Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

probablydance.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 467 posts

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

#241

Post by js2 »

btilly wrote: post #224
xyzzyz wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "Chicago political machine" was later shown to have committed voter fraud in 1982. 26 people were convicted[1], and here's the grand jury report[2]. They had been getting away with it, until they didn't. Fortunately, as media reassure us, today voting fraud simply cannot happen: you'd need a whole conspiracy of dozens of people, a real, as one could call it, machine. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Illi…

Fortunately, as media reassure us, today voting fraud simply cannot happen: you'd need a whole conspiracy of dozens of people, a real, as one could call it, machine. This I find impossible to believe. How hard is it to intercept mail-in ballots, sign them, then mail them in? Who knows that you did so? I personally find it very implausible that in both elections that Trump was in he produced results about 3% better th…

I can’t figure out if you’re seriously accusing one side or the other of cheating, but fwiw, I have confidence in our elections.

All this hand-wringing about fraud when attempts at disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of votes happens in plain sight. Just one example of many:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/gop-pennsylvania-bl...

(If it weren’t for massive “cure” efforts by both parties, a shocking number of ballots would be discarded due to errors like DMVs failing to forward registrations to BOEs. In 2016, the NC Democratic Party through cure outreach got provisional ballot acceptance here from 30% to 50% if I remember correctly.)

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

#242

Post by gwd »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #62
maxerickson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think most of the improvements can be made in relation to voter registrations and rolls. How a state can keep people who have obviously died on voter rolls should be a red flag.

I'm pretty sure if I looked I could find you:

1. A voter registration of a T R D* in the Detroit area in the 1970s

2. A death certificate for T R D from the 1980s

3. A record of a T R D voting in the Detroit area in the 2020 election.

That's because T R D from #1 and #2 was my uncle, who grew up in the Detroit area, and died in the 1980s; and the T R D from #3 is my brother, who also grew up in the Detroit area, and is still alive and well.

It turns out that 1) a lot of people are named after their relatives. And also, 2) a lot of people still live where those relatives lived. And, 3) a lot of those relatives, being from the previous generation, have died. Any intersection of #2 and #3 will give you the "evidence of dead people on the voter rolls" (or "evidence of dead people voting") that we've been hearing so much about.

How big is that intersection in a state with 10 million people?

(* Full name redacted, but I have a very specific T R D in mind)

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

#243

Post by pugworthy »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #163
tptacek wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, we do detect a small number of voter fraud cases. People have gone to prison for it. But your premise is also broken. You assume we should see regular attempts at voter fraud, given our enormous sample size. But voter fraud, on the "retail" level, is heavily penalized and extremely unlikely to impact outcomes. There are all sorts of crimes that could occur, but don't, because there's no point.

> First, we do detect a small number of voter fraud cases. People have gone to prison for it. Fair enough, though now I'm wondering why I keep hearing "no shred of evidence of voter fraud" from so many people. > But voter fraud, on the "retail" level, is heavily penalized and extremely unlikely to impact outcomes. There are currently four states (AZ, GA, PA, WI) with less than 1% margin between the candidates. Georgi…

Keep in mind there are two kinds of voter fraud: the ones that get caught (and never show up in vote data), and the ones that don't. There are always stories about the person dead for 10 years that gets a ballot that is maybe even turned in - but that vote isn't counted, precisely because it got caught.

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

#244

Post by aw1621107 »

mistermann wrote: post #230
aw1621107 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The president’s campaign argued that his supporters weren’t being allowed to monitor the tallying of mail-in ballots, but U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond instead argued the two sides to come to an agreement. Just a note on this; (part of?) the reason Judge Diamond asked the two sides to come to an agreement is because the plaintiffs admitted they already had observers in the room [0]: > During the hearing, a lawye…

Ok, now this is much more convincing, thank you for posting it. I swear, it's like a significant portion of the media is designed to sow dissent and outrage in society. If the links provided were questionable looking you might think twoice, but Detroit Free Press and CBSLocal at least sound like mainstream publications to me. Although considering the quality of their stories I guess that's not saying much. I honestly…

Yeah, the portrayal in that specific article is... less than ideal.

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

#245

Post by [deleted] »

Glyptodon wrote: post #8

Always keep in mind that however distorted the electoral college is, that distortion is tremendously magnified by the cap on the size of the US house of Representatives and the fact that the Constitution specifies a lower bound for district population but no upper bound.

