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

Post by aw1621107 » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

lol2143651 wrote: post #320

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…

And if you continue the colloquy you'll see the problem is the observers in the room were not allowed within several tens of feet of the ballots being counted, this making observation impossible. Hence why the judge ruled to allow observers closer.

Post by tastyfreeze » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #258

tastyfreeze wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in population centers tend to think similarly due to a similar environment. What a city desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with rural voters. You must see the danger in a few, albeit large, groups having the majority of the population. Say LA and New York decide that a communist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents outside the cities stand up against that in an…

Say that less people, but in key states decide that an autocratic fascist should be best for the country, despite more people voting for someone else? How do the majority stand up against that?

Post by cycomanic » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 4:52 PM UTC

camhart wrote: post #303

cycomanic wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be worthwhile to look at the history of the electoral college [1]. It was not there to balance state powers (that's what the senate is for). It was a compromise between the people who did not want congress to be part of the voting (due to opportunity for corruption) and the ones that did not want a popular vote, because they did not trust the uneducated masses and feared mob rule. So the electoral college wa…

The article and your comment summarizes factions into simply "mob rule", and seem to lead the reader to believe the electoral college wasn't well thought out--just a compromise. While the 3/5ths idea is apalling, using it the way you've done is, in my opinion, done to try and enforce the idea that its fundamentally flawed. The electoral college is designed to balance power. " In The Federalist Papers, James Madison e…

    There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[31]"

Post by amanaplanacanal » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #76

maxerickson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, interested parties observe the process. It's relatively party based (where parties have better access). https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/polici... It's relatively difficult to pull off hoodwink when you've got adversarial observers standing there.

> In practice, interested parties observe the process. On paper, interested parties are supposed to observe the process. What actually happens in physical reality does not always match the guidelines laid out on paper. > It's relatively difficult to pull off hoodwink when you've got adversarial observers standing there. I read assurances about what happens in physical reality on a regular basis. Often, these assuranc…

Post by CapricornNoble » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #337

moduspol wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a separate conversation, though. I agree reducing poll locations can make some people less likely to vote, but it's not in the same category as fraud.

To commit fraud at the level required though just isn't plausible in a national election. Even in a close state like PA, we're going to end up talking about 45k+ votes. In MI, 100k+ votes, WI 20k+ votes, etc... All these states have mixes of R/Ds running things, and any fraud claims quickly ends up in grand conspiracy fallacy territory. This is not some 1000 vote situation like FL in 2000 (which was actually much mor…