I don't follow how flipping the point from "more voting" to "less voting" while not flipping the "anti-democratic" clause tracks.

If 8 of my dead great-grandparents vote for Mayor Daley, but I vote against, his 8-1 victory isn't democracy.

I think this is a bad faith response to the poster you're responding to.

I'm not trying to respond in bad faith; I'm pointing out, albeit by hyperbole, that "more voting" can still be anti-democratic.

"Dead people voting is a problem" That's not voting. That's absolute fraud. There's no nuance or gray area. There's no "some dead people should be allowed to vote but others shouldn't" use case.

Compare to "requiring ID will eliminate fraud": No. It eliminates some types of fraud, some of the time. It doesn't fix someone hacking a system and changing votes. It doesn't prevent someone creating fake IDs to vote. It also disenfranchises people who are unable or unwilling to get government ID in time to present it at the polls.

The dead aren't people (at least, not any longer), so no.

For, your eight dead relatives happen to be the average number of votes by the dead in a whole election[1], since votes by the dead have never actually been recorded in significant numbers, and certainly not in recent accusations [2][3][4]. Hell of a coincidence that it's all your dead relatives.

You are not, in fact, responding in good faith.

[1]https://ballotpedia.org/Votes_cast_in_the_names_of_deceased_... [2]https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54874120 [3]https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-donald-trump-georgi... [4]https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/thin-allegations-of-dead-p...

The ironic thing is that the people on Hacker News understand security.

They know that a lack of voter ID, mass mail-in balloting, ballot harvesting, lack of chain of custody of ballots, lack of ability to observe the counting of ballots, etc. are all terrible security practices. They practically guarantee fraud in elections.

If you told the average HN reader to secure his banking information like we secure the vote, she would think you're out of your mind. But somehow, a complete lack of ballot security is just dandy. It's almost like some people feel that any means necessary to win is okay.

Hi: What?

Who is proposing we eliminate the chain of custody for ballots? Who's actually called for that. Who has said "no observation of ballot counting" as opposed to "everyone who feels like it can come in and wander freely to investigate". Ballot harvesting has at least 3 different definitions, some of which are fine (put your ballots somewhere other than a polling place, and officials collect them) others are dubious (give some person you trust your ballot, have them deliver it to the polls). And if these things are "guaranteeing" election fraud, show me where it happened on such scale as to matter (and not some dude who did something he shouldn't but got caught and therefor disproves your point about how bad the security is).

There's bad faith arguing and then there's this.