Election Integrity (evidence of lack)

Author: ADreamOfLiberty

Posts

Total: 204
Topic's author
#1
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Just a thread where I can dump all the little puzzle pieces that each individually fail to impress certain brainwashed segments of the population. It's about the big picture and the 'context' of how everything together just kinda means something more you know?

To start us off is this (democrat politician was told someone voted in her name):

Now I encourage inquiring minds to think a little bit ahead here. Which is the more insightful:

A) Well ok everything is fine, they caught the double ballot and she voted with a provisional. When they confirm it's her that's the ballot they'll use. No harm no foul. This does not evidence any problem what so ever.

B) If she had not tried to vote, would the fraudulent ballot have counted?

No time limits, but there is a wrong answer.
#2
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So you provided an example where a voter goes to vote and is told she already voted, which upon review turns out it was her partner who lives at the same address whom the poll worker mixed up the voter ID's for.

You are correct, these individual pieces fail to impress, because because they're merely individual examples but becsuse that's exactly what is to be expected in a country of over 300 million people. This is why we study allegations such as voter fraud based on statistics, not anecdotes.

It's a typical tactic of the right when arguing for "voter integrity" to use piles of anecdotes (again, out of over 300 million people) to claim these anecdotes justifies taking action that will result in the practical disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. To anyone who pretends to care about democracy and the integrity of our elections, that's not how that works.
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Double_R
Piles of anecdotes are the only way to catch a series of small scale voter frauds that all stack up since voting is anonymous and you can never backtrack each vote to the authentic voter.

Think deeply before replying.
Topic's author
#4
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
which upon review turns out it was her partner who lives at the same address whom the poll worker mixed up the voter ID's for.
No review you are capable of. That is an implausible excuse.


This is why we study allegations such as voter fraud based on statistics, not anecdotes.
Statistics don't exist without data sets. Data sets don't exist when data is hidden.


It's a typical tactic of the right when arguing for "voter integrity" to use piles of anecdotes
When there are piles, it no longer becomes anecdotal.


again, out of over 300 million people

The difference is there are comprehensive datasets about deaths resulting from police action. At some point it became 'undemocratic' to publish such lists for election integrity.


To anyone who pretends to care about democracy and the integrity of our elections, that's not how that works.
An election whose integrity is in reasonable doubt has disenfranchised the entire body politic.
#5
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,833
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There you go, and for Georgia you only need to find 11,780 votes....Bill Barr couldn't find them, maybe you can.


#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Sherlock Holmes wouldn't have been able to find 12,000 fraudulent votes in a system that protects fraud and disenfranchises democracy.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
An election whose integrity is in reasonable doubt has disenfranchised the entire body politic.
Reality Winner was also punished to the limit for daring to question that integrity.

#8
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RationalMadman
Piles of anecdotes are the only way to catch a series of small scale voter frauds that all stack up since voting is anonymous and you can never backtrack each vote to the authentic voter.
 If the anecdotes are stacking up then we're no longer dealing with anecdotes, now we're dealing with data, which is an entirely different conversation.
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
which upon review turns out it was her partner who lives at the same address whom the poll worker mixed up the voter ID's for.
No review you are capable of. That is an implausible excuse.
Nonsense. What would be implausible in a country of over 300 million people is that no such errors occurred. Human beings make mistakes from time to time. That's not news.

This is why we study allegations such as voter fraud based on statistics, not anecdotes.
Statistics don't exist without data sets. Data sets don't exist when data is hidden.
There is plenty of information publicly available on voter fraud statistics, and of the information that isn't publicly available there are institutions run by both democrats and republicans that have for decades audited votes and found nothing. The fact that you do not have evidence for something is not evidence of that something.

It's a typical tactic of the right when arguing for "voter integrity" to use piles of anecdotes
When there are piles, it no longer becomes anecdotal.
When your pile is 30 examples long in a state where millions of ballots were cast... They're still anecdotes. 

The difference is there are comprehensive datasets about deaths resulting from police action. At some point it became 'undemocratic' to publish such lists for election integrity.
It's not the act, it's the intent. You do not have evidence that any of the things you claim to be happening are actually happening on the scale needed to support your position, so the implication is very clear that the driving force here is disdain over the fact that you are outnumbered by people who disagree with you and rather than combatting that by changing people's minds you're just trying to deligitimize the process altogether.

To anyone who pretends to care about democracy and the integrity of our elections, that's not how that works.
An election whose integrity is in reasonable doubt has disenfranchised the entire body politic.
The doubts are not reasonable, not a single thing you point to wouldn't be expected in a country with over 300 million people and 50 different states all conducting their own elections.

What is also to be expected is that in a country where the social groups who over the course of centuries have grown very used to being in charge suddenly start seeing other groups catch up to them would make them feel like everything is being stolen from them, which makes them ripe for a strongman to come in and comfort them by telling them he will turn back the clock and make sure they are in charge again. It's all predictable.
Topic's author
#10
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
which upon review turns out it was her partner who lives at the same address whom the poll worker mixed up the voter ID's for.
No review you are capable of. That is an implausible excuse.
Nonsense. What would be implausible in a country of over 300 million people is that no such errors occurred. Human beings make mistakes from time to time. That's not news.

"In Georgia, meanwhile, where Biden leads by about 1,600 votes, officials said they had about 13,000 provisional ballots."

"Pennsylvania officials said Friday morning they were just beginning to process provisional ballots and said they had at least 85,000"

Not that you care but I personally saw a significant rate of double voting when I was an election judge in 2022. ~6%


This is why we study allegations such as voter fraud based on statistics, not anecdotes.
Statistics don't exist without data sets. Data sets don't exist when data is hidden.
There is plenty of information publicly available on voter fraud statistics
No there isn't. Assertions about percentages are not data. For example I said I observed a 6% rate of double balloting. That's an assertion. Not data. You can't verify it, but you're claim I should trust people who were put in positions of authority so trust me I guess (lol).


there are institutions run by both democrats and republicans that have for decades audited votes and found nothing
The only way to fully audit mail ballots (as practiced) is a total canvas. No total canvas was ever done anywhere.


The fact that you do not have evidence for something is not evidence of that something.
Yes it is. If birds always chirp, no chirping is evidence of no birds.

If legitimate elections are auditable then the lack of auditable data is evidence that there was no legitimate election.


It's a typical tactic of the right when arguing for "voter integrity" to use piles of anecdotes
When there are piles, it no longer becomes anecdotal.
When your pile is 30 examples long in a state where millions of ballots were cast... They're still anecdotes. 
No they are not. The inverse filters must be applied.

If a certain species of fish is only spotted surfacing at a rate of 0.1% and you know there are millions of fish passing through a river, 30 fish of a certain color are seen above the water indicates 30/0.01% = 300,000 fish of that color are among the millions.

The sample filtering cannot be determined accurately without knowing about almost every fraudulent ballot mailer. That is impossible without a full canvas, in fact even a full canvas would be unable to catch people who sold their vote.

Significance of the evidence cannot proven, but reasonable estimates show outcome changing swings.


you're just trying to deligitimize the process altogether.
Your perception of intent is irrelevant. The process is not legitimate because reasonable doubt as to accuracy exists.


To anyone who pretends to care about democracy and the integrity of our elections, that's not how that works.
An election whose integrity is in reasonable doubt has disenfranchised the entire body politic.
The doubts are not reasonable
You have proven you are not a reliable judge of reasonableness.


not a single thing you point to wouldn't be expected in a country with over 300 million people and 50 different states all conducting their own elections.
Nor is a person dying an unexpected event, but yet people seem so sure Navalny was murdered. It's not the errors and oversights. It's how people in power engineered and reacted to them.

Honest fellow citizens would have worked together to secure the elections, then there would be no reasonable doubt. Instead a third was brainwashed and tried to gaslight the other 2/3.

If there is no fraud there would be nothing to lose by having real elections. Those who oppose real elections are all but confessing.
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"In Georgia, meanwhile, where Biden leads by about 1,600 votes, officials said they had about 13,000 provisional ballots."

"Pennsylvania officials said Friday morning they were just beginning to process provisional ballots and said they had at least 85,000"

Not that you care but I personally saw a significant rate of double voting when I was an election judge in 2022. ~6%
I have no idea how your quotes feed into your point or how's any of this relates to my point.

Provisional ballots take time because they have to make sure they are valid, that's a normal part of the process, I don't know why you find that ominous.

Tell me more about this 6% double voting. How did you identify these instances? How did you determine that number was 6%? What did you do about these double votes?

That's an assertion. Not data. You can't verify it, but you're claim I should trust people who were put in positions of authority so trust me I guess (lol).
My position is that if you are going to accuse someone of committing fraud you need some kind of evidence. Taking the default position that everyone is committing fraud until they prove to you that they are not is not rational and certainly does not give anyone any reason to take your assertions of fraud seriously.

Counting votes will always be done by human beings and will always be verified by human beings. If your default is to suspect fraud until proven otherwise then you will never trust election results. That's a choice you have made, that is not the fault of the democrats, judges, election commissioners, etc. and there is no law that can fix that. The question you should really be asking yourself is why you choose this path of eternal skepticism.

The only way to fully audit mail ballots (as practiced) is a total canvas. No total canvas was ever done anywhere.
Because that is an incredibly impractical thing to do and the reward is not worth it. Like I just pointed out, if it's guilty until proven innocent then you will just take issue with the total canvas. There is nothing that could get you to trust election results, at least not until you start to see the results you want, in which case I suspect you would suddenly be fine with all of it.

Curious, do you think there are major ballot counting issues in Florida? They do of course use vote by mail more than the majority of states in the country...

If birds always chirp, no chirping is evidence of no birds.

If legitimate elections are auditable then the lack of auditable data is evidence that there was no legitimate election.
The absence is evidence can be used as evidence of absence in a situation where a given conclusion would necessitate that evidence. The problem is that there is no reason for the level of data you think should be available to the public actually be available to the public. You only think it should because you think it's everyone's job to refute your conspiracy theories regardless of whether you have any legitimate reason to suspect them. Not how it works.

The doubts are not reasonable
You have proven you are not a reliable judge of reasonableness.
So would you like to now discuss how we go about determining what is reasonable in the first place? No, of course you wouldn't. Just like how you wanted to argue that Trump did not signal to the mob that he wanted violence without engaging in any conversation about communication works in the first place.

Honest fellow citizens would have worked together to secure the elections, then there would be no reasonable doubt.
There is every reason for others to fight back against unreasonable measures which waste pubic resources aimed at convincing people like you of something you have decided to remain unconvinced of.

Also, elections is a balancing act and you only seem to be concerned about one side of the scale. Getting the vote count right is imperitive, but so is ensuring that everyone has the right to vote and that voting is made as easy as reasonably possible. No one should have to pay for documents they need to exercise a constitutional right, nor should anyone have to wait on line for 12 hours to cast a ballot.

