2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
What’s wrong with electronic ballots? As long as they are coupled with a receipt and random machine audits I don’t see the problem. Also have Republicans ever proposed a standalone bill for free national voter ID? I agree that we should have one but it seems like they only propose it as a way to circumvent poll taxes.
By the way pretty sure that last part already happens?
And has there ever been any more than a handful of voter fraud cases each year?
Here Princenton Engineering (which i hope you won't find biased) on machine voting
as for ID i agree that if it becomes mandatory in order to vote, it should be issued for free. Afaik NC already does that, possibly other states as well
https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/voter-id/ge...
We can't know the extent of voting fraud because it's literally impossible to know what happens with mail votes. Including selling the vote to be clear, that alone should be enough reason to be against mail votes.
But other than that, it's pretty hard to imagine that extremely old people with dementia are actually filling their own votes for example
You are playing this game on only one side. Sure, if abortion rights or preserving democratic norms is a key issue for you, then you probably aren't undecided.
But if you think the 2020 election was rigged, or you are super frothy about protecting gun rights or restricting access to gender affirming health care, you probably aren't undecided either.
I know I should never be surprised about how uneducated the general public is, but it is wild that one of the Dems largest talking points is that a president can change "democratic norms".
FYI- for those of you who aren't familiar with the phrase "gender affirming health care" what rocco is referring to is "gender changing operations". It is similar to other phrase dems use like "free healthcare", "loan forgiveness" or "the rich paying their fair share" in that they sound nice, but in reality they often mean the opposite of the actual phrase. "Free healthcare" would likely mean healthcare costs go up, "loan forgiveness" means taxpayers are now on the hook for other people's education and "the rich paying their fair share" means the rich should pay for more of the middle and lower classes share than they do.
Let’s say I grant all this to you. Do you think that not having the results on election day means there is vote rigging?
There are a few needed steps after that, but Republican's refusal to pre process early and mail in votes is designed to help steal close elections, declaring victory before the votes are counted then using Maga terror/violence to stop legitimate votes from being counted.
I know I should never be surprised about how uneducated the general public is, but it is wild that one of the Dems largest talking points is that a president can change "democratic norms".
FYI- for those of you who aren't familiar with the phrase "gender affirming health care" what rocco is referring to is "gender changing operations". It is similar to other phrase dems use like "free healthcare", "loan forgiveness" or "the rich paying their fair share" in that they sound nice, but in reality th
Um, no. gender affirming care includes things like laser hair removal and most of it has nothing to do with surgery. For the record, the rest of your post is stupid, too, but someone can tackle that nonsense.
By definition, gender affirming care **affirms** one's gender, not changes it.
I know I should never be surprised about how uneducated the general public is, but it is wild that one of the Dems largest talking points is that a president can change "democratic norms".
Election certification was a nothing event before Trump. Now it's a high security terror target with fake electors and all sorts of election fraud.
I know I should never be surprised about how uneducated the general public is, but it is wild that one of the Dems largest talking points is that a president can change "democratic norms".
bahbah,
There are plenty of posters in this forum who are dumber than you, but almost no one who is worse.
No one is claiming that Trump can flip a light switch and end democracy in the United States. But it is pure fiction to claim that there is nothing a U.S. president can do to erode democracy. Is that seriously what you believe or are just ****ing about as usual?
Rocco is wrong as well. This post explains why.
Most of the polls right now that go into these aggregations are low quality internet polls or from biased pollsters. Not reliable.
Sure. But it's easy enough for public forecasters like Nate Silver to toss out or reduce the weights of polling firms that clearly have a bad track record or bad methodology. It's not obvious that the campaigns have some special insight into the "true" state of the race that public forecasters don't have, or that they know which polls are reliable, or that their internal polls are done in some magical, super-rigorous way that reputable pollsters don't know about.
Here Princenton Engineering (which i hope you won't find biased) on machine voting
as for ID i agree that if it becomes mandatory in order to vote, it should be issued for free. Afaik NC already does that, possibly other states as well
https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/voter-id/ge...
We can't know the extent of voting fraud because it's literally imp
Your first link said there’s no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Can you point to evidence of widespread voter fraud rather than vaguely gesturing at the possibility?
There are a few needed steps after that, but Republican's refusal to pre process early and mail in votes is designed to help steal close elections, declaring victory before the votes are counted then using Maga terror/violence to stop legitimate votes from being counted.
