Voting misinformation flourishes on Facebook(propublica.org)
propublica.org
Voting misinformation flourishes on Facebook
https://www.propublica.org/article/outright-lies-voting-misinformation-flourishes-on-facebook
52 comments
Do you know of a news agency with a better record with data science?
Propublica is the gold standard in this space as far as I know. (538 is a close second in my book, but they’re narrowly focused on politics and sports).
I suggest browsing their homepage to see what I mean. Well over fifty percent of the stories are backed by datasets they gathered themselves, and a good chunk of the remaining ones are about problems with lack of government transparency that directly impacted them:
https://www.propublica.org/
If you are a data scientist, you might be interested in other data sets they curate. These are mostly useful for social scientists, journalists and policy makers:
https://www.propublica.org/datastore/
Disclaimer: I’ve donated to them in the past.
Propublica is the gold standard in this space as far as I know. (538 is a close second in my book, but they’re narrowly focused on politics and sports).
I suggest browsing their homepage to see what I mean. Well over fifty percent of the stories are backed by datasets they gathered themselves, and a good chunk of the remaining ones are about problems with lack of government transparency that directly impacted them:
https://www.propublica.org/
If you are a data scientist, you might be interested in other data sets they curate. These are mostly useful for social scientists, journalists and policy makers:
https://www.propublica.org/datastore/
Disclaimer: I’ve donated to them in the past.
Propublica has done some of the best reporting I've read recently. Example the story with the USS Fitzgerald [0]. I don't remember anything as good in recent memory.
However, that doesn't mean everything they do has the same standard nor all their journalists approach their work with the same type of journalistic rigor. I think we need to judge every article on its own merit and not just based on some brand value alone.
[0] https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgeral...
However, that doesn't mean everything they do has the same standard nor all their journalists approach their work with the same type of journalistic rigor. I think we need to judge every article on its own merit and not just based on some brand value alone.
[0] https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgeral...
[deleted]
> The author of this article is some former pentagon and possibly a military spook
This is literally a strawman argument.
> this kind of data investigation needs someone with a good data science background. Otherwise all we're doing is using very limited observable dataset to make bold statements
Some of the research mentioned was funded by:
> The Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust
> Craig Newmark Philanthropies
> Democracy Fund
> Facebook Journalism Project
> Ford Foundation
> Google News Initiative
> John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
> Open Society Foundations
> Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust
This is literally a strawman argument.
> this kind of data investigation needs someone with a good data science background. Otherwise all we're doing is using very limited observable dataset to make bold statements
Some of the research mentioned was funded by:
> The Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust
> Craig Newmark Philanthropies
> Democracy Fund
> Facebook Journalism Project
> Ford Foundation
> Google News Initiative
> John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
> Open Society Foundations
> Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust
Do you mean literally an ad hominem argument? /pedant
1 in 5 Ballots Rejected as Fraud Is Charged in N.J. Mail-In Election:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/26/1_in_5...
Many other stories like this.
What's alarming is that the democrats tried to push through a bill that eliminated the state laws for voter integrity for all mail in ballots across states: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/12/democrats-c...
So if this has become law, what would have stopped China from printing a bunch of ballots and sending in them?
Nothing.
The media told us that mail in ballot fraud was non existent. Then when the cases started to reveal this was a false narrative, the media moved the goal posts and said "oh it happens, but only happens by republicans."
It's just an ever changing set of goal posts. It's very clear for those of us paying attention that mail in ballot fraud is the MAIN vector of voter fraud now. Those that proclaim this doesn't exist are naive or willfully deceptive.
The idea that you can vote without an ID is really unprecedented in the whole world. The united states is special in that it allows it at all. But this is quickly changing.
Tick Tock.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/26/1_in_5...
Many other stories like this.
What's alarming is that the democrats tried to push through a bill that eliminated the state laws for voter integrity for all mail in ballots across states: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/12/democrats-c...
So if this has become law, what would have stopped China from printing a bunch of ballots and sending in them?
Nothing.
The media told us that mail in ballot fraud was non existent. Then when the cases started to reveal this was a false narrative, the media moved the goal posts and said "oh it happens, but only happens by republicans."
It's just an ever changing set of goal posts. It's very clear for those of us paying attention that mail in ballot fraud is the MAIN vector of voter fraud now. Those that proclaim this doesn't exist are naive or willfully deceptive.
The idea that you can vote without an ID is really unprecedented in the whole world. The united states is special in that it allows it at all. But this is quickly changing.
Tick Tock.