The fact that people are concerned about the other side of the scale which you seem to care nothing about is not evidence of mal intent.
Topic's author
#12
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
"In Georgia, meanwhile, where Biden leads by about 1,600 votes, officials said they had about 13,000 provisional ballots."

"Pennsylvania officials said Friday morning they were just beginning to process provisional ballots and said they had at least 85,000"

Not that you care but I personally saw a significant rate of double voting when I was an election judge in 2022. ~6%
I have no idea how your quotes feed into your point or how's any of this relates to my point.
The provisional ballot count is a proxy for double votes. If there is a breakdown of the reasons provisional ballots were issued I'd love to see it.


Tell me more about this 6% double voting. How did you identify these instances?
The person stood in front of me, gave me first name, last name, and address, and then I looked up the corresponding voter registry; and then I told them they had already been sent mail ballots (and that someone must have asked for that) "No I didn't".

One smiled and said "I was testing to see if you'd stop me." He walked out because the ballot he mailed was is true vote.

Another said that he changed her mind about voting in person and the had never returned the ballot. The system recorded the ballot as having been received (someone sent it back).


How did you determine that number was 6%?
Tallied the number of people in the category and divided it by the number of people who cast ballots that day.


What did you do about these double votes?
~2/3 went on to fill out a provisional ballot. The rest turned around and left the polling location (one in obvious disgust nearly yelling).

I told them what I was told, that they would be contacted by investigators to confirm their identity and then the provisional ballot would be counted and the mail ballot would not be. I do not know that is what happened.

Not all the mail ballots were recorded as being received back to election officials, so those are just "blank checks" that could have been injected in at some point.


My position is that if you are going to accuse someone of committing fraud you need some kind of evidence.
I agree, but the solution is not to charge fraudsters with fraud it is to make fraud impossible, or to make it detectable and correctable.

When there is a duty to provide high trust lack of reliable strategy to ensure integrity is sufficient to treat the execution fraudulent regardless of whether you can charge or punish anyone.

For instance if someone claims to represent a bank and offer loans, but keeps no ledgers, that person's claims must be treated as fraudulent regardless of whether he or she can be proved to have committed a crime.

A bank with no account sheets is not a real bank regardless of whether you can prove someone is trying to steal money. An election where the totals may or may not reflect the will of the people is not a real election regardless of whether you can prove someone tried to rig it.


Taking the default position that everyone is committing fraud until they prove to you that they are not is not rational
It is perfectly rational in several contexts. Every context where safeguards exist. Chain of custody for police evidence is another one.

If they had no forms or procedures you would never be able to prove they planted evidence. Again lack of evidence is an unacceptable standard by itself. A system had to be designed such that wrongdoing was highly likely to produce evidence. Only then is lack of evidence evidence of lack.


Counting votes will always be done by human beings and will always be verified by human beings.
Systems were designed 2500 years ago that were more foolproof and we have RSA encryption now. There are no excuses.


If your default is to suspect fraud until proven otherwise then you will never trust election results.
You propose it cannot be proven to be accurate? Very Staliny thing to say.


That's a choice you have made, that is not the fault of the democrats, judges, election commissioners, etc. and there is no law that can fix that.
There are laws that can fix it completely and were laws that fixed it most of the way. Which laws? The laws that were ignored and set aside in the 2020 election "cause covid".


The only way to fully audit mail ballots (as practiced) is a total canvas. No total canvas was ever done anywhere.
Because that is an incredibly impractical thing to do and the reward is not worth it.
It's impractical, and that's a reason to have secure elections that can be audited without asking every single person if they really voted.

As to whether it is worth it to have real elections, if you're an old man and the USA has balkanized I want you to remember you said that.


Like I just pointed out, if it's guilty until proven innocent then you will just take issue with the total canvas.
I will take issue with anything short of a results that are beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not "guilty until proven innocent" it's "unverified until verified".

"trust us bro" is insufficient and always has been. That is why laws needed to be ignored.


There is nothing that could get you to trust election results
Biometric blockchain, I've described it before.


Curious, do you think there are major ballot counting issues in Florida?
I don't know. I haven't heard controversy, but if the same gaps in integrity exist in Florida and could swing results then the results are fake.


If birds always chirp, no chirping is evidence of no birds.

If legitimate elections are auditable then the lack of auditable data is evidence that there was no legitimate election.
The absence is evidence can be used as evidence of absence in a situation where a given conclusion would necessitate that evidence.
Yes. Auditable = a situation where inaccuracy would produce evidence of inaccuracy


The problem is that there is no reason for the level of data you think should be available to the public actually be available to the public.
That idea is an attack on democracy. You should be facing the same charges as Trump.


Not how it works.
If you and your tribe were right about "how it works" Jan 6 wouldn't have happened. History tells a different tale about "how it works". You betray trust, your social cohesion crumbles, your civilization weakens and fragments. That's "How it works".


Also, elections is a balancing act and you only seem to be concerned about one side of the scale. Getting the vote count right is imperitive, but so is ensuring that everyone has the right to vote and that voting is made as easy as reasonably possible.
Sacrificing outcome swinging accuracy for convenience is not reasonable. Both are values, but they do not compete. Accuracy is supreme.

It could be both accurate and easy, with biometric blockchains; and those could have been implemented in 2000 if governments weren't filled by people who preferred the system that got them in power regardless of whether it was easy or a few small changes away from being fake.