Here in BC which is led by the NDP a far left group they do not allow early process of mail in ballots. I assume they are scared results may be leaked . I assume I agree with you that it should be allowed to deliver results as quickly as possible
Your first link said there’s no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Can you point to evidence of widespread voter fraud rather than vaguely gesturing at the possibility?
I never claimed there is widespread evidence of voter fraud, i claimed it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it for mail voting, at least in some of the cases i outlined.
And again why would you create a way to allow for votes to be sold, what are you gaining by allowing mail votes?
As for machine voting, it's both a combination of hacking risks, and banal malfunctioning risks (which happened already a lot of times, including in a very relevant case in 2000). Why incur in avoidable risks at all for exceptionally important processes?
If there is a way to process payments that's impossible to trace, do i have to prove to you it is used by drug dealers or the mere fact that makes it impossible to be traced will automatically attract drug dealers to it?
Here in BC which is led by the NDP a far left group they do not allow early process of mail in ballots. I assume they are scared results may be leaked . I assume I agree with you that it should be allowed to deliver results as quickly as possible
They don't need to even count them. It's just open them and determine if they are valid, name and registration etc match up and separate out invalid votes. Republicans delay even that until after the election so it will be easier for them to commit election fraud or declare victory when they know they are losing and terrorists will believe or have flimsy plausible deniability to say the election is being stolen and act like Jan 6 or worse.
I never claimed there is widespread evidence of voter fraud, i claimed it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it for mail voting, at least in some of the cases i outlined.
And again why would you create a way to allow for votes to be sold, what are you gaining by allowing mail votes?
As for machine voting, it's both a combination of hacking risks, and banal malfunctioning risks (which happened already a lot of times, including in a very relevant case in 2000). Why incur in avoidable risks at all for exceptiona
So no evidence of voter fraud, then. I guess despite being the most investigated election ever (2020) full of people that literally thought the election was rigged, they couldn’t even find one case.
Yes absolutely I expect that if you are claiming insecurities and can’t even provide one example that it can safely be dismissed as FoS.
So no evidence of voter fraud, then. I guess despite being the most investigated election ever (2020) full of people that literally thought the election was rigged, they couldn’t even find one case.
Yes absolutely I expect that if you are claiming insecurities and can’t even provide one example that it can safely be dismissed as FoS.
I mean if the election in the year 2000 isn't an example of why people should vote with paper and pencil, what can be?
I mean if the election in the year 2000 isn't an example of why people should vote with paper and pencil, what can be?
You said mail ballots are the ones most likely subject to fraud. The thing about the electronic voting machines is that you can check your vote in real time if there’s a paper tabulation accompanying it. It’s sort of a ridiculous thing to say “well most voters aren’t going to check”.
With the mail ballot fraud, again, you keep making claims that they are being sold or harvested, where is the evidence?
You said mail ballots are the ones most likely subject to fraud. The thing about the electronic voting machines is that you can check your vote in real time if there’s a paper tabulation accompanying it. It’s sort of a ridiculous thing to say “well most voters aren’t going to check”.
With the mail ballot fraud, again, you keep making claims that they are being sold or harvested, where is the evidence?
Yes but not the kind described by maga believers. I made a specific claim, ie that mail ballots allow you to sell the vote. That shouldn't be physically possible full stop, i don't need to prove it is done a lot in order to think it's bad that it is physically possible.
In italy we take that very seriously because the mafia buys vote regularly, and we have a provision of no photo taking devices allowed for examople , so you can't "prove" your vote to anyone.
If a 62y old living with his 89y old demented father votes twice that's fraud right? you think that doesn't happen regularly with demented elders?
So no evidence of voter fraud, then. I guess despite being the most investigated election ever (2020) full of people that literally thought the election was rigged, they couldn’t even find one case.
This statement is misleading. The courts didn't take up any election fraud cases (so they weren't investigated) due to SCOTUS saying they had no standing. There was plenty of evidence such as people showing up to vote being told they've already voted (all for byden when they later looked it up).
Remember when Bill Barr acted as if he was about to investigate the allegations and then suddenly said there was none? He never investigated anything. Instead he stood behind his DOJ policy to defer any allegations of fraud until after certification was complete.
Barr emailed one of the prosecutors (who ended up quitting) telling him to avoid any investigative actions until after the certification was complete. This is how they covered up the fraud and let the illegitimate coup move forward (the "office of the presidential elect"). Barr was a DS plant.