[deleted]

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

#246

Post by JamesBarney »

rayiner wrote: post #201
JamesBarney wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 18th century theory. In 21st century practice it's incredibly influential. Do we tax more for social security or cut benefits, do we extend medicare to 55 year olds or delay it until 70, can my daca friends get a job, can Icontinue to operate a company(Obamacare), not to mention war. It's far more influential than my city( or state government.(I live in Houston, this would probably be less true in states like New…

It’s not an 18th century versus 21st century thing. Switzerland manages to be a 21sr century country without equal representation at the federal level.

My point was just that you're right, in the 18th century when the founding fathers designed this system the federal government was weak and federal law had very little influence.

But in the 21st century the u.s. federal government has a much larger influence on people's lives.

When a government is closer to a defense pact like Nato it makes sense to have voting apportioned by regional power. But as that government starts to have a larger impact on your day to day life than it makes less sense.

If we started sending nato several trillion dollars a year it makes less sense for Bulgaria to have the same say in how that money is spent as we do.

And there isn't really any political appetite to roll back the federal government to a size where that type of representation made sense. Moving social security and Medicare from the federal to the state or city level would be a political non starter.

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

#247

Post by guscost »

chaz72 wrote: post #238
guscost wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funniest one I’ve heard so far is Joe Frazier. The birthday apparently matches, but this may have to wait to be confirmed in court: https://www.bigtrial.net/2020/11/smokin-joe-frazier-among-22...

Never heard of this source - I hope it’s okay in this time of misinformation to ask for a recognizable source? Edit: I mean I am okay with leaving it as “somebody on the internet says”, but wondered if the evidence was more clear than that.

Not much else for that one online, Giuliani cited it and it’s funny. The other one he cited was a woman who registered to vote the day after she died:

https://www.swgfuneralhome.com/obituary/Denise-Ondick

https://twitter.com/clewandowski_/status/1325256319176224770...

The tweet has a screenshot, and unless they’ve already corrected it, you can probably find it on the PA website yourself.

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

#248

Post by creato »

btilly wrote: post #224
xyzzyz wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "Chicago political machine" was later shown to have committed voter fraud in 1982. 26 people were convicted[1], and here's the grand jury report[2]. They had been getting away with it, until they didn't. Fortunately, as media reassure us, today voting fraud simply cannot happen: you'd need a whole conspiracy of dozens of people, a real, as one could call it, machine. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Illi…

Fortunately, as media reassure us, today voting fraud simply cannot happen: you'd need a whole conspiracy of dozens of people, a real, as one could call it, machine. This I find impossible to believe. How hard is it to intercept mail-in ballots, sign them, then mail them in? Who knows that you did so? I personally find it very implausible that in both elections that Trump was in he produced results about 3% better th…

People would complain they never got their ballots, and mail in ballots are tracked. So a few people complaining they never got their ballots, but their ballots show up as voted, would be a big deal, and we would know it was happening.

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

#249

Post by altacc »

throwaway3846 wrote: post #216

> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/declaration-of-non-depende... > > Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive. Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American children suddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15, and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead…

That seems like a false equivalence as perhaps the requirement to add a SSN for children was precisely because there was evidence of the fraud. In US elections there are fraud monitoring systems in place and there's a lot more anti-fraud and ballot checking processes than using an honor system to count your dependents on a tax form.

In general, especially legally, evidence is required to prove the merit of a claim, not to refute a claim. Proving a negative is often impossible, impractical or oppressive.

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

#250

Post by benmmurphy »

xyzzyz wrote: post #211
guildwriter wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twisted things being done in our elections goes back to Tammany Hall. If you know where to look in American history it's not hard to find credible instances of important elections having substantial amounts of fraud. Why do people believe that when the chips are down and vast amounts of money and power are at stake that people are simply going to play fair? Especially when the players are some of the most ruthless, n…

This "Chicago political machine" was later shown to have committed voter fraud in 1982. 26 people were convicted[1], and here's the grand jury report[2]. They had been getting away with it, until they didn't. Fortunately, as media reassure us, today voting fraud simply cannot happen: you'd need a whole conspiracy of dozens of people, a real, as one could call it, machine. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Illi…

That Wikipedia article is a bit weird because it says fraud allegations and 26 people indicted but no mention of convictions.

However, the special grand jury report claims 58 people were convicted and it is very clear that an organised fraud had taken place.

https://sites.duke.edu/pjms364s_01_s2016_jaydelancy/files/20...

Post reply on HN