Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization • Hacker News Board

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#341

Post by kls » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:00 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #280

rayiner wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would dissuade big states from trying to get all of their policy goals done at the federal level, which would be a good thing.

Rendering the federal government impotent by ensuring that 10% of rurals owned it but 90% of populous states were subject to it wouldn't discourage people from getting their policy goals done at the federal level it would insure that there wouldn't BE a federal level in 10 years.

I think the point being made is the federal government was originally given a very limited charter, over time that charter has expanded to the point where factions are battling for control of it, because it is now the seat of power. When the republic, as it was designed, was intended to deal with things at the state level. The foundational republic looked more like 13 small countries that bound together by a federated agreement on defense, taxes, liberties, citizenship. This was the idea, that the states could look very different from one another on the way they governed. The problem was while this was great for the individual to find a representative government, it creates a horrible business climate for those so inclined. So gradually business money wanted to move more of their regulation to the federal level and avoid state regulation as they had to comply with each state to conduct business. It started with banking, then the railroad barons, then electric companies and other public works, then moved on the the military industrial complex and now we have the tech companies getting in on the actions. So in today's context, due to distortion towards business interests, it is very disjointed and does not make sense, but under the limited federalist contract of the founding republic it made sense that each state had equal representation at the table that bound them together. Now we have gotten to the point where we are pushing social issues to the federal level and it is not going to end well. That being said, the remedy is not just go to a popular vote, a popular vote is just mob rule by the majority. The republic was designed to co-exist with people that don't agree on everything, federalization forces them to agree, and the popular vote, just silences the minorities voice and will eventually lead to their rights being revoked, which is not a formula for success.

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#342

Post by throwaway0a5e » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:00 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #174

maxerickson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What 'modern improvements' can be made over paper ballots?

No one likes to hear these, but some simple ones to try: 1. Central database of all citizens. (Can be state-level if you want to do that). 2. Require voter-ID to link against 1 above. 3. Tick off people on the database as they've voted so they can't vote twice. And just like that, most (but not all) of the "mail in ballot" concerns are rendered mute and we can all continue with trusting the election results.

> Central database of all citizens.

That's like saying a shotgun can cure cancer. The tradeoffs required are so laughably bad your solution is not worth considering.

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#343

Post by rootusrootus » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:03 PM UTC

js2 wrote: post #187

tptacek wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise of this analysis appears to be that mail-in ballots are a uniform sampling of Democrats and Republicans. But of course, in 2020, that's not at all the case; the Republicans made a campaign issue out of not voting absentee, and of attempting legally to reject absentee ballots under a number of conditions. As a result: mail-in ballots are sharply more Democratic than Republican this year. Further, any analy…

AK is even crazier. It doesn’t start counting its absentee ballots till a week after the election which is why it’s been stuck at 56% votes counted since Election Day.

I'm guessing that's why it hasn't been called yet, despite trending very red. It'll probably still end up in Trump's column, but with such a disparity in voting methods by party it's more uncertain than usual.

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#344

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:03 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #315

michaelmrose wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rendering the federal government impotent by ensuring that 10% of rurals owned it but 90% of populous states were subject to it wouldn't discourage people from getting their policy goals done at the federal level it would insure that there wouldn't BE a federal level in 10 years.

Which would be great.

[deleted]

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#345

Post by throwaway0a5e » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:04 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #280

rayiner wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would dissuade big states from trying to get all of their policy goals done at the federal level, which would be a good thing.

Rendering the federal government impotent by ensuring that 10% of rurals owned it but 90% of populous states were subject to it wouldn't discourage people from getting their policy goals done at the federal level it would insure that there wouldn't BE a federal level in 10 years.

"Rendering the federal government impotent" is a good thing in the eyes of the ~50% of the US that lives outside your filter bubble.

Having a strong federal government is not the settled matter you seem to imply it is.

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#346

Post by matwood » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:07 PM UTC

jbjohns wrote: post #331

matwood wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3-4 swing states is still a national level. You're also talking about 20k-100k type numbers. This isn't someone winning by 100 votes. What's funny about this situation is that Biden is on track to win most of these states by a larger margin than Trump did against Clinton. She did ask for a recount, but I don't remember her ever going on and on about fraud.