Yes but not the kind described by maga believers. I made a specific claim, ie that mail ballots allow you to sell the vote. That shouldn't be physically possible full stop, i don't need to prove it is done a lot in order to think it's bad that it is physically possible.
In italy we take that very seriously because the mafia buys vote regularly, and we have a provision of no photo taking devices allowed for examople , so you can't "prove" your vote to anyone.
If a 62y old living with his 89y old de
So what you’re telling me is that it’s possible but out of that 100 million+ ballots cast there isn’t a single example of it happening. But we should be like the Italian system because you guys have corrupt politicians and a powerful mafia. Got it, will take that under advisement.
Sure. But it's easy enough for public forecasters like Nate Silver to toss out or reduce the weights of polling firms that clearly have a bad track record or bad methodology. It's not obvious that the campaigns have some special insight into the "true" state of the race that public forecasters don't have, or that they know which polls are reliable, or that their internal polls are done in some magical, super-rigorous way that reputable pollsters don't know about.
See, now that's a fine post. I knew you could do it. I would point out however that this "it's easy enough for public forecasters like Nate Silver to toss out or reduce the weights of polling firms that clearly have a bad track record or bad methodology" isn't generally what happens.
If this is the start of you attempting to wean yourself from the zippy one-liners, then I'm here to help.
I think they decreased that recently because all trains became "reservation only" trains so they expect very few people to jump in without a ticket (not sure if they are right)
I rode a train in Italy without a ticket 17 years ago. Had a eurorail pass, but not a reservation/ticket for that particular train.
I got to the station about 30 minutes before the train was leaving and there was a massive lineup at the counter. I started to wait in line, but it hadn't moved much and the train was leaving in a few minutes, no way I was getting up to the counter.
I had to take that train to make my flight. I only needed to go a few stops so figured I'd be fine, or worst case play dumb and show my eurorail pass.
On the first or second stop, and attendant started coming through our car checking tickets. The train was still stopped, so I got off and then got back on in the car behind the attendant that he'd already checked.
Fun times.
This statement is misleading. The courts didn't take up any election fraud cases (so they weren't investigated) due to SCOTUS saying they had no standing. There was plenty of evidence such as people showing up to vote being told they've already voted (all for byden when they later looked it up).
Remember when Bill Barr acted as if he was about to investigate the allegations and then suddenly said there was none? He never investigated anything. Instead he stood behind his DOJ policy to defer any
my man. why would you post something that says the exact opposite of what you said that it says?
CNN
—
The Justice Department’s top election crimes prosecutor resigned Monday in protest after Attorney General William Barr told federal prosecutors that they should examine allegations of voting irregularities before states move to certify results in the coming weeks.
Richard Pilger, director of the elections crimes branch in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, told colleagues in an email that the attorney general was issuing “an important new policy abrogating the forty-year-old Non-Interference Policy for ballot fraud investigations in the period prior to elections becoming certified and uncontested.” Pilger also forwarded the memo to colleagues in his resignation letter.
How many of the cases did you actually read? According to this source many of the cases were decided on merits. And if they were decided on standing, ultimately those could be appealed up to the supreme court which denied the vast majority of requests to hear these cases.
my man. why would you post something that says the exact opposite of what you said that it says?
How many of the cases did you actually read? According to this source many of the cases were decided on merits. And if they were decided on standing, ultimately those could be appealed up to the supreme court which denied the vast majority of requests to hear these cases.
Playbig, my brother in Christ, reading and understanding things are not your strong points. Why don't you stick to posting about space lasers? I, for one, enjoy it so whenever they put in an appearance.
I knew you could do it. I would point out however that this "it's easy enough for public forecasters like Nate Silver to toss out or reduce the weights of polling firms that clearly have a bad track record or bad methodology" isn't generally what happens.
Sure it is. Nate and other public forecasters try to heavily weigh polls from reliable firms and discard the ones that seem like junk. Unless you have evidence that Trump and Harris have their own team of much better forecasters, it's hard to see why they'd have a better handle on the race. The simple truth is that no one will really know what the good polls were until after everyone's voted.
If this is the start of you attempting to wean yourself from the zippy one-liners, then I'm here to help.
See, it's much more pleasant for both of us when you stop pretending you can't read.
