|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland26715 Posts
On April 25 2026 13:47 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 20:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
There are plenty of issues with Democratic politicians and the Democratic party. Pushing for insecure elections is not one of them. Your retreat from "election integrity" to "oH nOw dEmOcRaT PoLiTiCiAnS aRe pErFeCt!?!?!?!?!?!?" is a clear goalpost-moving concession on your part, and it's probably the closest we'll all get to you apologizing for being the most recent poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. They are pushing for insecure elections while refusing to put any form of ID to vote. I'm not moving the goalpost, I said republicans want ID for personal gain (votes) and Dems don't want it for the same reason, people who don't see that are in my opinion naive. It's the same argument. Show nested quote +So... you don't have a source for the bolded? And instead of backing up your claim, you thought it'd be a good idea to provide a non sequitur, since the lack of a photo ID doesn't actually mean "the US has one of the least secure systems"? And we know this is true, because your assertion - "the US has one of the least secure systems" - is actually completely false. You're right that there have been "multiple studies"... but they disprove your statement. The United States's election system and general election integrity are nowhere near the bottom. In fact, they consistently rank in the top half of countries, with scores like 11/12 and 9.17/10 depending on which metrics are being used and who is doing the research. Not perfect, but still very secure... Elections outside of the 1st world are a shit show, of course they are going to rank higher than in places where people steal ballot boxes with machetes in a pickup and the votes are counted by the president's cousin, and that is pretty much what happens in all the rest of the world. However the system itself isn't secure because not even a photo ID is required, having a Photo ID would make elections even more secure, or even better a federal voting ID with a better security measures than a driving license. There is very little downside, the cost is minimal and you get better security in your elections.
Is the cost minimal? I must say I don’t know, you seem awful confident to assert it is
Federal voting ID I don’t think you’ll get too many objections from the thread, I may be wrong and consider me corrected in advance if so. The problem there is that Republicans aren’t going to go for it and will complain that it’s federalising elections and muh states rights
I dunno how many times we need to do this dance until you realise that photo voter ID isn’t actually the thing people are concerned about
|
On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any.
I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse.
On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other. That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ?
It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different.
The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years.
You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything:
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/Zz5MdkF7/eyes.png)
Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote.
There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working.
It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success"
And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps.
|
Northern Ireland26715 Posts
On April 25 2026 13:34 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 20:19 Uldridge wrote:
Do you know the difference between the mental constitutions of a conservative and a progressive (or here a Rep and Dem), or do you believe they just pick a side based on how succesful they'll be there?
Also, no need to strawman, no one ever said Dems are pure souls. But Dems do respect the legislature and Reps have time and again demonstrated they don't really care about that if it doesn't serve their narratives. You mean politicians? I believe we have our personalities, even genetic proclivities that makes us gravitate towards certain political ideologies so young politicians go towards those parties that fit them best, but as time goes on the corruptive cesspool that politics is, it erodes all integrity and believes turn into puerile naivety, and at that time I do believe they simply pursue personal gain and would switch party in an instant if that greatly benefited them. Of course almost never see that especially in older politicians is because to have the circumstances where switch parties is feasible and greatly beneficial are very rare. Also there are some exceptions I don't think you'd ever get Bernie Sanders to change, he is too deep into the socialist bit and he is way too old, it's hard to corrupt a dying man, but I think if you offered something like a guaranteed presidency in the RNC ticket to Liz Warren she would stake it in the blink of an eye. When I say you believe Dems are "pure souls" is not straw man, its hyperbole, and since you believe dems respect the legislature and reps don't that is exactly what I'm talking about. Also please refrain from giving me examples of how they are legislature respectooooors lol Edit: Fun anecdotal evidence, Mexico was ruled by the same party (PRI) for 80 years, in the year 2000 another paty (conservative) won, ending the quasi-dictatorship, then in 2018 a new Party (MORENA) won the elections, the PRI's reputation was too damaged and the party was half-dead, so almost every single PRI politicians switched to MORENA especially the powerful "dinosaurs", so now we are ruled again by a rebranded PRI, the exact same people but now they just talk socialist bullshit. It's not that this shaped my belief, it was just a confirmation of what I already believed: only corrupt men seek power, and these people pass through a corruptive system and that is why we are ruled by the worst of us, no matter what country you are from, your politicians are the worst of your people. Of course the worst of the swiss will be way better than the worst of the mexicans.