We recently had a successful voluntary postal ballot on gay marriage here in Australia
No reports of fraud that I know of - A handful of people trying to steal ballots, but they were just invalidated and sent out again
No reports of fraud that I know of - A handful of people trying to steal ballots, but they were just invalidated and sent out again
So here's the thing - thousands of Republicans and conservatives have made claims of widespread vote/voter fraud.
I'm not aware of a single claim that withstood scrutiny or that was even attempted to prosecute, let alone done so successfully.
I'm not talking about isolated instances. That certainly has happened. I'm talking enough fraud to actually change an election. And I'm going to restrict you to the state or federal level, as I wouldn't be surprised that it happens at the local/county level in some hick outposts.
So what do ya got? Show me an election that was actually affected by widespread fraud.
I'm not aware of a single claim that withstood scrutiny or that was even attempted to prosecute, let alone done so successfully.
I'm not talking about isolated instances. That certainly has happened. I'm talking enough fraud to actually change an election. And I'm going to restrict you to the state or federal level, as I wouldn't be surprised that it happens at the local/county level in some hick outposts.
So what do ya got? Show me an election that was actually affected by widespread fraud.
This isn’t a right-wing situation but a real valid concern given plenty of reports between gerrymandering, polling center availability and security, chain of custody, paper processing, electronic machine hacks, suspect company backgrounds, etc.
The major problem is you can’t measure it in the first place because there is no truth set. Unless you can follow up with every single individual and confirm their vote, you dont have the data.
The major problem is you can’t measure it in the first place because there is no truth set. Unless you can follow up with every single individual and confirm their vote, you dont have the data.
I just hope digital voting becomes a thing soon enough. Yes there are still some unsolved problems, but I don't think they're unsolvable. Cryptography is a thing.
So what. This isn't a Facebook problem. It's an education and gullibility problem. There should be a class in the every high schools history department the explains propaganda and gossip.
> There should be a class in the every high schools history department the explains propaganda and gossip.
It wouldn't help. Facebook and other social media outlets are geared to giving you more of what you click. Happen to click a few far Z-Wing posts? You'll get more. Once a pattern develops they feed you what you click most so that you'll stay engaged. No amount of high schooling will prepare people for that. The _only_ way to fight it is to actively disengage.
It wouldn't help. Facebook and other social media outlets are geared to giving you more of what you click. Happen to click a few far Z-Wing posts? You'll get more. Once a pattern develops they feed you what you click most so that you'll stay engaged. No amount of high schooling will prepare people for that. The _only_ way to fight it is to actively disengage.
The insidious thing is: if you post a rebuttal to some assertion, all Facebook sees is that you engaged with that content. So it will show you more and more. You will become exhausted with the arguments and when your guard is down: ads
> This isn't a Facebook problem
This is most certainly a problem Facebook created, however. Blaming the public for "not knowing how to use nukes better" while still building and cramming nukes in their inboxes is just ridiculous and it's time for this charade to end.
This is most certainly a problem Facebook created, however. Blaming the public for "not knowing how to use nukes better" while still building and cramming nukes in their inboxes is just ridiculous and it's time for this charade to end.
Obviously, because students pay full and complete attention in high school history class. And remember what they learned for the rest of their lives. /s
Also this doesn't help the majority of the population that is older than high school age.
Propaganda is done because it works.
Also this doesn't help the majority of the population that is older than high school age.
Propaganda is done because it works.
Why is it that people default to a class in highschool as the solution to our societal problems?
Poor financial literacy = HS tax class
Misinformation on social media = HS propaganda class
Teens can't deal with their emotions = HS yoga class
Also we read Animal Farm and we talked about propaganda in history classes. Another class just for Facebook is not the solution.
Poor financial literacy = HS tax class
Misinformation on social media = HS propaganda class
Teens can't deal with their emotions = HS yoga class
Also we read Animal Farm and we talked about propaganda in history classes. Another class just for Facebook is not the solution.
These are all predictions about the future, so of course they don't have concrete evidence. Holding them to that standard so they can be declared "false" or "misinformation" is a rhetorical trick.
It's pretty hard for anyone to be objective about any political issue, but for what it's worth I vote third party, so my opinion about this is as non-partisan as I think it can be. That disclaimer made, from a purely engineering perspective, mail-in voting doesn't seem very secure. The 2016 election was pretty close; it wouldn't take that many mistakes or deliberate malicious acts to sway the outcome, especially with no clear chain of custody over people's ballots.