No one should have to pay for documents they need to exercise a constitutional right
Explain gun permits.


nor should anyone have to wait on line for 12 hours to cast a ballot.
Yet when elections are sabotaged intentionally by officials (see Arizona election 2022) all of those anti-democratic institutions out to "save democracy" didn't care that election officials lied on the stand to cover up their actions (which made people wait in long lines).


The fact that people are concerned about the other side of the scale which you seem to care nothing about is not evidence of mal intent.
When combined with the above two counter examples it is. If they cared about constitutional rights having delays and fees they would not support gun permits. If they cared about voting being an undue burden they would have been very concerned over election officials lying about misprinting delay-causing ballots on the stand.
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
@ADreamOfLiberty
but so is ensuring that everyone has the right to vote and that voting is made as easy as reasonably possible.
That's how you create a fraudulent election system, by making sure fraudulent people (you did say EVERYONE) have the right to submit a ballot(s) and that their vote(s) is/are also easily cast and counted with as little resistance as possible, if any scrutiny is allowed at all.

You can have free elections OR fair elections; but you cannot have both.

As  Dr. Sowell says: "There are NO easy solutions in the real world. Only trade-offs"

Topic's author
#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
As  Dr. Sowell says: "There are NO easy solutions in the real world. Only trade-offs"
Bit of a tangent, but I would take issue with that.

There are easy solutions, solutions where the tradeoff is extremely good. We just take them for granted.

For instance making knives out of steel instead of obsidian.


#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Lol, it applies to the real world where one knife does not fit all. The idea that there is a magical knife that could solve every problem is the promise of every government seeking a way to control all the knives in the world. If you lived on a volcanic island, and the choice was between a readily available knife made of obsidian and essentially no knife at all, your "solution" would fall flat. The real world revolves around scarcity, and there is no perfect solution to scarcity, be it obsidian or steel. There are only trade-offs. You don't need to be a Dr. in Economics like Sowell to embrace this obvious truth.
Topic's author
#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, it applies to the real world where one knife does not fit all. The idea that there is a magical knife that could solve every problem is the promise of every government seeking a way to control all the knives in the world.
I'm saying there are circumstances where there are significant tradeoffs and situations where there aren't.

Both scenarios exist, so it's wrong to say there are no easy solutions. There just aren't always easy solutions.

#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I just take issue that there exists a perfect solution where you can have both 100% free and 100% fair elections when that is an impossible outcome.

You have to have a balance between liberty and security, sacrificing neither and prioritizing neither.
Topic's author
#18
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
I just take issue that there exists a perfect solution where you can have both 100% free and 100% fair elections when that is an impossible outcome.
I'm translating "free" to "without entitlement checks" and "fair" as "accurate".

Yes of course you can't have both and we have no use for "free"/"without entitlement checks" in elections. We ought to have entitlement checks, but they can be very convenient if we actually applied ourselves to the problem.


You have to have a balance between liberty and security, sacrificing neither and prioritizing neither.
I take Benjamin Franklin's view on that.
Topic's author
#19
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
It is sometimes claimed that election officials are always comprised of mixed group of partisans so there can be no conspiracies afoot. While it is false that every critical decision is made  by mixed panels, it's also true that people have been threatened with abduction and theft for not rubber stamping elections before (links can be provided upon request).

Here we see an example of how an election board is tailored to allow pet "republicans" to assure no genuine oversight.


Lam also asked Butler if she thought fraud “is a significant problem in Maryland’s elections,” and she said “no.” Butler also said she did not believe there has been illegal interference in past elections in the state.

Asked for her thoughts about mail-in ballots, Butler said she believed “it can be done extremely well,” and she thought Maryland did “a good job with it under the circumstances we had” during the pandemic.

This (and other similar instances) is why "but a republican said..." is an irrelevant excuse.
#20
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The provisional ballot count is a proxy for double votes.
No they're not. A provisional ballot is any ballot that requires further review before it can be accepted. In the last election I went to cast my ballot in the same location I had gone to for years to learn that they realigned everything. I didn't have time to go elsewhere so I filled out a provisional ballot. Weeks later I got a letter saying my ballot was rejected, didn't really understand why but wasn't worth it to me to make an issue out of.

One smiled and said "I was testing to see if you'd stop me." He walked out because the ballot he mailed was is true vote.

Another said that he changed her mind about voting in person and the had never returned the ballot. The system recorded the ballot as having been received (someone sent it back).
So on other words, you're talking about people who tried to do it but the system wouldn't allow it...

I told them what I was told, that they would be contacted by investigators to confirm their identity and then the provisional ballot would be counted and the mail ballot would not be. I do not know that is what happened.
Right... It was sent back to people to investigate, which makes sense when it comes to whether a ballot is valid.

I am failing to see where the issue is here.

Taking the default position that everyone is committing fraud until they prove to you that they are not is not rational
It is perfectly rational in several contexts. Every context where safeguards exist. Chain of custody for police evidence is another one.
Processes must be put in place and followed to ensure integrity. The process always assumes guilty until proven innocent. What you're eluding to is the notion that the people who are responsible for following those processes are not following them. Very different things.

If your default is to suspect fraud until proven otherwise then you will never trust election results.
You propose it cannot be proven to be accurate?
There are still people out there who believe the earth is flat. You cannot prove something to someone who has decided it won’t be proven.

This is where the pejorative connotation behind the term “conspiracy theorist” comes from. The problem with conspiracy theorists is that there is no diffinitive test, which is to say their beliefs are unfalsifiable.

