped clean by its custodians just after the suit was filed, The Associated Press has learned.

The server’s data was destroyed July 7 by technicians at the Center for Elections Systems at Kennesaw State University, which runs the state’s election system. The data wipe was revealed in an email sent last week from an assistant state attorney general to plaintiffs in the case that was later obtained by the AP. More emails obtained in a public records request confirmed the wipe.

This is still being litigated four years after the election. But the people "in charge" of the investigation at the state level are the ones who won the election so it hasn't seemed to be a priority of law enforcement to try to understand how the servers were wiped in response to a lawsuit. And the guy who oversaw that debacle won the governors race in the following election that he was overseeing. It is suspicious that Kemp outperformed polls by 1-2% points. Nothing definite in that, following within the margin of error of polls but based on past behavior and other irregularities I find it suspicious. Georgia is the only swing state I would bet money on. I bet Trump wins Georgia.

Old fashioned paper fraud is easier to pull off where unsolicited ballots are involved, and is much harder to detect directly. Ballot harvesting from elderly communities, and retirement home settings, are among the more notable expressions of voter extortion. Purchased ballots come in all varieties, and along with ballot extortion, inflate both turnout and the percentage of winning votes detectable through statistical methods.

Going around and offering to buy ballots requires none of the people you speak with decide to decline and call the police. To do this on the order of 10's or 100's of thousands of votes is a massive effort that would be very extremely difficult to keep secret. A republican in NC got busted for doing this on the order of about 1,000 ballots.

The problem is that other causes can produce the same statistical results. That is why you are safe in asserting “there is no proof”, and I am justified in ignoring you under the premise that dollar bills will not remain unattended if left laying on the sidewalk. You lock your house, and car, for the same reason. This is not esoteric paranoia, and I am baffled the apparent need to resort to arguments grounded in common sense.

If these ballot harvesting operations were being operated on a scale to influence state wide elections it is very hard to keep them secret. All it takes is one operative or voter to alert the authorities. To run an operation to harvest and fill out 100,000 ballots would take a dedicated team. Such large scale conspiracies are hard to maintain.

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html

He then looked at the maximum number of people who could take part in an intrigue in order to maintain it. For a plot to last five years, the maximum was 2521 people. To keep a scheme operating undetected for more than a decade, fewer than 1000 people can be involved. A century-long deception should ideally include fewer than 125 collaborators. Even a straightforward cover-up of a single event, requiring no more complex machinations than everyone keeping their mouth shut, is likely to be blown if more than 650 people are accomplices.

In elections recently won by less than one percentage point, my concern is not trivial.

Being concerned about the outcome is fine. But which states are you concerned about these unsolicited ballots in? Five states already had all mail in voting. 5 more are considering or have implemented some type of all mail in voting and Nevada is the only one in play for the presidential election. I have concerns with mail in voting as well. However mail in voting fraud or ballots purchased on a scale to impact a state wide race and keeping the conspiracy secret on a scale to influence any but the absolute closest state wide races is paranoia.

Ballot purchasing or voter intimidation is absolutely something we should try to watch out for. But doing those things on a scale to impact 100,000 or more votes is a massive operation and can be blown up by a single person reporting that someone tried to purchase their ballot.

“It takes a massive wide spread effort to affect an election with mail in ballots. There is no evidence that mail ins are leading to massive fraud.”

The fraud must be “widespread“, but does not require massive effort. How difficult is it to mail in your dead mother’s ballots?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-18/la-county-man-accused-of-voting-in-three-elections-as-his-dead-mother%3f_amp=true

As jobs go, canvassing retirement housing complexes, or homes, for unsolicited ballots is time consuming but not particularly difficult.

It takes a massive effort to make it widespread, particularly by a single political party. I'm of the opinion that people voting for recently (or not so recently) deceased relatives is likely to largely wash out in the final outcome. I'm sure this happens to some degree by people on both sides every election but unless the election is decided by less than 1,000 votes this type of fraud is unlikely to have an impact. And if this were happening on a massive scale it would be very detectable. Trump's voter fraud commission should have been able to examine voting records compared to death records and turn up lots of these deceased voters if it were widespread. But his voter fraud commission disbanded without finding a single fraudulent vote.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“This is still being litigated four years after the election. But the people "in charge" of the investigation at the state level are the ones who won the election so it hasn't seemed to be a priority of law enforcement to try to understand how the servers were wiped in response to a lawsuit. And the guy who oversaw that debacle won the governors race in the following election that he was overseeing. It is suspicious that Kemp outperformed polls by 1-2% points. Nothing definite in that, following within the margin of error of polls but based on past behavior and other irregularities I find it suspicious. Georgia is the only swing state I would bet money on. I bet Trump wins Georgia.”