It's pretty hard for anyone to be objective about any political issue, but for what it's worth I vote third party, so my opinion about this is as non-partisan as I think it can be. That disclaimer made, from a purely engineering perspective, mail-in voting doesn't seem very secure. The 2016 election was pretty close; it wouldn't take that many mistakes or deliberate malicious acts to sway the outcome, especially with no clear chain of custody over people's ballots.
>A recent Washington Post analysis analyzed three states with all-mail elections — Colorado, Oregon and Washington — and found just 372 potential irregularities among 14.6 million votes, or 0.0025%.[0]
They seem insecure, but they are not insecure. That is the problem. The perception that public elections are vulnerable to massive voter fraud is what drives these conspiracy theories, not the reality.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-...
They seem insecure, but they are not insecure. That is the problem. The perception that public elections are vulnerable to massive voter fraud is what drives these conspiracy theories, not the reality.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-...
Just because mail in ballots haven't been attacked doesn't mean they can't or won't.
I'm all for more mail in ballots, just saying.
I'm all for more mail in ballots, just saying.
I would say the prevailing evidence suggests we can continue using them confidently, and the prevailing sentiment suggests we should begin to introduce measures that increase public trust in the validity of voting by mail and our elections in general.
I think we can have both. Let's promote mail in voting while trying to come up with ways to secure it that doesn't disenfranchise people.
Wait, so an outlet which is openly at odds with the current administration performed an investigation into claims made by the current administration, found the claims to be false, and we're just going to take the conclusion at face value? Nevermind the fact that this was conducted by journalists (i.e. non specialists who have a propensity for misreporting technical information).
Conspiracy theory...what a convenient dismissal of a potentially genuine problem. All of our institutions are rife with abuse but we're supposed to believe voter fraud doesn't exist because WAPO says it doesn't and, more importantly, because Trump said it does...
Edit: and they apparently looked at 3 states. Unqualified journalists should stay away from statistics or "fact checking" - at this point they are actively harming society with their piss poor, agenda driven "analyses".
Conspiracy theory...what a convenient dismissal of a potentially genuine problem. All of our institutions are rife with abuse but we're supposed to believe voter fraud doesn't exist because WAPO says it doesn't and, more importantly, because Trump said it does...
Edit: and they apparently looked at 3 states. Unqualified journalists should stay away from statistics or "fact checking" - at this point they are actively harming society with their piss poor, agenda driven "analyses".
> Edit: and they apparently looked at 3 states. Unqualified journalists should stay away from statistics or "fact checking" - at this point they are actively harming society with their piss poor, agenda driven "analyses"
Those are the 3 biggest states of the 5 that use primarily vote by mail. They contain ~80% of the vote by mail population.
Those are the 3 biggest states of the 5 that use primarily vote by mail. They contain ~80% of the vote by mail population.
>The figure reflects cases referred to law enforcement agencies in five elections held in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, where all voters proactively receive ballots in the mail for every election.
Oh I see, well, clearly, if officials aren't reporting on it then it's not happening. Wapo and blue check marks make it official.
This logic isn't sound but people are happy to swallow hole anything anti-trump.
Edit: not to mention Colorado, Washington, and Oregon probably don't harbor anywhere near the same number of illegal immigrants as do states like California and Texas where this would be more of a concern.
In fact this whole debate is framed illegitimately. States like California automatically register voters when they receive IDs, they allow noncitizens of any legal status to obtain IDs, and we're supposed to pretend this isn't an avenue for illegal voting? Who's going to report these votes if they ostensibly conform to the California rules? But don't worry, Wapo and Huffpo will run their "analyses" and everything will come back squeaky clean.
We all need to hold all of our sources accountable and examine them critically, even when they tell us what we want to hear.
Oh I see, well, clearly, if officials aren't reporting on it then it's not happening. Wapo and blue check marks make it official.
This logic isn't sound but people are happy to swallow hole anything anti-trump.
Edit: not to mention Colorado, Washington, and Oregon probably don't harbor anywhere near the same number of illegal immigrants as do states like California and Texas where this would be more of a concern.
In fact this whole debate is framed illegitimately. States like California automatically register voters when they receive IDs, they allow noncitizens of any legal status to obtain IDs, and we're supposed to pretend this isn't an avenue for illegal voting? Who's going to report these votes if they ostensibly conform to the California rules? But don't worry, Wapo and Huffpo will run their "analyses" and everything will come back squeaky clean.
We all need to hold all of our sources accountable and examine them critically, even when they tell us what we want to hear.
I've explained how undocumented people in California cannot possibly be registered to vote via the DMV further downthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23863362 Posting the link higher up for visibility.
