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

Post by Schiendelman » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

GauntletWizard wrote: post #412

Schiendelman wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really really difficult to do either of those things, especially in vote by mail. In Washington, for instance, I can see who is registered, who voted in a given election, and match that to the vote totals.

I live in Washington state. There is someone registered to vote on my street who has voted, consistently, since 2012 - The year the resident by that name moved out. We have raised the issue to the Secretary of State’s office, and they have sent out a mailer for the resident to confirm their address .

Post by Schiendelman » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 8:06 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.

Post by michaelmrose » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

tastyfreeze wrote: post #450

michaelmrose wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of the Democrats and 98% of the republicans including present leadership disagree with your assessment. If your position weakens any further it wont even have one seat in congress. In a democracy a position that virtually nobody cares for is dead.

Trusting the people to hold the government to the Constitution may have been the fatal flaw. I know that being a Constitutional idealist is a weak position. I feel that is very unfortunate. The Constitution was intended to protect against human natures of avarice and corruption and limit to paths to tyrannical government. Every time the Constitution is weakened the paths to corruption and tyranny are widened.

Post by tastyfreeze » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #455

tastyfreeze wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trusting the people to hold the government to the Constitution may have been the fatal flaw. I know that being a Constitutional idealist is a weak position. I feel that is very unfortunate. The Constitution was intended to protect against human natures of avarice and corruption and limit to paths to tyrannical government. Every time the Constitution is weakened the paths to corruption and tyranny are widened.

Allowing a minority of welfare states to extract the money and blood of the united states while voting in their representative to oversee the extraction literally weakens the constitutional protections afforded to everyone as we have seen in the last 20 years.

Post by enjeyw » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #109

enjeyw wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's two difference that make it less problematic in Australia: - The Australian Senate has significantly less influence on politics than the US President - Senate seats aren't distributed per-state on a "winner takes all basis" - rather in rough proportion to the number of votes each party gets. This means that smaller states with outsized influence are still going to be electing a mix of representatives…

> The Australian Senate has significantly less influence on politics than the US President This is true, but the non-representitive effects on the Australian senate are much higher than in the electoral college. > Senate seats aren't distributed per-state on a "winner takes all basis" - rather in rough proportion to the number of votes each party gets. No argument with this at all - I think most kinds of voting that…