And in conformity with what I said; we know exactly who the seven technicians responsible for deleting the data are.

“Going around and offering to buy ballots requires none of the people you speak with decide to decline and call the police. To do this on the order of 10's or 100's of thousands of votes is a massive effort that would be very extremely difficult to keep secret. A republican in NC got busted for doing this on the order of about 1,000 ballots.”

The main targets of this tactic are culturally insulated recent immigrant populations like Somalies.

“If these ballot harvesting operations were being operated on a scale to influence state wide elections it is very hard to keep them secret. All it takes is one operative or voter to alert the authorities. To run an operation to harvest and fill out 100,000 ballots would take a dedicated team. Such large scale conspiracies are hard to maintain.”

They are not secret. This is the reason limits are placed on how many ballots an individual can submit. Yet ballot troves always show up in post-election counting drives.

“Being concerned about the outcome is fine. But which states are you concerned about these unsolicited ballots in? Five states already had all mail in voting. 5 more are considering or have implemented some type of all mail in voting and Nevada is the only one in play for the presidential election. I have concerns with mail in voting as well. However mail in voting fraud or ballots purchased on a scale to impact a state wide race and keeping the conspiracy secret on a scale to influence any but the absolute closest state wide races is paranoia.

“Ballot purchasing or voter intimidation is absolutely something we should try to watch out for. But doing those things on a scale to impact 100,000 or more votes is a massive operation and can be blown up by a single person reporting that someone tried to purchase their ballot.”

You began by complaining that Georgia election officials were not appropriately motivated to investigate a data deletion. Is Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or the 5th congressional district in Minnesota different?

“It takes a massive effort to make it widespread, particularly by a single political party. I'm of the opinion that people voting for recently (or not so recently) deceased relatives is likely to largely wash out in the final outcome. I'm sure this happens to some degree by people on both sides every election but unless the election is decided by less than 1,000 votes this type of fraud is unlikely to have an impact. And if this were happening on a massive scale it would be very detectable. Trump's voter fraud commission should have been able to examine voting records compared to death records and turn up lots of these deceased voters if it were widespread. But his voter fraud commission disbanded without finding a single fraudulent vote.”

No, you are referring to an interview with Matthew Dunlap (D) of Main, and not even he supported your claim. :

“Dunlap’s findings received immediate pushback Friday from Kobach, who acted as vice chair of the commission while Pence served as chair.

‘For some people, no matter how many cases of voter fraud you show them, there will never be enough for them to admit that there’s a problem,’ said Kobach, who is running for Kansas governor and has a good chance of unseating the incumbent, Jeff Colyer, in the Republican primary Tuesday.

‘It appears that Secretary Dunlap is willfully blind to the voter fraud in front of his nose,’ Kobach said in a statement released by his spokesman.

Kobach said there have been more than 1,000 convictions for voter fraud since 2000, and that the commission presented 8,400 instances of double voting in the 2016 election in 20 states.“

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“This is still being litigated four years after the election. But the people "in charge" of the investigation at the state level are the ones who won the election so it hasn't seemed to be a priority of law enforcement to try to understand how the servers were wiped in response to a lawsuit. And the guy who oversaw that debacle won the governors race in the following election that he was overseeing. It is suspicious that Kemp outperformed polls by 1-2% points. Nothing definite in that, following within the margin of error of polls but based on past behavior and other irregularities I find it suspicious. Georgia is the only swing state I would bet money on. I bet Trump wins Georgia.”

And in conformity with what I said; we know exactly who the seven technicians responsible for deleting the data are.

We don't know which of the 7 did it.

But we know who benefitted from this and who was in charge of that office and he's the governor of Georgia now. And we know 4 years on there have been no criminal charges filed. So I'm not going to hold my breath for this to be suddenly investigated with vigor.

[yossarian22c]

Kobach said there have been more than 1,000 convictions for voter fraud since 2000, and that the commission presented 8,400 instances of double voting in the 2016 election in 20 states.“

Why haven't there been 8,400 convictions since 2016 then?

We're talking about impacting more than 8,400 votes over 20 states if you want to consistently swing a presidential or any statewide race. What the commission found is that double voting is rare, even if you take their unsubstantiated 8,400 over 20 states that's 420 votes per state of fraud. And likely since its individuals double voting some of those people canceled each other out. This is so far from your claim of voter fraud on the scale to flip the upcoming presidential election. Seriously find evidence of this happening on a scale anything like you've claimed. Trump's commission couldn't find it. Trump's justice department hasn't found it. Trump is simply making these claims to give himself an excuse to dispute the election if he loses.