> States like California automatically register voters when they receive IDs, they allow noncitizens of any legal status to obtain IDs, and we're supposed to pretend this isn't an avenue for illegal voting?
Citation required. The California DMV's own website utterly contradicts what you say:
"The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is permitted to issue a driver license (DL) or identification card (ID) to an applicant who submits satisfactory proof that the applicant’s presence in the United States (U.S.) is authorized under federal law...DMV will not let you start a DL/ID card application unless you present your social security number (SSN) and your valid BD (birthdate)/LP (legal presence) document...DMV will mail your photo DL/ID card after all tests and requirements have been met and USCIS has verified your legal presence status. "[1]
On a personal level, I know friends who suddenly couldn't drive because their visa expired, even though they were still in legal status while they awaited renewal. Because their license was set to expire the same day as the visa/I94. That's how hard-assed they are about it. (Btw, that's an additional non-citizen "tax" - having to renew your driver's license every 2-3 years, instead of 5 years like a citizen or permanent resident).
So definitely people without legal status can't register to vote this way. How many people with legal status do you think are going to try doing this? Like they went to all this trouble to come to the US legally, and now they'll commit a crime that has very little payoff for them personally and very high risk if they're caught? Remember these are people with a legal presence: they have jobs, USCIS knows where they live, they've been fingerprinted when applying for a visa, they're in the system. Are there FB/WhatsApp groups of non-citizens in legal status coordinating this stuff? Has anyone been arrested for this? Surely if it's going on for so long and at such a scale someone should have been caught right?
Where are your sources?
1. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/ed...
Citation required. The California DMV's own website utterly contradicts what you say:
"The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is permitted to issue a driver license (DL) or identification card (ID) to an applicant who submits satisfactory proof that the applicant’s presence in the United States (U.S.) is authorized under federal law...DMV will not let you start a DL/ID card application unless you present your social security number (SSN) and your valid BD (birthdate)/LP (legal presence) document...DMV will mail your photo DL/ID card after all tests and requirements have been met and USCIS has verified your legal presence status. "[1]
On a personal level, I know friends who suddenly couldn't drive because their visa expired, even though they were still in legal status while they awaited renewal. Because their license was set to expire the same day as the visa/I94. That's how hard-assed they are about it. (Btw, that's an additional non-citizen "tax" - having to renew your driver's license every 2-3 years, instead of 5 years like a citizen or permanent resident).
So definitely people without legal status can't register to vote this way. How many people with legal status do you think are going to try doing this? Like they went to all this trouble to come to the US legally, and now they'll commit a crime that has very little payoff for them personally and very high risk if they're caught? Remember these are people with a legal presence: they have jobs, USCIS knows where they live, they've been fingerprinted when applying for a visa, they're in the system. Are there FB/WhatsApp groups of non-citizens in legal status coordinating this stuff? Has anyone been arrested for this? Surely if it's going on for so long and at such a scale someone should have been caught right?
Where are your sources?
1. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/ed...
From Snopes, which generously labels this as "mixture" (because it is also dominated by partisan ideologues)
>Some 605,000 undocumented immigrants who live in California were granted driver’s licenses in 2015...took effect on January 2, 2015...(DMV) expects a total of about 1.4 million people will get their license under the law by late 2017.
And here's the fun part
>That announcement renewed interest in another California law, the “New Motor Voter Act,” which was passed in October 2015. The combination of these two acts, one allowing undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses, the other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining driver’s licenses, sparked fears (which have been periodically resurrected for more than a decade) that California was allowing undocumented residents to vote.
Oh, but don't worry, because as you also indirectly point out:
>The law requires that applicants under the Motor Voter Act attest that they meet all voter registration requirements, but critics maintain that the law “lacks the necessary safeguards to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls.”
Which is a winded way of saying these illegal immigrants are bound by their honor to opt out of voter registration and/or not go out and use their IDs [and default registration] to vote.
So despite the downvotes, I'm not the one who has fallen victim to propaganda here. And the same incentive responsible for this kind of blatantly incorrect citogenesis gives cause to people to risk illegally voting against a man who has been painted by this same media as a literal far right white supremacist. And what risk is there, when media and fact check outlets create citations which allow politicians to claim that this isn't a problem, while potentially benefiting from it?
Also I don't appreciate that you've conflated legal and illegal immigration, though in both cases there is clearly potential for abuse. Under Cuomo a similar motor voter law was passed by the way. The Wapo "study" is intentionally myopic.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-motor-voter-act...