If the vote counters say Biden won then they were either incompetent or fraudulent, so now we have to audit them. If the auditors say Biden won, then the auditors (who were overwhelmingly republican) were either incompetent or fraudulent, so now we have to hire an outside MAGA group to come in and check the ballots for bamboo fibers. And when that effort fails, it's either because they didn't know what they were doing or because the cheating itself was too sophisticated to be caught through an audit. Evidence be damned. Logical consistency be damned. All that matters is that the end result wasn't acceptable.

There are laws that can fix it completely and were laws that fixed it most of the way. Which laws? The laws that were ignored and set aside in the 2020 election "cause covid".
The fact that states took into account the reality of conducting an election in the middle of a pandemic is not suspicious nor nefarious.

It's not "guilty until proven innocent" it's "unverified until verified".
They've been verified over and over and over again.

"trust us bro" is insufficient and always has been.
There is no such thing as a system that doesn't ultimately require trust. If you counted and verified every single ballot yourself and concluded Biden won, your personal confirmation would be worthless to the millions upon millions of Trump supporters out there who would just brand you as a part of the deep state.

It doesn't matter what system you come up with, the results will always have to be provided to you in some form. If they're numbers on a spread sheet, someone had to put it together. If you have images of the ballots to sort through, someone had to upload them. There is no such thing as accepting any result without trust, this is the problem I keep pointing out. You are inherently distrustful, so there is no possible way to prove to you what you do not wish to be proven.

Biometric blockchain, I've described it before.
Yeah, I'm sure the conspiracy theorists won't figure out how to demonize that one...

Curious, do you think there are major ballot counting issues in Florida?
I don't know. I haven't heard controversy
That's because Trump won, and unlike the right the left actually believes in democracy.

What's fascinating alt Florida is that it's the literal reversal of what the Trump camp used to claim the results in the blue wall were fake. When the polls closed Biden was well ahead, them all of a sudden Trump caught up and passed him. Yet no one on the right found that suspicious at all. I wonder why.

Sacrificing outcome swinging accuracy for convenience is not reasonable. Both are values, but they do not compete.
The idea that it's outcome swinging accuracy is your conspiracy claim. There is no evidence for that.

The idea that democracy is supposed to be for everyone is not a side note, it's the entire point.

No one should have to pay for documents they need to exercise a constitutional right
Explain gun permits.
Explain what a "well regulated militia" means.

Better yet, don't. That's a conversation for another day, or more accurately another thread.

Yet when elections are sabotaged intentionally by officials (see Arizona election 2022) all of those anti-democratic institutions out to "save democracy" didn't care that election officials lied on the stand to cover up their actions (which made people wait in long lines).
Another conspiracy theory that took the facts well out of context. Not wasting my time debunking it.


#21
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
That's how you create a fraudulent election system, by making sure fraudulent people (you did say EVERYONE) 
Wow, congratulations on the gotcha.

At least you're being straightforward though about not being serious, so that's progress, I guess...

Topic's author
#22
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
The provisional ballot count is a proxy for double votes.
A provisional ballot is any ballot that requires further review before it can be accepted.
Such as double balloting due to a mail ballot being returned.


One smiled and said "I was testing to see if you'd stop me." He walked out because the ballot he mailed was is true vote.

Another said that he changed her mind about voting in person and the had never returned the ballot. The system recorded the ballot as having been received (someone sent it back).
So on other words, you're talking about people who tried to do it but the system wouldn't allow it...
Person, singular. 1/8


I told them what I was told, that they would be contacted by investigators to confirm their identity and then the provisional ballot would be counted and the mail ballot would not be. I do not know that is what happened.
Right... It was sent back to people to investigate, which makes sense when it comes to whether a ballot is valid.

I am failing to see where the issue is here.
That is because you aren't thinking deeply. See OP for hints.


What you're eluding to is the notion that the people who are responsible for following those processes are not following them. Very different things.
No I have always been saying that the people who are responsible for running a real election have failed.

The problem is still fraud though, just like the problem that chain of custody solves is planting evidence. If god existed and prevented people from committing election fraud or planting evidence then we wouldn't need chain of custody for evidence and election procedure failure would not need to be treated the same as a fraudulent outcome.

What do they do with evidence that fails the chain of custody rules? They throw it out. Just as if it had been planted.

The only difference is that when you prove someone planted evidence you can punish that person.

The results of an election must be thrown out if the fraud could have changed them, regardless of whether any particular person is guilty of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.


If your default is to suspect fraud until proven otherwise then you will never trust election results.
You propose it cannot be proven to be accurate?
There are still people out there who believe the earth is flat. You cannot prove something to someone who has decided it won’t be proven.
Belief is irrelevant. The earth can be proven to be a sphere. Elections are only elections if they can be proven to a high level of confidence to reflect the will of the majority.

If you don't believe elections can be proven to be accurate then you don't believe in elections as I define them. In that case when you say "democracy" it signifies meaningless ritual to prop up the state and nothing more.


There are laws that can fix it completely and were laws that fixed it most of the way. Which laws? The laws that were ignored and set aside in the 2020 election "cause covid".
The fact that states took into account the reality of conducting an election in the middle of a pandemic is not suspicious nor nefarious.
Your spin does not make their actions legal or constitutional, nor does it restore the united states to a state of democracy.


It's not "guilty until proven innocent" it's "unverified until verified".
They've been verified over and over and over again.
You have admitted no full canvas has been done.