Which is an edgy 16 year old’s understanding of politics.
There are plenty of earnest people who get involved because they genuinely want to make a difference. I’ve met plenty of them, hell my ma used to childmind for the (former) leader of a political party over here, and said leader was elected multiple times to our devolved legislature.
The earnest politician tends to hit a brick wall by virtue of being earnest. ‘I don’t have all the answers’ ‘x is complicated’ etc tend to be death knells for a viable politician, so they end up having to fuck off and get replaced by rapacious liars.
Which I mean is collectively on us and not individual politicians in this example.
|
Northern Ireland26715 Posts
On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any. I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse. Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:
[quote]
I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable.
This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.
I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other. That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ? It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years. You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything: Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote. There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working. It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success" And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps.
Oh yes the magical population excuse. Which oddly is couched in national population and not by state, but we’re also told x is unfeasible because the US is a confederation of multiple states who like to do things their own way.
|
once you reach beyond a few small towns worth of population there really isn't a difference in scaling to 1mil or 10billion voters.
Most of the stuff all happens on at most a municipality level. Each of them handled the voting locations, election day and subsequent counting and just reports their numbers to a central authority.
I don't know much about the swiss system but I have no reason to assume it wouldn't effortlessly scale into infinity because it will be using roughly the same system as every other 'normal' western nation.
|
On April 25 2026 21:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any. I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse. On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about.
When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right?
If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right?
So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur.
And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other. That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ? It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years. You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything: Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote. There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working. It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success" And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps. Oh yes the magical population excuse. Which oddly is couched in national population and not by state, but we’re also told x is unfeasible because the US is a confederation of multiple states who like to do things their own way.
Excuse for what?
|
On April 25 2026 13:47 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 20:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
There are plenty of issues with Democratic politicians and the Democratic party. Pushing for insecure elections is not one of them. Your retreat from "election integrity" to "oH nOw dEmOcRaT PoLiTiCiAnS aRe pErFeCt!?!?!?!?!?!?" is a clear goalpost-moving concession on your part, and it's probably the closest we'll all get to you apologizing for being the most recent poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. They are pushing for insecure elections while refusing to put any form of ID to vote
No. They are pushing for the current level of security for elections, which is extremely, extremely, extremely secure and has no widespread voter fraud.
|
On April 25 2026 21:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 21:39 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any. I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse. On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws.
Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:
[quote]
Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other. That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ? It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years. You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything: Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote. There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working. It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success" And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps. Oh yes the magical population excuse. Which oddly is couched in national population and not by state, but we’re also told x is unfeasible because the US is a confederation of multiple states who like to do things their own way. Excuse for what? On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:
It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. There is no meaningful difference in organising an election for 8 million or 350 million voters.
|
Northern Ireland26715 Posts
On April 25 2026 21:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 21:39 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any. I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse. On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws.
Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:
[quote]
Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look. Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other. That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ? It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years. You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything: Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote. There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working. It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success" And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps. Oh yes the magical population excuse. Which oddly is couched in national population and not by state, but we’re also told x is unfeasible because the US is a confederation of multiple states who like to do things their own way. Excuse for what?
For why the US can’t do x, y or z by virtue of its population, or can’t be compared to another locale by virtue of the same.
Most systems tend to be scalable
|
New page in this thread about the same discussion, Republicans here have still offered zero evidence.
|
On April 25 2026 22:09 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 21:54 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 21:39 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any. I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse. On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 23:58 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Would you mind linking the studies you refer to? I would like to have a look.
Are you autistic by any chance? This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people. Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other. That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ? It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years. You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything: Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote. There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working. It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success" And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps. Oh yes the magical population excuse. Which oddly is couched in national population and not by state, but we’re also told x is unfeasible because the US is a confederation of multiple states who like to do things their own way. Excuse for what? For why the US can’t do x, y or z by virtue of its population, or can’t be compared to another locale by virtue of the same. Most systems tend to be scalable
What does Switzerland do better than US elections that you think the US needs to follow/copy?
|
Northern Ireland26715 Posts
On April 25 2026 22:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 22:09 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:54 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 21:39 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any. I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse. On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good?
What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots?
I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 14:06 baal wrote:
[quote]
Are you autistic by any chance?
This thread would be so much better if memes were allowed, live a little people.
