Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I hear this from friends who are Limbaugh fans, but I'd like to see some other source. Many people on the Left seem to think this whole "voter fraud" concern is a fig leaf for denying minorities their voting rights. When I've listened and asked follow-up questions, the Left's narrative seems more plausible.


PDF of individual confirmed cases: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p...

Spot-checking and using search for counts, most are manipulation of mail-in or absentee ballots (many being a bunch of ballots by a single person), with the next highest looking like individual people voting who didn't realize they were ineligible.


These don't seem like vast criminal conspiracies. Also, if they can successfully prosecute little cases like these....what's the problem?

"Carlos Lopez and his wife, Luz Lopez, registered to vote and voted on three separate occasions (2004, 2006, and 2007) in Hartford, where they own a furniture store, while actually living in Farmington." (Fittingly, this story is included twice: once with each spouse first).

"In 2009, Lillian Cummings Stevenson agreed to a consent order after the State Elections Enforcement Commission found her guilty of illegally signing and submitting two absentee ballot request forms on behalf of her sons, who were living in Europe. She was given a $200 fine."

"James Bryant, Jr. admitted to improperly assisting voters in completing their absentee ballots in the 2005 Americus mayoral election...."


OK, now where's the .PDF of individual confirmed cases of in-person vote fraud versus vote-by-mail fraud? We can't compare fractions by their numerators, you know.

The document itself admits that it is "only a sampling," which, in the absence of further methodological detail, should raise their hairs on the back of your neck.

Nobody ever said that vote-by-mail is fraud proof, only that it's good enough. Which it indisputably is, at least as implemented here in Washington state.


> only that it's good enough

Well.. How about another case I just learned of today? 'Cause it kinda doesn't seem like we're even at "good enough":

> “Invalidate the election. Let’s do it again,” said Rev. Kenneth Clayton said amid reports more that 20 percent of all ballots were disqualified, some in connection with voter fraud allegations.

[..]

> In addition to apparent problems with the vote count in Paterson, NBC New York has shown video of ballots left out in building lobbies, of one voter handling many ballots, and reported on postal workers reporting finding hundreds of ballots at a time stuffed in mailboxes in Paterson – and even in a neighboring town, Haledon.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/nj-naacp-leader-cal...


'Data' isn't the plural of 'anecdote.' What are the actual statistics? Do we even have access to statistics that haven't been cherry-picked by the Heritage Foundation, the DNC, or another interested party?

One good aspect of the vote-by-mail system we use here in WA is that the voter retains a code they can use to verify that their ballot has been counted. There is an auditable paper trail at every step that's accessible to all parties - the voter, the election officials, and the candidate. That's more than you get with many in-person voting systems, especially those involving closed-source machines made by companies with questionable ethics and engineering practices.

Yes, I'm sure it's possible to build a vote-by-mail system that is more prone to corruption than in-person voting. But the point is, it's not necessary.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: