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

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

#391

Post by rightbyte » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #354

jrumbut wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philadelphia, Detroit, and a number of other cities are notoriously slow in counting their ballots. This happens every election that I can remember, going back to 2000. If I had to guess, the complexity of counting may increase in a non-linear way after a certain number of precincts. I'm unconvinced the proportions should be consistent at the state level or any level really. There have been GOTV events that have thou…

> If I had to guess, the complexity of counting may increase in a non-linear way after a certain number of precincts. I'd bet that the larger counties, while they have more ballot counting machines, probably don't have proportionally more. Expensive, specialized, maintenance-intensive, etc. Every county needs at least one, but beyond that I doubt there is a huge priority on having excess capacity.

Ballot counting machines are probably a case of over-automation. The polls station clerks are volunteers and are maybe doing their first election. Setting up a manual process is just way easier then dealing with complex computer reporting systems. As soon as some machine or computer is not cooperating they are stuck. With pen and paper the worst that can happen is that the pen is out of ink.

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

#392

Post by charwalker » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #20

ve55 wrote: post #12

What I dislike about a lot of these potential fraud analysis techniques is that if a group that was performing fraud was aware of them, then they would simply perform the fraud 'properly' such that the given technique(s) don't show evidence (since they know what others are looking for and hoping to find, they simply ensure it isn't there). The same goes for similar techniques like Benford's law: once you know about t…

The system is secure and robust, at least with regards to the mechanics of individual votings. Among the main factors is its distributed nature. You just can't run a scam with senior citizen volunteers in thousands of individual precincts. Then, there are observers. Famous case from this week's election was Republicans complaining that their two dozen(!) observers weren't allowed closer than 6 feet to the ballots. It…

Election fraud is right there, the elimination of drop boxes and other actions to limit turnout or the ability to vote. That's real un-American, taking the right to vote away from people. I've been told that the second amendment exists to prevent such gross abuse of our rights but I haven't seen the NRA or GOP get too mad about it lately.

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

#393

Post by vkou » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:31 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #342

zo1 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These databases already exist. How else do you think your government can determine whether or not you are allowed to vote, or whether or not you can be issued a passport.

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

#394

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #270

jpxw wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left have been opposing voting requiring identification (on the grounds that it discriminates against those without it) for years. Even if they brought in national identification, they wouldn’t make it necessary for voting.

Shouldn't that be an issue they could meet half way on in order to get national identification implemented? Here we have an hook for which the right could get behind, and the benefit of national identification is very clear for all that time between elections. It would indeed discriminate against those without it, but then a national identification is given to everyone who has a right to vote. One is directly linked…

[deleted]

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

#395

Post by rayiner » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #389

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Depends what you mean by settled matter. In discussion, I'm sure you can find a lot of people that think it's a bad idea, and I'm ambivalent myself. But as a matter of reality a strong federal government is what we now have. I think the federal government and the executive in particular is much stronger than the founders thought it would ever be.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Other countries have maintained a robust federalism. (Canada has 80% of total spending at the provincial level, versus our 50%.) Some countries like Sweden which are unitary reformed to push more decisions and spending down to the provincial level. Some unitary countries like Spain are exploring it: https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/resource/federalism-...

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

#396

Post by JamesBarney » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #345

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.

"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.

This is true in the sense of if you ask someone "Should the federal government be smaller?" they will say yes.

It is not true in the "Should we get rid of Medicare and Social Security and reimplement them on a state by state basis?" or "Should we abolish the FCC, SEC, EPA, FDA, Postal Service?"

When you ask people if we should make the federal government smaller they'll say yes, when you ask them about a specific piece of the federal government they say no.

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

#397

Post by fastball » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #385

fastball wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> How do you falsify me voting for my grandmother with dementia? My grandma will never know, and neither will anyone else. Yes, you could absolutely do that. But you can't swing an election that way.

I didn’t say you could.

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

#398

Post by amanaplanacanal » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #364

matwood wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're arguing that absentee ballot by mail is the problem? None of the states in question did automatic mail in voting. Each voter had to apply for absentee. And given the politicization of the pandemic, Trump made it a virtue signal to vote day-of in person. So of course the absentee vote was heavily D, and it came in from heavily D areas to start. I voted absentee and honestly it felt more secure than any in pe…

> So you're arguing that absentee ballot by mail is the problem? No. It's just one factor. For the rest, respectfully, you'll have to actually read my comments. Your responses haven't yet taken into account anything in my comments. It's like you saw the word "mail-in" and just typed out a response.

Is there a small amount of fraud? It wouldn't surprise me at all to find some in every election.

How about a thought experiment: If you wanted to do it on a large enough scale to swing an election, How would you do it? Say you knew that there are three states which are going to be very close, and you wanted to add 10000 votes for your preferred candidate in each state. What would you do?

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

#399

Post by flavius29663 » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

bartread wrote: post #281

belorn wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a golden opportunity for the left to implement a policy which historically the left has been advocating for and the right been blocking. National Identification. No more social security numbers, no knowledge about a name or a street. Practically every other country in the world has national identification and uses them as the building block for holding elections, social security, health care, licenses, drugs…

The UK doesn't have national identification. The government tried to bring it in a decade or more ago but it was shot down by the successful no2id campaign. The UK also doesn't have a significant problem with electoral fraud: like the US it has robust processes in place to ensure that its (admittedly less than perfect) electoral system is implemented fairly[0], correctly, and with integrity. This doesn't depend on na…

When I voted in the UK I didn't feel like it was very secure at all. At the most, you only have to show a proof of address IIRC, but anyone can snatch a bill from your mailbox and vote in your place. Or you can take your grandma's and vote for her etc.

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

#400

Post by tastyfreeze » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #389

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Depends what you mean by settled matter. In discussion, I'm sure you can find a lot of people that think it's a bad idea, and I'm ambivalent myself. But as a matter of reality a strong federal government is what we now have. I think the federal government and the executive in particular is much stronger than the founders thought it would ever be.

The federal government absolutely has more power than was intended. The constitution only allows the federal government to do very specific things. This includes the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office. Everything else is left to the states.

How many powers does the federal government have that are above those enumerated powers? The government we have is not what the constitution defines. It is what the constitution was designed to prevent. But, we have slowly marched towards a central government that the founders feared and warned needed to be protected against. A central government has a much higher risk of tyrannical control.