Really? It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion. I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from. The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other. That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ? It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years. You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything: Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote. There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working. It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success" And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps. Oh yes the magical population excuse. Which oddly is couched in national population and not by state, but we’re also told x is unfeasible because the US is a confederation of multiple states who like to do things their own way. Excuse for what? For why the US can’t do x, y or z by virtue of its population, or can’t be compared to another locale by virtue of the same. Most systems tend to be scalable What does Switzerland do better than US elections that you think the US needs to follow/copy?
Not having massively fraudulent elections obviously
|
On April 25 2026 22:23 LightSpectra wrote:
New page in this thread about the same discussion, Republicans here have still offered zero evidence.
And not just that, but Geiko and I (and others?) have already posted studies and sources already disproving the false claims of needing voter ID to prevent widespread election fraud and that the United States doesn't have secure elections. It's over.
|
On April 25 2026 22:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 22:24 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 22:09 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:54 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 21:39 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any. I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse. On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't.
Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you.
Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. On April 25 2026 14:48 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 14:10 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Really?
It's hard to discuss stuff controversial topics when people don't start on the same fact base. When I ask for a source, I'm trying to establish a common shared knowledge base so we can then have a productive discussion.
I would still like to see the study that you have read that shows that American elections are among the most insecure in the developed world. It will help me understand where you are coming from.
The source is he made it up. I found this study that ranks the US middle of the pack in "election integrity" for developed countries. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58533f31bebafbe99c85dc9b/t/66997d503560802120d5f949/1721335130905/Year in Elections PEI 10 Report_FINAL.pdfRegarding mail-in ballots, why does it work so well in Switzerland ? 80-90% of votes are cast by mail here. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other. That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ? It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years. You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything: Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote. There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working. It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success" And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps. Oh yes the magical population excuse. Which oddly is couched in national population and not by state, but we’re also told x is unfeasible because the US is a confederation of multiple states who like to do things their own way. Excuse for what? For why the US can’t do x, y or z by virtue of its population, or can’t be compared to another locale by virtue of the same. Most systems tend to be scalable What does Switzerland do better than US elections that you think the US needs to follow/copy? Not having massively fraudulent elections obviously
Switzerland did invalidate a referendum in the town of Moutier from 2017.
|
Northern Ireland26715 Posts
On April 25 2026 22:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 22:32 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 22:24 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 22:09 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:54 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 21:39 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any. I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse. On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble. Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other. That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ? It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years. You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything: Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote. There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working. It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success" And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps. Oh yes the magical population excuse. Which oddly is couched in national population and not by state, but we’re also told x is unfeasible because the US is a confederation of multiple states who like to do things their own way. Excuse for what? For why the US can’t do x, y or z by virtue of its population, or can’t be compared to another locale by virtue of the same. Most systems tend to be scalable What does Switzerland do better than US elections that you think the US needs to follow/copy? Not having massively fraudulent elections obviously Switzerland did invalidate a referendum in the town of Moutier from 2017.
A country of 8 million and one of 350 million are different
|
Northern Ireland26715 Posts
On April 25 2026 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 22:23 LightSpectra wrote:
New page in this thread about the same discussion, Republicans here have still offered zero evidence. And not just that, but Geiko and I (and others?) have already posted studies and sources already disproving the false claims of needing voter ID to prevent widespread election fraud and that the United States doesn't have secure elections. It's over.
They can’t even take a compromise, which crudely speaking is ‘we don’t really need this to deal with negligible fraud, but I guess we could stomach it with certain safeguards that address our worries’
Nah, can’t do that fam, also why do you distrust our motivations here incidentally?
|
On April 25 2026 22:56 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 22:39 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 22:32 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 22:24 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 22:09 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:54 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 21:39 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 21:23 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
The problem with your source's applicability is the issue was a narrow part of security. You saw a source that said election "integrity" and thought, close enough.
When you look at what they averaged by "election integrity" you see they include such criteria as PARTICIPATION (turnout) and BOUNDARIES (districting). Districting and gerrymandering is a fine topic, it's not related to secure voting. Participation is if anything inversely correlated to security if our colleagues friends are to be believed Would you mind sharing with us what you consider to be an authoritative source that conclusively demonstrates that elections in the US are insecure or among the most insecure across developed nations? I did a quick search and couldn't find any. I'm still knees deep in trying to find a peer reviewed published scientific study that proves I'm not a horse. On April 25 2026 20:39 Geiko wrote:On April 25 2026 19:47 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
This a new contribution M.O.? Take one base point you're wrong about, pretend it's a thing that all Americans are fascinated, obsessed with, keep doing it? There isn't one "gubmint" that knows everything about you in the US, this is a misunderstanding you share with... what first comes to mind is Dale Gribble.