The biggest evidence of voter fraud is in NC perpetrated by a republican and that involved less than 1,000 harvested absentee ballots but was discovered because the race was close and people looked into it. His low wage network of ballot collectors flipped on him as fast as they could and talked with the media about it. So explain how someone could do the same thing on the order of 10's or 100's of thousands of ballots and go undetected in close races.

The biggest scandal IMO is Georgia elections over the last decade. But I've yet to see Republicans calling for massive investigations into that because Republicans have been the beneficiary of the results.

[TheDeamon]

Some states went a bit beyond "just expanding absentee voting." I don't have a problem with absentee voting. I do have a problem with states going from absentee voting is basically not allowed to mailing people unsolicited ballots with just months worth of planning though.

The only states that are doing that for the first time are California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.. The only swing state on that list is Nevada. So we wouldn't expect those ballots to have much impact on the race for president.

I brought up an Apple "to mailing people unsolicited ballots" to you giving an Orange in response "The only states that are doing that(expanded absentee voting) for the first time are"

Not a valid comparison? Absentee voting is not "sending unsolicited ballots to people."

They'll still be able to tamper with the popular vote totals, but I wasn't really expecting Trump to win the popular vote anyway because of California, New York, and New Jersey anyway.

[TheDeamon]

See Georgia.
https://apnews.com/article/877ee1015f1c43f1965f63538b035d3f

A computer server crucial to a lawsuit against Georgia election officials was quietly wiped clean by its custodians just after the suit was filed, The Associated Press has learned.

The server’s data was destroyed July 7 by technicians at the Center for Elections Systems at Kennesaw State University, which runs the state’s election system. The data wipe was revealed in an email sent last week from an assistant state attorney general to plaintiffs in the case that was later obtained by the AP. More emails obtained in a public records request confirmed the wipe.

This is still being litigated four years after the election. But the people "in charge" of the investigation at the state level are the ones who won the election so it hasn't seemed to be a priority of law enforcement to try to understand how the servers were wiped in response to a lawsuit. And the guy who oversaw that debacle won the governors race in the following election that he was overseeing. It is suspicious that Kemp outperformed polls by 1-2% points. Nothing definite in that, following within the margin of error of polls but based on past behavior and other irregularities I find it suspicious. Georgia is the only swing state I would bet money on. I bet Trump wins Georgia.

Weird you should mention that, "outperformed polls by 1 to 2 points" in the context of an election era at this point where Republican Voters are being shown to be twice as likely than Democratic Voters to lie/mislead on who they're voting for. Or where Trump won in 2016 by "outperforming the polling data"(but within their error bars).. Or where in the election cycle coming up it is also now being reported that self-identified independents are almost as likely as Conservatives to lie to pollsters about their picks. IIRC, it's something like 5.4% of Democrats fibbing to 10.2% of independents and 10.6% of Conservative/Republican voters.

Problem is if you believe that Republicans and Independents make up only half of the voter base, 10% of them lying gives you a 5% error bar from untruthful/"shy" voters alone, even before getting into methodology errors. The "shy democrats" would add another 2.5% to the error bar. If you make it 60% Republican/independent for an area, your error bar becomes 6% + 2% for a potential 8 point swing from that behavior, even assuming "they cancel each other out" to some degree, you're looking at 5-2.5= 2.5% error above their margin, or 6-2=4% error above their polling margins.

But in that context, Kemp beating the polling by 2 points as a consequence of "shy voters" not being truthful to the pollsters would account for the electoral win he had.

[TheDeamon]

The biggest evidence of voter fraud is in NC perpetrated by a republican and that involved less than 1,000 harvested absentee ballots but was discovered because the race was close and people looked into it. His low wage network of ballot collectors flipped on him as fast as they could and talked with the media about it. So explain how someone could do the same thing on the order of 10's or 100's of thousands of ballots and go undetected in close races.

New Jersey had an even bigger example just this year, and it involved Democrats.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/12/923090987/georgia-voters-face-hours-long-lines-at-polls-on-first-day-of-early-voting

Early voting opened Monday in Georgia for the 2020 general election — but the first day was marred by technical issues and lines that in some locations stretched more than five hours long, particularly in the Atlanta metro area.

Voters arriving in the morning at Atlanta's State Farm Arena, the home of the NBA's Hawks — and the state's largest early voting site, with 300 voting machines — encountered technical issues, which election officials blamed on problems with the electronic poll pads.

I'm shocked that the election issues in Georgia caused delays in the Atlanta area.