"trust us bro" is insufficient and always has been.
There is no such thing as a system that doesn't ultimately require trust.
Bitcoin.


If you counted and verified every single ballot yourself and concluded Biden won, your personal confirmation would be worthless to the millions upon millions of Trump supporters out there who would just brand you as a part of the deep state.
If ballots could be verified and they were verified then I would have no issue. Your proposal that others would still call it fraudulent is irrelevant.

What matters is that the ballots cannot be verified so those millions are justified.


It doesn't matter what system you come up with, the results will always have to be provided to you in some form. If they're numbers on a spread sheet, someone had to put it together. If you have images of the ballots to sort through, someone had to upload them. There is no such thing as accepting any result without trust, this is the problem I keep pointing out. You are inherently distrustful, so there is no possible way to prove to you what you do not wish to be proven.
You theorize that I would not accept proof if it existed. That is an excuse for having no proof. If you had proof you would not need to theorize.


Biometric blockchain, I've described it before.
Yeah, I'm sure the conspiracy theorists won't figure out how to demonize that one...
It doesn't matter if there will always be doubters. There will be less when doubt is unjustified and more importantly there will be an actual democracy.


Curious, do you think there are major ballot counting issues in Florida?
I don't know. I haven't heard controversy
That's because Trump won, and unlike the right the left actually believes in democracy.


Yet no one on the right found that suspicious at all. I wonder why.
Did they put up cardboard to block observation of counting? Did a water-main suddenly break? Did a bunch of election workers come forward to blow the whistle?


Sacrificing outcome swinging accuracy for convenience is not reasonable. Both are values, but they do not compete.
The idea that it's outcome swinging accuracy is your conspiracy claim. There is no evidence for that.
There need only be evidence that the process could have allowed it. There is.


Another conspiracy theory that took the facts well out of context. Not wasting my time debunking it.
You can't, it's on video.
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I'll take your response to mean you are willing to join MAGA over the loss of your position.
#24
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
I am failing to see where the issue is here.
That is because you aren't thinking deeply. See OP for hints.
They're are no hints in the OP. All you did was post a story of a purported clerical error, and all you've done since it's provide anecdotes of individuals who at worst tried to get away with double voting and were referred for investigation. That's exactly how any election system would be expected to work. The fact that you are telling me to go search for a more nefarious narrative instead of just explaining it tells me you've got nothing here.

What you're eluding to is the notion that the peoplewho are responsible for following those processes are not following them. Very different things.
No I have always been saying that the people who are responsible for running a real election have failed.
And yet you are in no position to make that assessment.

The problem is still fraud though, just like the problem that chain of custody solves is planting evidence.
Mail in ballots have to be sealed. You can't open them or alter the ballot without destroying them. That's what stops the fraud.

The results of an election must be thrown out if the fraud could have changed them, regardless of whether any particular person is guilty of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is no such thing as an election that couldn't have been changed due to fraud. The only question is how high our standards need to be, which brings us back to the question about balance.

I don't remember what state it was but one of them had something like a 4 step process for submitting a mail in ballot. You had to fill out the ballot, place it in another envelope, sign it, place that in another envelope, etc. I remember seeing it explained and being confused as hell but then bothered by the reality that hundred's of people will probably do this wrong and any mistake will result in that ballot being thrown out (which was confirmed to have happened in not insignificant numbers).

Your attitude towards that seems to be "well that's what's necessary to ensure integrity" which would be a ridiculous take. Measures taken that might have prevented maybe a dozen fraudulent ballots (if any at all) will effectively disenfranchise hundred's of legal voters from the election. That's not election integrity, that's the opposite. That is the kind of thing that could actually swing an election.

Belief is irrelevant. The earth can be proven to be a sphere. Elections are only elections if they can be proven to a high level of confidence to reflect the will of the majority.

If you don't believe elections can be proven to be accurate then you don't believe in elections as I define them.
Proof: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

Belief is not irrelevant, it is the entire point. You cannot, by definition, prove something to someone if they choose not to believe it (aka accept it within their mind).

Your entire position is circular. You don't believe elections are valid, therefore they have not been proven to be valid. They have not been proven to be valid because you don't believe they are valid.

This is why people like myself remain unconcerned that people like you do not accept the results. Let us know when you have evidence.

There is no such thing as a system that doesn't ultimately require trust.
Bitcoin.
And yet no one invests in it.

If ballots could be verified and they were verified then I would have no issue. Your proposal that others would still call it fraudulent is irrelevant.
And yet my proposal has been demonstrated clearly. No one cared about mail in voting until Donald Trump politicized it and told the country it would be used to commit fraud, then suddenly everyone thinks it was used to commit fraud.

And despite massive nationwide conspiracy theory that mail in ballots were used to commit fraud, no one has a problem with it in the states where Trump won.

It is cartoonishly transparent that this is not being driven by practical concerns which could be easily rectified with a few more practical safeguards.

Will respond to the rest later.

#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
There is no such thing as a system that doesn't ultimately require trust.

Bitcoin.
And yet no one invests in it.
Lol wut? That's a cartoonish claim. Not a single person buys Bitcoin?

In comparison, here are some words on a dollar bill:
In God we trust...
Reserve note...

The reserve requirement ratio in the United States varies depending on the size and type of banking institution but typically ranges from 0% to 10% for deposits. The rest of the value comes from trust.



#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
You don't believe elections are valid, therefore they have not been proven to be valid.
That's a misrepresentation. The actual claim is that because there is no way to validate mail in ballots to any degree of certainty, then there is no way to be certain they are valid votes. The only process of validation relies heavily on signature verification, which is a completely arbitrary process.

For comparison, there is no arbitrary process when someone presents a valid ID to the polling worker. It either is the person or it is not. Verifiable.

It's truly a bizarre take that you would allow arbitrary vote disenfranchisement with arbitrary rejection of signatures when that would never happen if the person was there in person to assert his identity to a poll worker without fear or favor of an arbitrary process. All of a sudden, it becomes an issue when the right demands their voters to show up and vote in person because their vote may not be counted.... wonder why that's such an anathema to the left tribe?
Topic's author
#27
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I am failing to see where the issue is here.
That is because you aren't thinking deeply. See OP for hints.
They're are no hints in the OP. All you did was post a story of a purported clerical error, and all you've done since it's provide anecdotes of individuals who at worst tried to get away with double voting and were referred for investigation.
Answer the question in (B)


The fact that you are telling me to go search for a more nefarious narrative instead of just explaining it tells me you've got nothing here.
Teach a man to fish


What you're eluding to is the notion that the peoplewho are responsible for following those processes are not following them. Very different things.
No I have always been saying that the people who are responsible for running a real election have failed.
And yet you are in no position to make that assessment.
Not everyone has their head buried in the sand like you.


The problem is still fraud though, just like the problem that chain of custody solves is planting evidence.
Mail in ballots have to be sealed. You can't open them or alter the ballot without destroying them. That's what stops the fraud.
Why would the ballot need to be altered in all cases of fraud?


The results of an election must be thrown out if the fraud could have changed them, regardless of whether any particular person is guilty of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is no such thing as an election that couldn't have been changed due to fraud.
Then there has never been democracy.


The only question is how high our standards need to be
>= the standard before laws to prevent fraud were illegally nullified and ignored


Your attitude towards that seems to be "well that's what's necessary to ensure integrity"
No, my attitude is that is an idiotic way to remote voting and it constitutes all the sound and fury of a reliable anti-fraud system without actually being secure due to the old "weakest link in the chain" problem.


Measures taken that might have prevented maybe a dozen fraudulent ballots (if any at all)
How did you come up with errors bars that small?


Your entire position is circular. You don't believe elections are valid, therefore they have not been proven to be valid.
They have been executed in such a way that they cannot be proven to be valid, they are a class of high-trust interactions that must be designed and executed in such a way that they can be proven to be valid or else they should be treated as invalid, therefore they (the elections) are invalid de jure.


This is why people like myself remain unconcerned that people like you do not accept the results.
You do not concern yourself with anything that contradicts your presuppositions. You're not even self aware enough to admit that that nonsense about belief and proof applies to everyone including yourself.

Like talking about expertise, bias, or subjectivity it is so much meaningless foam that advances a debate not one micron.


Let us know when you have evidence.
It will be right about the time you open your eyes.


There is no such thing as a system that doesn't ultimately require trust.
Bitcoin.
And yet no one invests in it.
Shifting goalposts. People trust it because the accuracy of the ledger cannot be faked and is not based on a corruptible central authority.


No one cared about mail in voting until Donald Trump politicized it and told the country it would be used to commit fraud
Actually there are commission reports headed by ex presidents that say mail ballots are susceptible to fraud.

If no one cared before 2020 it's probably because the absolute number of mail-ballots didn't so universally swing outcomes.


And despite massive nationwide conspiracy theory that mail in ballots were used to commit fraud, no one has a problem with it in the states where Trump won.
No one made a fuss in New York either. They focused on swing states for obvious reasons.

There is no one who will admit to not caring if Florida elections are fake.
#28
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Did they put up cardboard to block observation of counting? Did a water-main suddenly break? Did a bunch of election workers come forward to blow the whistle?
This is exactly what I am talking about.

To the first point... I am not familiar with this particular anecdote. My first question is; who is "they"? My guess is you're talking about one instance in one location in which cardboard was put up and which there was either an explanation given or an investigation done that found no wrongdoing. But who knows.

I don't know why a water main broke. What I do know is that water mains break and that the absence of an explanation does not justify conspiracy allegations.

What is a bunch? I am aware of a number of allegations being made by low level election workers. I am unaware of any that were found to have any merit and were supported by evidence.

These along with every other anecdote I've seen fail to establish any link to a greater plot and fail to establish the scale of suspicious activity that would warrant a rejection of the results anywhere. Most of these have no merit and most importantly... None of this is surprising given that we have the president of the United States repeating this garbage on a loop ever since November 2020. These aren't instances that hissy so happened to be come across, this is the result of combing through every possible example produced in a country of over 300 million people. If there actually was fraud sufficient to alter election outcomes nationwide we would see a lot more than this.

That's because Trump won, and unlike the right the left actually believes in democracy.
It's amazing how much you guys love false equivalences.

The video didn't play, but we've already seen this nonsense before. Please find one example of democrats "denying election results" and explain how it is analogous to the right's full blown nationwide conspiracy they are alleging. I'll wait.

The idea that it's outcome swinging accuracy is your conspiracy claim. There is no evidence for that.
There need only be evidence that the process could have allowed it. There is.
The process when someone shows up to vote is to have their ID checked. But the poll worker could very well have invited his friends to come in and pretend to be other people, making the ID check irrelevant. This could happen, therefore ID checks are irrelevant.