>Some 605,000 undocumented immigrants who live in California were granted driver’s licenses in 2015...took effect on January 2, 2015...(DMV) expects a total of about 1.4 million people will get their license under the law by late 2017.
And here's the fun part
>That announcement renewed interest in another California law, the “New Motor Voter Act,” which was passed in October 2015. The combination of these two acts, one allowing undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses, the other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining driver’s licenses, sparked fears (which have been periodically resurrected for more than a decade) that California was allowing undocumented residents to vote.
Oh, but don't worry, because as you also indirectly point out:
>The law requires that applicants under the Motor Voter Act attest that they meet all voter registration requirements, but critics maintain that the law “lacks the necessary safeguards to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls.”
Which is a winded way of saying these illegal immigrants are bound by their honor to opt out of voter registration and/or not go out and use their IDs [and default registration] to vote.
So despite the downvotes, I'm not the one who has fallen victim to propaganda here. And the same incentive responsible for this kind of blatantly incorrect citogenesis gives cause to people to risk illegally voting against a man who has been painted by this same media as a literal far right white supremacist. And what risk is there, when media and fact check outlets create citations which allow politicians to claim that this isn't a problem, while potentially benefiting from it?
Also I don't appreciate that you've conflated legal and illegal immigration, though in both cases there is clearly potential for abuse. Under Cuomo a similar motor voter law was passed by the way. The Wapo "study" is intentionally myopic.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-motor-voter-act...
Again, it's not a document-free free-for-all. From your own Snopes link:
"Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That’s arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury."
Even people without legal status applying for a license or ID have to provide something to identify themselves. If that's not a US birth certificate or passport, it's pretty obvious they aren't citizens and they can't be registered. Stop debating in hypotheticals. Show actual proof of fraud happening at a meaningful scale.
"Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That’s arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury."
Even people without legal status applying for a license or ID have to provide something to identify themselves. If that's not a US birth certificate or passport, it's pretty obvious they aren't citizens and they can't be registered. Stop debating in hypotheticals. Show actual proof of fraud happening at a meaningful scale.
>Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age
But if we are registering people who should not be voting, that's one less safeguard, and now we are relying solely on the good faith of the people at the booths and the illegal/ineligible immigrants who shouldn't be voting.
At what point are you willing to admit that this is a glaring loophole and an opportunity for massive scale abuse? Are we really just going to blanket dismiss any attempt at securing this system as "voter disenfranchisement"?
Illegal immigrants should not be registered to vote. Period. That's halfway to voter fraud - not to mention that there are other types of voter fraud which are being deliberately conflated.
But if we are registering people who should not be voting, that's one less safeguard, and now we are relying solely on the good faith of the people at the booths and the illegal/ineligible immigrants who shouldn't be voting.
At what point are you willing to admit that this is a glaring loophole and an opportunity for massive scale abuse? Are we really just going to blanket dismiss any attempt at securing this system as "voter disenfranchisement"?
Illegal immigrants should not be registered to vote. Period. That's halfway to voter fraud - not to mention that there are other types of voter fraud which are being deliberately conflated.
> Illegal immigrants should not be registered to vote.
They're not. Period.
They're not. Period.
That point is not under contention; let me reiterate
>the “New Motor Voter Act,” which was passed in October 2015. The combination of these two acts, one allowing undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses, the other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining driver’s licenses, sparked fears (which have been periodically resurrected for more than a decade) that California was allowing undocumented residents to vote.
So there is no question that they are registered to vote. The remaining argument is whether they are sufficiently prevent from voting after being automatically registered (failing to opt out by accident or choice.)
>the “New Motor Voter Act,” which was passed in October 2015. The combination of these two acts, one allowing undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses, the other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining driver’s licenses, sparked fears (which have been periodically resurrected for more than a decade) that California was allowing undocumented residents to vote.
So there is no question that they are registered to vote. The remaining argument is whether they are sufficiently prevent from voting after being automatically registered (failing to opt out by accident or choice.)
False.
"How will the DMV system ensure only U.S. Citizens are registered to vote?
State law prohibits DMV from sending information for AB 60 applicants (undocumented driver license applicants) to the Secretary of State. For other applicants, state law requires each person to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they meet all voter eligibility requirements, including citizenship."[1]
If you're undocumented, the DMV already knows this fact and they're forbidden from sending your info to the Secretary of State. So undocumented people can't be registered to vote via the DMV, even if they don't tick the "Opt-out" box on the form (whether through negligence or malice).