[TheDrake]

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/12/923090987/georgia-voters-face-hours-long-lines-at-polls-on-first-day-of-early-voting

Early voting opened Monday in Georgia for the 2020 general election — but the first day was marred by technical issues and lines that in some locations stretched more than five hours long, particularly in the Atlanta metro area.

Voters arriving in the morning at Atlanta's State Farm Arena, the home of the NBA's Hawks — and the state's largest early voting site, with 300 voting machines — encountered technical issues, which election officials blamed on problems with the electronic poll pads.

I'm shocked that the election issues in Georgia caused delays in the Atlanta area.

I'm very curious as to who would decide to go to the very first day of early voting, seems like a bad idea. I also have to question whether any of those people really did the work necessary to cast an informed vote for county officials or if they just dry heaved their way thinking only of Trump.

[DonaldD]

It turns out that the GOP is just fine constraining boards of elections, the entities tasked with actually running a secure election, from setting up more than 1 official drop off location for 4.5 million people in Houston, while at the same time actually installing on their own Unofficial Ballot Drop-Off Boxes Deemed Illegal By California State Officials that they also mislabel as being "official" drop boxes.

After being flagged about the issue on Twitter, Orange County Registrar Neal Kelley responded:"We are looking into this and the CA Secretary of State has also issued guidance confirming unofficial ballot drop boxes are not in compliance with state law.” Kelley noted that while third party ballot collections were allowed, “a voter must designate someone to return their ballot on their behalf."

Here is an interesting question: if, as the Democratic California Secretary of State Alex Padilla contends, these unofficial ballot boxes are in fact illegal, might the ballots collected to-date be required to be discarded?  Although there is no longer a signature requirement for designating somebody to collect one's ballot, there is still a "person" requirement, i.e., the law allows voters to designate a person to return their ballot on the voter's behalf; but by depositing the ballot in an unauthorized box, they have seemingly neither provided the ballot to an appropriate election authority, nor have they technically designated a "person" to return the ballot on their behalf.

This could be messy.

[yossarian22c]

It turns out that the GOP is just fine constraining boards of elections, the entities tasked with actually running a secure election, from setting up more than 1 official drop off location for 4.5 million people in Houston, while at the same time actually installing on their own Unofficial Ballot Drop-Off Boxes Deemed Illegal By California State Officials that they also mislabel as being "official" drop boxes.

After being flagged about the issue on Twitter, Orange County Registrar Neal Kelley responded:"We are looking into this and the CA Secretary of State has also issued guidance confirming unofficial ballot drop boxes are not in compliance with state law.” Kelley noted that while third party ballot collections were allowed, “a voter must designate someone to return their ballot on their behalf."

Here is an interesting question: if, as the Democratic California Secretary of State Alex Padilla contends, these unofficial ballot boxes are in fact illegal, might the ballots collected to-date be required to be discarded?  Although there is no longer a signature requirement for designating somebody to collect one's ballot, there is still a "person" requirement, i.e., the law allows voters to designate a person to return their ballot on the voter's behalf; but by depositing the ballot in an unauthorized box, they have seemingly neither provided the ballot to an appropriate election authority, nor have they technically designated a "person" to return the ballot on their behalf.

This could be messy.

It will be. Could impact a few congressional races. Luckily for the country California isn't a swing state so other than potential causing Trump to lose the popular vote by even more this won't be something the presidency is hinging on.

[TheDrake]

With three weeks to go until election day, it's estimated that some 11 million Americans have already voted.

...

The long queues have prompted a huge global reaction.

One Canadian commenter in Ontario wrote that unlike in the US, a nonpartisan national commission runs the elections.

Another Canadian wrote: "I've waited longer for a bus than I have ever waited to vote."

A British man wrote: "Dear USA, I'm 58 and not once in my life have I had to queue to vote. Sort it out!"

Another person suggested that election monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) should intervene.

One man in India pointed out that his country handles more election ballots than any other democracy in the world.

In a country with a higher level of illiteracy than the US, no such long queues have been seen in previous elections.

I have voted in Indian elections, where voting percentages are much higher than US. A lot more people vote in India than in US, but still have not seen such long queues on any Election Day! Must say that US can do a lot better in its election management!

— Hiron (@hironmoy001) October 13, 2020

In Texas, where early voting began on Tuesday, social media users were reminding each other to come prepared with water, a chair and snack.

"Texas! Get in line early tomorrow! And vote! Yes! Turn the tv off! Eat a good breakfast at 5am! Take water! Chair! Umbrella! And stay in line!" wrote one man.