The fact that something could happen is not reason to suspect it is happening. You need more than that. Until you take that burden seriously, you relieve the rest of us of the burden of taking your suspicions seriously.
#29
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
The actual claim is that because there is no way to validate mail in ballots to any degree of certainty, then there is no way to be certain they are valid votes.
They are validated by the fact that the individual submitting the ballot is a real, legal, registered voter, whose signature matches, and zooming out, the process is validated by the remarkable lack of issues we are having with regards to claims of identity theft that would be occurring en masse of the kind of cheating the right is alleging was actually occurring.

It's truly a bizarre take that you would allow arbitrary vote disenfranchisement with arbitrary rejection of signatures
I'm not a poll worker or a public official so I have no idea what you're talking about

All of a sudden, it becomes an issue when the right demands their voters to show up and vote in person because their vote may not be counted.... 
No one cares what the right demands their voters do.

After you even trying to make a sensible point here?



Topic's author
#30
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Did they put up cardboard to block observation of counting? Did a water-main suddenly break? Did a bunch of election workers come forward to blow the whistle?
This is exactly what I am talking about.
Suspicious behavior?


My guess is you're talking about one instance in one location in which cardboard was put up and which there was either an explanation given or an investigation done that found no wrongdoing.
because that's all it takes for you

Hur can come along and say "Look those election workers had bad memories, they didn't know what they were doing"


What I do know is that water mains break and that the absence of an explanation does not justify conspiracy allegations.
I mean just because the Polish attack a German radio tower doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

The SS investigated that should be enough for anyone. I guess some people just choose not to accept proof.


I am unaware of any that were found to have any merit
rofl "found to have merit", I decided they had merit. What only left-tribers trying to frame Trump with paid for dossiers are allowed to believe witnesses?

Didn't you mock me for doubting the word of the replacement of Shokin?


were supported by evidence.
The whistleblowers were blowing the whistle on people hiding evidence.

What evidence supported EJC?


These along with every other anecdote I've seen fail to establish any link to a greater plot and fail to establish the scale of suspicious activity that would warrant a rejection of the results anywhere.
To you, but you have already decided the so called election was the safest and most secure in history, you have chosen to not accept proof so no proof is needed. It's just a question of what standards.


If there actually was fraud sufficient to alter election outcomes nationwide we would see a lot more than this.
We saw a lot. You have no basis to claim there would be more, you have made no quantitative analysis I'm quite sure.


It's amazing how much you guys love false equivalences.
It's amazing how many counter examples you will ignore to protect your double standards.


The video didn't play


Please find one example of democrats "denying election results"
"I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win."
"You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris

"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter


and explain how it is analogous to the right's full blown nationwide conspiracy they are alleging. I'll wait.
Same: Denying the election was legitimate, saying the results were the inverse of what was announced at the counting of the electors
Different: Right-tribe had a theory that involved fraud actually occurring, left tribe (as usual) doesn't need to explain anything to anybody because they have people like you and Underdog as their base. People who do not care about double standards and who go so far as to deny that there is such a thing as proof in order to excuse their chosen agenda.

Returning to the original context, you said "the left actually believes in democracy." because there was no controversy over Florida's voting system.

You have been disproved. The left accepts election results when they agree with them.

The right believe in democracy more than the left because the right wants to secure the elections, the left just wants to deny them. It's a Solomon test and the left tribe fails.


The idea that it's outcome swinging accuracy is your conspiracy claim. There is no evidence for that.
There need only be evidence that the process could have allowed it. There is.
The process when someone shows up to vote is to have their ID checked.
Not in most swing states.


But the poll worker could very well have invited his friends to come in and pretend to be other people, making the ID check irrelevant. This could happen, therefore ID checks are irrelevant.
You mean name and address checks?  Why would that make them irrelevant?

That just means cameras should be running in poll locations and there should be a rule that people are randomly distributed to different poll book operators.


The fact that something could happen is not reason to suspect it is happening.
As has already been explained to you, the fact that something could be happening is reason to prevent it from happening or make it detectable by audit. The motive is there. If the opportunity is there and the consequences are grave there is a problem.


You need more than that.
Nothing could convince you. You have chosen to be skeptical.


Until you take that burden seriously, you relieve the rest of us of the burden of taking your suspicions seriously.
The rest of me may outnumber the rest of you, and we definitely out gun you.

Now if it means you get to keep living in a first world country, maybe you can roll your eyes and support election integrity regardless of whether you think it is necessary (due to the angelic honour of political fanatics and all).


They are validated by the fact that the individual submitting the ballot is a real, legal, registered voter, whose signature matches
Matches a voter registry database (maybe, lots of iffyness there), but if the voter registration was done by the fraudster?


the process is validated by the remarkable lack of issues we are having with regards to claims of identity theft that would be occurring en masse
You think there aren't a lot of cases of identity theft? https://bjs.ojp.gov/press-release/victims-identity-theft-2021

9%... in one year? That sounds high even to me. 22% over their lifetime sounds right.

Identity theft isn't always catastrophic. Many banks react quickly and any serious credit requires things that mail in ballots don't, like phone calls and in person meetings.

I've borrowed some significant money in my life and nobody has ever offered more than $5000 without a handshake and some eye contact.

Besides which you're assuming that the people who stole and distributed voter registry databases also tried to sell them, but in all likelihood most of the basic info is already in dark web databases and the juicy bits that let you request a mail-in-ballot are useless except for cheating in an election.

Take  signatures for instance. Nobody serious actually uses them for identity verification anymore. They died when handwriting became a lost art. When you sign something they don't check it, they just want it because it has value for legal precedent; your final act of consent.