If you're documented, it's perjury and voter fraud - very serious crimes for someone trying to stay legal and very easy to uncover with a simple query on the DMV database, joined with voter rolls to see who voted.
Again, do you have any proof of any of what you're alleging actually happening in the real world? I've already shown you your hypothetical scenario is nearly impossible and easy to investigate, yet you're trying to convince yourself and everyone else that "illegals vote in large numbers". Facts don't care about your feelings.
1. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/motor-voter/general-info.pd...
"How will the DMV system ensure only U.S. Citizens are registered to vote?
State law prohibits DMV from sending information for AB 60 applicants (undocumented driver license applicants) to the Secretary of State. For other applicants, state law requires each person to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they meet all voter eligibility requirements, including citizenship."[1]
If you're undocumented, the DMV already knows this fact and they're forbidden from sending your info to the Secretary of State. So undocumented people can't be registered to vote via the DMV, even if they don't tick the "Opt-out" box on the form (whether through negligence or malice).
If you're documented, it's perjury and voter fraud - very serious crimes for someone trying to stay legal and very easy to uncover with a simple query on the DMV database, joined with voter rolls to see who voted.
Again, do you have any proof of any of what you're alleging actually happening in the real world? I've already shown you your hypothetical scenario is nearly impossible and easy to investigate, yet you're trying to convince yourself and everyone else that "illegals vote in large numbers". Facts don't care about your feelings.
1. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/motor-voter/general-info.pd...
What makes the study invalid in your view aside from being published by the Washington Post?
First off, this isn't a "study", the vast majority of journalists are non-technical people with limited understanding of statistics or science.
Second, they looked at 3 states out of 50. Yes I understand that's where the majority of mail in voting happens currently. That's about to change.
Third, they ignored states with larger populations of illegal immigrants.
Fourth, they ignored opt out motor voter laws which, combined with laws which give illegals drivers licenses (in at least 2 states currently) and automatically register them to vote unless they opt out.
Long story short, wapo found what it wanted find, consumers read what they wanted to read.
Second, they looked at 3 states out of 50. Yes I understand that's where the majority of mail in voting happens currently. That's about to change.
Third, they ignored states with larger populations of illegal immigrants.
Fourth, they ignored opt out motor voter laws which, combined with laws which give illegals drivers licenses (in at least 2 states currently) and automatically register them to vote unless they opt out.
Long story short, wapo found what it wanted find, consumers read what they wanted to read.
I wanted to investigate this idea that states with larger populations of illegal immigrants would be more prone to voter fraud. I searched for "how many illegal immigrants voted in 2016." I can't find results suggesting widespread voter fraud anywhere in the United States. The Heritage Foundation discovered about 9,000 duplicate votes throughout the country.[0] ICE indicted 19 foreign nationals for voting illegally in 2016.[1]
[0] https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-r...
[1] https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indic...
[0] https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/new-r...
[1] https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indic...
This is a great example of how voting by mail needs to be made even more secure so that all voters trust that elections are valid.
But not an example of why voting by mail isn’t secure and could lead us to doubt elections?
My reading of the situation as it happened is that voting by mail wasn’t secure and led to a situation in which an election wasn’t valid. Do you read it differently?
My reading of the situation as it happened is that voting by mail wasn’t secure and led to a situation in which an election wasn’t valid. Do you read it differently?
Indeed.
Here's the formula:
1) Quickly gloss over any real examples of voter fraud. 2) Don't acknowledge prominent Democrat concerns with them only a couple years ago. 3) Don't give any time to real and recent examples. 4) Do throw around the words of people who worry about mail in ballots, carefully pointing out they're all Pro Trump, Anti Muslim activist, some other view point CNN/NYT tells you that you hate. 5) Don't acknowledge any of the ways mail in ballots are objectively weaker and easier to compromise.
Articles like this are themselves misinformation and propaganda.
Here's the formula:
1) Quickly gloss over any real examples of voter fraud. 2) Don't acknowledge prominent Democrat concerns with them only a couple years ago. 3) Don't give any time to real and recent examples. 4) Do throw around the words of people who worry about mail in ballots, carefully pointing out they're all Pro Trump, Anti Muslim activist, some other view point CNN/NYT tells you that you hate. 5) Don't acknowledge any of the ways mail in ballots are objectively weaker and easier to compromise.
Articles like this are themselves misinformation and propaganda.
The NC election is the closest example we have in recent years to an election where fraud (would have) overturned the legitimate results of the election. I say closest because it's not at all clear that the results were enough to overturned what would have been the legitimate result: the stated margin of victory is about 900 votes, and about that many ballots are thought to have been affected.