[DonaldD]

Here's an article, interesting not in that it says much that is new, but rather that it goes through the recent history of the Republican party so systematically in the ways that the party has moved away from striving for popular support based on steadfast ideals, and instead became a party depending on voter suppression and gerrymandering in order to maintain its own semi-permanent rule despite only minority support.  In so doing, I think we'll see how the party has painted itself into a corner where, once the voter suppression fails, the house of cards will collapse leaving the party without either the gamed system nor any significant natural base on which to rebuild.

Of course, this may or may not happen soon - and if sooner, will depend on SCOTUS not defanging a new Voting Rights Act...

[DonaldD]

Trump's Army has kicked off their voter intimidation program:

The Sheriff [Bob Gualtieri] told me the persons that were dressed in these security uniforms had indicated to sheriff’s deputies that they belonged to a licensed security company and they indicated—and this has not been confirmed yet—that they were hired by the Trump campaign,” said Marcus in a video interview with 8 On Your Side’s Chip Osowski Wednesday night.

There is almost no chance that these men were actually hired by the Trump campaign, and the Trump campaign has denied they were involved. Of course, this was completely expected to happen, and people warned about it happening, after Trump encouraged people to do just this on numerous occasions.

[Lloyd Perna]

https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/voters/trump-supporters-in-milford-brookline-receive-threatening-letters/article_313effdb-ed1b-5199-80df-4e1c0f7c0170.html?block_id=664693

It's happening on the other side as well.   People in New Hampshire with Trump signs on their lawns have been receiving threatening mail.  Though I think in this case what the leftists are doing is far more egregious.

Dear Neighbor,

You have been identified by our group as being a Trump supporter.

Your address has been added into our database as a target for when we attack should Trump not concede the election.

We Recommend that you check your home insurance policy and make sure that is current and that it has adequate coverage for fire damage.

You have been given "Fair Warning".

Always remember, that it was "you" that started this Civil War.

Be prepared to face the severe consequences of your pre-emptive actions against democracy.

[TheDrake]

https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/voters/trump-supporters-in-milford-brookline-receive-threatening-letters/article_313effdb-ed1b-5199-80df-4e1c0f7c0170.html?block_id=664693

It's happening on the other side as well.   People in New Hampshire with Trump signs on their lawns have been receiving threatening mail.  Though I think in this case what the leftists are doing is far more egregious.

Dear Neighbor,

You have been identified by our group as being a Trump supporter.

Your address has been added into our database as a target for when we attack should Trump not concede the election.

We Recommend that you check your home insurance policy and make sure that is current and that it has adequate coverage for fire damage.

You have been given "Fair Warning".

Always remember, that it was "you" that started this Civil War.

Be prepared to face the severe consequences of your pre-emptive actions against democracy.

So when the Michigan militia plots to kill cops and kidnap the governor, it's just a group of crazies, but when one nutjob sends letters to Trump supporters in an obscure NH town, its evidence of a giant plot to overthrow America?

At least four people with Trump signs in their yards have received threatening letters mailed to their homes in Brookline and Milford, according to police.

Egregious, yes. Terrifying, no.

[wmLambert]

Here's an article, interesting not in that it says much that is new, but rather that it goes through the recent history of the Republican party so systematically in the ways that the party has moved away from striving for popular support based on steadfast ideals, and instead became a party depending on voter suppression and gerrymandering in order to maintain its own semi-permanent rule despite only minority support.  In so doing, I think we'll see how the party has painted itself into a corner where, once the voter suppression fails, the house of cards will collapse leaving the party without either the gamed system nor any significant natural base on which to rebuild.

Of course, this may or may not happen soon - and if sooner, will depend on SCOTUS not defanging a new Voting Rights Act...

But there is no recent history of Republicans trying to suppress legal voting or any hint of intimidation. That intimidation is 100% on the Democrat side. Attempts to prevent illegal voting is not voter suppression. The illegal voting is the suppressing. When Trump says he will look at what happens is a genuine response in the face of Democrat vote-scamming. Hillary just said "no concession under any circumstance."

[wmLambert]

...when the Michigan militia plots to kill cops and kidnap the governor, it's just a group of crazies, but when one nutjob sends letters to Trump supporters in an obscure NH town, its evidence of a giant plot to overthrow America?

When the anarchists calling themselves "Michigan Militia." Anarchist are on the Left side of the scales - certainly not on the side of law and order. The same side as the "nut jobs." They are all yours, don't try to hand them over to someone else. Governor Whitmer is so reviled here, that even anarchists on her side don't like her.

[yossarian22c]

The Supreme Court has sided with Alabama state officials who banned curbside voting intended to accommodate individuals with disabilities and those at risk from the COVID-19 virus.

The high court issued its order Wednesday night, without explanation, over the dissent of the court's three liberal justices.

More evidence Republicans just want to make voting harder.