Not fraud but she did write an entire book blaming Russia, and a whole host of other things.

The big difference is that it's been clearly shown that Russia did interfere [1]. The arguable point is did Trump's campaign know and direct the interference?

And if we're really talking about shaping elections, disinformation and voter suppression is the way to get it done. Once votes are cast, it's too hard to move enough in order to have any meaningful change. There are too many checks, rechecks, and processes in place to commit fraud at the scale needed for a large election.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#347

Post by throwaway0a5e » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:09 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #186

umvi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you believe Wyoming should just be steamrolled by California's desires 100% of the time, why shouldn't Wyoming secede from the union? In fact, why should any "small states" join the union in the first place if they are just going to be steamrolled by California and New York?

I would love small states to secede... I think, though, that they would realize they need the big states to pay for shit, protect them, etc...

This is a red herring. All the states are only a few % away from net neutral when it comes to federal money in vs out. Pretty much any state could go it alone from a monetary perspective. Trade agreements would be the hard part.

Also, I think you're greatly mis-judging how a deal to the tune of "be 5% poorer but do 100% listening to what the people on the coasts have to say" sounds to e.g. the midwest. You say that like it's an obvious bad deal. I don't think all of them would agree with you on that though. They might just take you up on it given the option.

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#348

Post by fastball » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:09 PM UTC

Schiendelman wrote: post #321

fastball wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with fraud is that it's a "victimless" crime, so there could be a lot of fraud going undetected that we just don't know to look for.

There really couldn’t be, no. The mechanisms by which people think there could are easily falsified.

Are you saying voter fraud can't be a victimless crime? What "couldn't be"?

How do you falsify me voting for my grandmother with dementia? My grandma will never know, and neither will anyone else.

Look, I am more into data-driven policy than the vast majority of people. But the data saying you don't need to make a change is not the same as the data saying you shouldn't make a change.

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#349

Post by gitrog » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:10 PM UTC

jcadam wrote: post #329

MagnumOpus wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to. In the US you can lose the nation by 3 million votes as long as you win 3-4 swing states in the presidential or senate vote -- be it your brother making 538 votes disappear or your staffers creating 203 ballots with your name on it...

People are being willfully obtuse when they say the kind of fraud being alleged isn't possible. A certain political party spent that last six months forcing rule changes on swing states vis a vis mail in voting that you can't compare this year's election to any that came before. Most of the fraud allegations (at least the ones where the numbers would be large enough to make a significant difference) revolve around th…

> And please, kicking out GOP poll watchers (and only GOP poll watchers) and blocking their ability to observe

Could you please provide a source for this?

Re: Looking for Voter Fraud (In Old Elections) with Data Visualization

#350

Post by gwd » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 2:11 PM UTC

jcadam wrote: post #333

gwd wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How hard is it to intercept mail-in ballots, sign them, then mail them in? Who knows that you did so? Well first of all, the person who was supposed to get the mail-in ballot in the first place. In Michigan, you can check to see whether they've received your mail-in ballot. Don't you think that if 100k Republicans in Michigan didn't receive their ballot at all, but checked and found that they had been registered as…

1. Halt counting (or at least 'reporting') in critical swing states simultaneously. We all saw this happen. 2. Kick out poll watchers 3. Figure out how many votes your preferred candidate needs. 4. Examine the voter rolls and see who never turned in a ballot. 5. Fill in ballots for those people (and if you're in a rush, don't even bother to vote in any down-ballot races) and mix them in with the legitimate ballots. I…

> Given what my extremely biased sources have told me about the behavior of the left over the last 4 years

FTFY

> Kick out poll watchers

Were any poll watchers kicked out? Trump's claim that there weren't poll watchers in Pennsylvania all turned out to be false; their lawyer admitted in court that they actually had 19 observers in the room [1].

EDIT Meanwhile, the graphs in TFA shows that there are "bumps" in the curve, showing that Democratic-leaning counties had lower turnout in the 2016 election. This is consistent with the widespread reports of Republicans trying to suppress the vote in Democratic-leaning areas, of which [2] and [3] are more recent examples.

[1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-sues-to-halt...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/01/north-caroli...

[3] https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/01/texas-drive-thru-vot...