I will freely admit that mail-in votes are far more likely--about 10×--to be involved in fraud than in-person voting. However, I will also point out that both cases of fraud are quite rare, and far less of an issue in practice than problems such as voter intimidation, voter access, and ballot design, which are known to have afflicted even the largest races in the country (the 2000 presidential election being perhaps the most famous race to have its results altered as a result of poor ballot design).
I will freely admit that mail-in votes are far more likely--about 10×--to be involved in fraud than in-person voting. However, I will also point out that both cases of fraud are quite rare, and far less of an issue in practice than problems such as voter intimidation, voter access, and ballot design, which are known to have afflicted even the largest races in the country (the 2000 presidential election being perhaps the most famous race to have its results altered as a result of poor ballot design).
1) In North Carolina's 9th 2018 congressional district election, the campaign manager for the Republican candidate manipulated absentee ballots
2) I'm not arguing whether feigning concern is a political tactic, I'm arguing that vote by mail fraud a. exists, b. is so insignificant that it doesn't affect election outcomes, c. still needs to be combated because elections should be seen as irrefutably valid by all voters
3) You can read the facts about the example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_co...
4) Most voter misinformation on Facebook is perpetuated by Trump supporters according to the article.
5) I think all voters should be able to agree that elections, including voting by mail, should be as secure as possible. It seems that as of today, voting by mail is secure enough to warrant its use in general, and more specifically in our current situation where voting at in-person polling locations risks spreading Covid needlessly and would have a chilling effect on voters who fear they would contract Covid and die by visiting an in-person voting location. In fact, I would go so far to claim that the chilling effect from requiring all voting to take place in person during the Covid pandemic would distort the outcome of the election by magnitudes greater than what we would expect from even 10 or 100 times more vote by mail fraud than we have today. Forcing voters to risk their lives to cast their ballot disenfranchises them and is as reprehensible as their ballot being manipulated against their will.
2) I'm not arguing whether feigning concern is a political tactic, I'm arguing that vote by mail fraud a. exists, b. is so insignificant that it doesn't affect election outcomes, c. still needs to be combated because elections should be seen as irrefutably valid by all voters
3) You can read the facts about the example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_co...
4) Most voter misinformation on Facebook is perpetuated by Trump supporters according to the article.
5) I think all voters should be able to agree that elections, including voting by mail, should be as secure as possible. It seems that as of today, voting by mail is secure enough to warrant its use in general, and more specifically in our current situation where voting at in-person polling locations risks spreading Covid needlessly and would have a chilling effect on voters who fear they would contract Covid and die by visiting an in-person voting location. In fact, I would go so far to claim that the chilling effect from requiring all voting to take place in person during the Covid pandemic would distort the outcome of the election by magnitudes greater than what we would expect from even 10 or 100 times more vote by mail fraud than we have today. Forcing voters to risk their lives to cast their ballot disenfranchises them and is as reprehensible as their ballot being manipulated against their will.
I don't disagree with that, it's just so many articles are pulling the "without evidence" card, despite much evidence to support weaknesses with mail-in-ballots. Mail in ballots were a real concern among Democrats in past elections also, but somehow today's journalists would have believe that the only people who could possibly care about the issue are all somehow racist or some other bad thing by telling us a bunch of evil people are supposedly fighting against this.
It's so blatant in this article it's amazing anyone can avoid the feeling they're being manipulated.
It's so blatant in this article it's amazing anyone can avoid the feeling they're being manipulated.
Did the study document what type of irregularities they could have missed? It is like claiming I have never been hacked because my logs never showed anything.
If you really want to look at the issue, you need to approach it like a security audit. What is your threat model? What are the failure modes? What are the ways that there can be fraud without setting off red flags.
Right off the bat, an issue with all-mail elections is coercion, and suppression. If the ballots all arrive in the mail at the house, someone can use coercion to make sure all the ballots are filled out as they wish. This is much harder to do in person.
And that vulnerability popped up with less than a minute of thought. If approached from a security perspective, I am sure others would pop up.
Now, after serious analysis, it may be concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks, but a serious analysis needs to be done.
If you really want to look at the issue, you need to approach it like a security audit. What is your threat model? What are the failure modes? What are the ways that there can be fraud without setting off red flags.
Right off the bat, an issue with all-mail elections is coercion, and suppression. If the ballots all arrive in the mail at the house, someone can use coercion to make sure all the ballots are filled out as they wish. This is much harder to do in person.
And that vulnerability popped up with less than a minute of thought. If approached from a security perspective, I am sure others would pop up.