[quote]
Switzerland is roughly the size of Maryland. It can't be that good if the number 65 is the exact same as the US's which is only "middle" of developed countries and averaged between US states that are much better and much worse than each other.
That's exactly my point, Switzerland and the USA have the exact same score and everything is fine here, no election fraud. What does that tell you ? It tells me that countries of 8 million and 350 million are different. The US has had multiple invalidated and redone elections in the last 10 years. You can be proud of being the "same" as that or read my post or your own article or at the very least look at this conveniently prepared picture which enumerates the dimensions they analyzed and absorb the fact that the score for "election integrity" in the report you found doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, it's not an election security certificate, it's just a vague democracy index which is not helped by the fact there's no appendix of methods of how they scored anything: Most of these factors are not to do with securing the vote. There are two ways of thinking: One, that because we found some elections that were so bad they had to be redone, that means the system is working. It is like seeing a bridge that cracked and going "Wahoo! It signaled us that it's broken instead of just collapsing immediately! Great success" And then there's the other way of thinking. The crack is already the failure. The next issue is the cracks you don't see. This is harder if you don't check for cracks and further harder if you designed a bridge which inherently erases evidence of its own cracks at certain steps. Oh yes the magical population excuse. Which oddly is couched in national population and not by state, but we’re also told x is unfeasible because the US is a confederation of multiple states who like to do things their own way. Excuse for what? For why the US can’t do x, y or z by virtue of its population, or can’t be compared to another locale by virtue of the same. Most systems tend to be scalable What does Switzerland do better than US elections that you think the US needs to follow/copy? Not having massively fraudulent elections obviously Switzerland did invalidate a referendum in the town of Moutier from 2017. A country of 8 million and one of 350 million are different
Troll.
If you "scaled" Switzerland to the US like you wanted, you should end up with over 40 invalidated elections over the last 10 years by that.
The US had around four that I found.
North Carolina's 9th Congressional District in 2018 was the biggest redo. There was also a city council election in NJ in 2020, Democrat mayoral primary in Bridgeport in 2023, and LA sheriff in 2023.
Either Switzerland is 10x worse than the US and not necessarily worth imitating on this matter (which would make your earlier reflexive "typical excuse" post where you thought this was healthcare and you could just go "Do it like Europe" a mistake - France has almost no mail-in voting, when did MAGA get to them), or US actual fraud is going around 10x undetected.
|
On April 25 2026 22:23 LightSpectra wrote:
New page in this thread about the same discussion, Republicans here have still offered zero evidence.
But they feel it is, and your are not respecting your feeling. Sure they don’t have evidence, but they know in their heart of hearts it’s real bad. And on top of that it’s so obvious they don’t need it. If you could read Baals tone this whole conversation could have been avoided.
|
On April 25 2026 15:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. Americans fascination with pretending the government doesn't know where they live is so weird. This is unintentionally so revealing about the debate.
|
Time for some Good News!
Welp, 2 surgeons and their anaethesiologists fucked over my sister-in-law about a required shoulder surgery she needs. They made last minute excuses to cancel planned surgery. After 3 months of screwing around with idiots my grandma stepped in and found her a surgeon. My sister-in-law is an American working for the US Navy at a Naval Yard in DC. Her surgeon is Iranian. According to his detailed notes everything went well and the surgery had so few complications it took 10% shorter time than expected.
2 rotator cuff tendon tears and a tear in her biceps tendon where it attaches in her shoulder. A full recovery is expected. Anyone who does a bit of digging will probably be able to figure out who her surgeon was. The # of Iranian orthopeadic surgeons, living in the USA, who specialize in the shoulder is low.
My grandma is the Judge Judy of the medical world. She does not screw around. I`ll post my sister-in-law's progress in 4 months. I project/expect/predict a full recovery. I love it when my family pitches in and helps each other.
MASH* is considered one of the biggest and most significant television shows in US history. Running for 11 seasons (1972–1983). In that show, they'd sometimes made a big deal about American surgeons saving the lives of Communist North Koreans. Welp, no need for the drama of a fake TV show folks... it still happens in 2026 ... in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
