Re:Rechanneling Beliefs: How information flows hinder or hel...
by pdonis on Thursday June 10, 2021 @10:53PM
(#27468804)
> Voter registration systems constitute a control
Yes, for in person voting. I said so in my post.
> Similar controls exist for mail-in ballots.
No, they don't. Nobody checks to make sure that the actual person who fills out the mail-in ballot is the registered voter attached to that name. The process currently used for mail-in ballots before they get into the chain of custody system is nothing like what I described in my post. That's a big reason why so many people distrust mail-in ballots, particularly in such large quantities.
> What's your plan for influencing an election at scale by acquisition & submission of ballots that don't correspond to an eligible voter?
First, you don't have to influence an election "at scale" for the US presidency. A close election can easily come down to just a few key precincts in a few key states, as it did in 2020.
Second, the US already has a long history of various forms of skulduggery with voting. So anyone's Bayesian prior should be that, if there is any way of doing it, someone will try it, particularly in a close election where both sides have strong beliefs about how much is at stake. It should definitely not be that, well, as long as all the officials say it's okay, it must be okay.
> I don't think proposed but as yet missing extra layers of are the reason why people don't have confidence in the outcome
If there are obvious ways to make a system more secure, and every time they get proposed they are violently resisted, you have to wonder why. (And note that this is a problem on both sides: Democrats are violently allergic to things like voter IDs, but Republicans are just as violently allergic to things like early voting and expanding the hours that polling places are open.) I agree that the widespread lack of confidence in, for example, the 2020 results is not due to anyone having a detailed picture of how things could have been manipulated; it's a more general feeling that the system as a whole is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. And when measures to make the system act more in everyone's interest are violently resisted, that feeling grows stronger.
> the real problem, which is one of discourse and disinformation.
I don't think that's the real problem. I think the real problem is what I said above: the system in fact is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. The feelings that many people have along those lines are justified. Yes, fixing the voting system won't entirely fix that problem; but it would be a nice step in the right direction.
Yes, for in person voting. I said so in my post.
> Similar controls exist for mail-in ballots.
No, they don't. Nobody checks to make sure that the actual person who fills out the mail-in ballot is the registered voter attached to that name. The process currently used for mail-in ballots before they get into the chain of custody system is nothing like what I described in my post. That's a big reason why so many people distrust mail-in ballots, particularly in such large quantities.
> What's your plan for influencing an election at scale by acquisition & submission of ballots that don't correspond to an eligible voter?
First, you don't have to influence an election "at scale" for the US presidency. A close election can easily come down to just a few key precincts in a few key states, as it did in 2020.
Second, the US already has a long history of various forms of skulduggery with voting. So anyone's Bayesian prior should be that, if there is any way of doing it, someone will try it, particularly in a close election where both sides have strong beliefs about how much is at stake. It should definitely not be that, well, as long as all the officials say it's okay, it must be okay.
> I don't think proposed but as yet missing extra layers of are the reason why people don't have confidence in the outcome
If there are obvious ways to make a system more secure, and every time they get proposed they are violently resisted, you have to wonder why. (And note that this is a problem on both sides: Democrats are violently allergic to things like voter IDs, but Republicans are just as violently allergic to things like early voting and expanding the hours that polling places are open.) I agree that the widespread lack of confidence in, for example, the 2020 results is not due to anyone having a detailed picture of how things could have been manipulated; it's a more general feeling that the system as a whole is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. And when measures to make the system act more in everyone's interest are violently resisted, that feeling grows stronger.
> the real problem, which is one of discourse and disinformation.
I don't think that's the real problem. I think the real problem is what I said above: the system in fact is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. The feelings that many people have along those lines are justified. Yes, fixing the voting system won't entirely fix that problem; but it would be a nice step in the right direction.