Now, after serious analysis, it may be concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks, but a serious analysis needs to be done.
It's one thing to say that mail in voting could potentially have security issues. It's another to say that Democrats plan to light ballots on fire. In order to legitimately claim that with any certainty they would need actual proof of someone developing a plan or expressing an interest in doing so. They clearly don't have that. Maybe "false" or "misinformation" are not accurate enough terms but I think "unsubstantiated fear-mongering" is fair and would have the same effect.
That is a metaphor. I guess people should not use colorful language when others might jump to any criticism.
The specific claim was that barack obama for certain would light ballots on fire. Accusing a specific individual in the public sphere of definitely intending to commit a crime sounds like it matches the legal definition of libel to me.
The concrete evidence comes from the past, not from the future.
From a purely engineering perspective, the fact is that it works and works well.
The simple solution of stating your name + address (or receiving a ballot addressed to you by mail) then having your name checked off the list when you return the ballot is friction-less, robust, and extremely difficult to attack at scale.
Over-engineering the system's security would most likely do more harm than good.
From a purely engineering perspective, the fact is that it works and works well.
The simple solution of stating your name + address (or receiving a ballot addressed to you by mail) then having your name checked off the list when you return the ballot is friction-less, robust, and extremely difficult to attack at scale.
Over-engineering the system's security would most likely do more harm than good.
So, When compared to paper ballots, I believe that your statements are true.
Many states use electronic voting machines. These run unverified code, without verifiable paper receipts (IE a public database of all the votes + receipt numbers, against which individuals may check their votes, and from which the official tally is calculated). This also has no chain of custody. I would choose mail-in ballots over electronic vote systems every time.
Many states use electronic voting machines. These run unverified code, without verifiable paper receipts (IE a public database of all the votes + receipt numbers, against which individuals may check their votes, and from which the official tally is calculated). This also has no chain of custody. I would choose mail-in ballots over electronic vote systems every time.
There’s nothing special about “predictions about the future” that means they are incapable of being false or misleading. In fact, our legal system already handles cases like this. For example, fraudulent investment schemes are little more than predictions of what will happen in the future, yet those predictions are prosecuted as being fraudulent.
Not from the US, I think mail in voting can be secure, but I would not recommend starting this election for the reasons you mentioned and people need to believe voting isn't manipulated.
I know the US elections are pretty people centric, even though you are not allowed to vote the president directly. But if anyone could come up with an honest assessment of the problems the US is facing and offer some solutions or strategies, I think the chances to win are very high. You would have to beat building a wall towards Mexico.
Trumpers need to make peace with lefties and vice versa. Nobody will win otherwise anyway. I believe Biden will win the presidential election though. Not by merit perhaps, but because of demographic and inclination of voters.
If I recall the work of Democrats the last election cycle I see questionable FISA abuse and lying about Russia as the primary "achievements". I think there is room to do better.
What do I see when I look at Trump? I don't think he takes his presidency that seriously. He didn't kill minorities as some said he would.
I know the US elections are pretty people centric, even though you are not allowed to vote the president directly. But if anyone could come up with an honest assessment of the problems the US is facing and offer some solutions or strategies, I think the chances to win are very high. You would have to beat building a wall towards Mexico.
Trumpers need to make peace with lefties and vice versa. Nobody will win otherwise anyway. I believe Biden will win the presidential election though. Not by merit perhaps, but because of demographic and inclination of voters.
If I recall the work of Democrats the last election cycle I see questionable FISA abuse and lying about Russia as the primary "achievements". I think there is room to do better.
What do I see when I look at Trump? I don't think he takes his presidency that seriously. He didn't kill minorities as some said he would.
> even though you are not allowed to vote the president directly
Yeah, you are.
> He didn't kill minorities
Covid kills minorities at a far higher rate than the general population. His incompetence in handling the epidemic has killed minorities (it's killed a lot of people, but disproportionately minorities).[1]
1. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/30/8654130...
Yeah, you are.
> He didn't kill minorities
Covid kills minorities at a far higher rate than the general population. His incompetence in handling the epidemic has killed minorities (it's killed a lot of people, but disproportionately minorities).[1]
1. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/30/8654130...
IMHO, additionally this kind of data investigation needs someone with a good data science background. Otherwise all we're doing is using very limited observable dataset to make bold statements, which ironically what is happening with scaring public about voting by mail.
The author of this article is some former pentagon and possibly a military spook and not a data scientist https://projects.propublica.org/trump-town/staffers/ryan-mcc...