Which "side" has been fighting tooth and nail for unverifiable mail-in ballots and resisting all investigations of voting integrity? Though both sides are also embracing totally insecure and insane digital voting systems that have been caught doing things like duplicating votes and enabling fractional voting in general elections.

▲

aetch an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The republicans, they keep claiming that voter fraud is always in favor for democrats but most of the discovered cases are republican voters.

▲

klntsky an hour ago | parent [-]

Survivorship bias

▲

hackyhacky an hour ago | parent [-]

> Survivorship bias

Huh? Survival of what? Are you claiming that Democrat fraud was not found only because the perpetrators are all dead?

▲

teravor 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

he is implying that the focus on the republican cases (the survivors) is a red herring because the system is presumably such that an actual conspiracy cannot be detected.

I don't know anything about elections, a question worth asking is what would it look like if a conspiracy set out to exploit mail ballots? could detection only originate from a defector?

	▲	hackyhacky 34 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> he is implying that the focus on the republican cases (the survivors) is a red herring because the system is presumably such that an actual conspiracy cannot be detected. Maybe GP is implying that, but that's not what they said, because what you describe is not survivorship bias. > I don't know anything about elections, a question worth asking is what would it look like if a conspiracy set out to exploit mail ballots? could detection only originate from a defector? You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is: If mail-in voter fraud cannot be detected, then why do people claim that mail-in voter fraud exists? If there isn't evidence that it exists, then the people who claim that it exists are making statements not based on evidence. In other words, their opinions are either not informed by facts, in which case we should disregard their opinions; or their statements are not sincere expressions of belief, in which case they are liars and we should not trust them.
	▲	majormajor 32 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I don't know anything about elections, a question worth asking is what would it look like if a conspiracy set out to exploit mail ballots? could detection only originate from a defector? Why don't you start with some research of your own and outline how such a conspiracy would work and how large it would have to be. Don't throw out a hypothetical "could it even be caught?" to try to bias people without doing any sort of even cursory glance at how things work. Hell, while you're at it, please outline other possible conspiracies, and think about if there are potential vulnerabilities that could very require less major coordination than mail-in ballots. (Not even including the 'have a president who constantly tells everyone that if he loses it will be due to fraud to stoke the flames in advance' strategy!)

▲

hackyhacky an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Which "side" has been fighting tooth and nail for unverifiable mail-in ballots

Mail-in ballots are currently accepted in 23 states [1], including Utah, Kansas, and Florida. Which "side" is that? Please note Donald Trump personally uses the terribly unsecure and unverifiable method of mail-in ballot, so either he thinks it's secure enough, or, uh, is not being totally honest with us.

> resisting all investigations of voting integrity?

Which investigations, specifically, are you referring to? As far as I know, Trump formed a voter integrity commission in his first term which was unable to find any evidence of voter fraud and was therefore subsequently disbanded [2]. Since then, the only source of information on the allegedly widespread voter fraud is from Donald Trump's own mouth.

[1] https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-18-states...

[2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/disb...

▲

majormajor 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

there have been MANY investigations

what have they found, exactly?

at some point how much more money do you want to burn on investigations w/o any particular new cause?

"unverifiable" ain't exactly true either where i live. you might think there should be more or different verification, sure, start some discussions in your local area. don't bring the federal government into everyone else's after the administration shows a long history of crying wolf and pre-seeding conspiracy theories with "i can't possibly lose" stuff. if you're convinced the states and local municipalities can't run stuff, it should be easy to prove.

and yet. you haven't yet.