anon_
4mo ago
Criminally, perhaps. But even if there's a statute of limitations, a person that's present here without authorization is (generally, YMMV, consult a good immigration lawyer) eligible for removal.
anon_
4mo ago
I expect anything they get out of a telecom is fine by the Third Party Doctrine.
Note that I at all support that doctrine, I would probably pare it back to say that anything an individual shares/discloses to a third party with the recognized and reasonable expectation that the party would not further disseminate it is protected by the Fourth Amendment. That language is stolen directly from Katz vs US.
Alas, that ain't the law today.
anon_
4mo ago
In 2020 two ballots addressed to myself arrived in the mail, then in ‘22 I got zero ballots for me but one for my dead uncle.
As I understand, if you actually submit two, one or both will be invalidated.
In fact, our elections folks are also super clear -- if you voted by mail but changed your mind, come into the polling station and they'll let you vote again and yank your mail-in.
anon_
4mo ago
Funny story, some folks were robbing carrier stores in order to use SMS OTP.
The way it worked was that some dudes would come in and make a loud ruckus about smashing and stealing things, and while everyone was paying attention to that, someone would grab the admin tablet and run off with it to remap phone numbers.
Beautiful piece of criminal work tbqh -- why bother social engineering or anything else when you can just hire the lowest-skill-imaginable dudes to create a distraction and just take the tablet.
anon_
4mo ago
Counting a ballot submitted at 9:05 when the polls were meant to close is a pretty good example of non-central.
Central to fraud would be something that changes the result as compared to an accurate count of eligible voters each of which voted once.
For example if central fraud:
- modifying vote totals
- individuals voting more than once
- counting ballots for a candidate other than the one specified
- ineligible voters voting
anon_
4mo ago
I agree, the groups outside the window feel like they are growing and should be more influential even if they are still minorities in absolute terms.
You're right the latter problem is probably untenable. But it does mean that we have to take "everyone would be a Bernie bro if the media didn't trash him" with a grain of salt.
anon_
4mo ago
I've asked at least 5 times in this thread for folks not to reply to a post saying X with "oh so you believe Y and Z and beat your wife". That seems like the minimal amount of non-antagonism required as well.
anon_
4mo ago
I think you're subtly shifting "invalid" there. A ballot that accurately represent the intent of an eligible & qualified voter who has voted only once is not invalid in the sense required to be fraud. It's certainly not central to election fraud, that conveys the notion of stuffed ballots or dead people voting or multiple-voting.
anon_
4mo ago
I agree, they should not be counted, perhaps allowing for some amount of reliance of voters on reasonable expectations. Obviously no voter should expect that a homemade ballot counts.
But it would still be true that the complaint against them would be “this is not procedurally appropriate” and not “this is not an accurate rendition of voter intent” or “this is fraudulent”. Those have specific meanings.
anon_
4mo ago
For the sake of reducing confusion, if you’re replying to their thread, it helps to distinguish.
And by eligible voters, I mean those which are entitled and not otherwise forbidden to vote.
anon_
4mo ago
Obviously not, given the current state of affairs.
Refusing to actually accept that people disagree on a key point is no way to go through life.
anon_
4mo ago
Also, I'll add, that JKF is defending a different position that sliders, but he could also clarify it because he's responding to a thread of comments relating to sliders.
For example, if he is advancing fraudulent-by-method-of-adoption[2] then he could also write "VBM is legitimate when properly adopted but not when adopted via procedurally-invalid means, hence I believe in Wisconsin it is illegitimate because ".
That would probably elicit a very different response. It would also clarify what is the crux of JKFs argument.
[ And if JKF believes that VBM is illegitimate even when adopted via procedurally-proper means, then clarify that would also be helpful! I don't mean to say he can only adopt the position above. ]
anon_
4mo ago
I can say, in the counterfactual that I was coerced, I could still have gone to vote in person which would have invalidated my mail-in ballot.
anon_
4mo ago
That kind of seems like regular politics. Possibly unpleasant, but not some kind of illegitimate thing. Parties do it to each other all the times -- the left wing broadcasts MTG in their fundraisers all the time. Right wing blasts the squad.
What's more relevant to me is the question: if a movement never becomes popular, how do we distinguish between "we were discredited" from "our ideas were never palatable to more than 10% of voters"? Because I feel that many losing movements declare that, and it can't be universally the case.
anon_
4mo ago
You can't see that a bunch of consensus in favor of the secret ballot is not a consensus against VBM unless one also believes a separate fact about it?
Maybe it's best to return to pragmatics. I got my ballot in the mail, I filled it out at home where no one was here. I sealed it and dropped it off personally at a drop box inside the police station. I am totally satisfied in the secrecy of this ballot, and I don't even think that going in person (which was a choice I could have made) would have further protected it.
In terms of attack modeling, if the police and the registrar are in on the scheme, then neither method would have protected it.
anon_
4mo ago
[Epistemically] is important, especially in the context.
Society decides policies via an epistemic process, not a causal one.
Jesus, the Gish Gallop distributed Motte & Bailey of rotating arguments. First it was inherently fraudulent[1]. Then it was fraudulent-by-method-of-adoption[2]. Then it there-exists-fraud-in-fact via stuffed ballots or water leaks[3].
In any event, do you think the result in Wisconsin numerically reflect the intended desire of the eligible voters?
anon_
4mo ago
The consensus that you point to is for a different topic than the one you are claiming.
You are trying to manufacture a consensus against VBM by pointing to universal support for the notion of secret ballots. The core of the disagreement is whether VBM (especially optional-VBM where anyone that wishes can go in person if they choose!) is sufficiently protective of the right to a secret ballot.
If anything, the point that one can derive from this is that mandating VBM is not good policy. On that, sure, we can easily agree.
anon_
4mo ago
I'm not sure I get the distinction between you're drawing here about "active methods".
anon_
4mo ago
Those are all valid points!
I agree that there is the possibility of fraud in VBM, but the original bombastic claim was that VBM is itself intrinsically fraudulent:
mass-mail in voting is considered fraud by historical Democratic principals [sic]
There is a huge difference your nuanced points and this blanket statement.
anon_
4mo ago
Bruh, this idiotic “so I guess (a bunch of crazy shit I don’t believe)” is tiresome.
Yes I believe in the secret ballot. I do not believe that the option to do mail in seriously erodes that.
I don't think most of the political class agree with every variation on retroactive enforcement, especially when it comes to children that grew up here.
And I think this can be earnestly true even in such cases where an individual believes that we should be stricter in enforcement prospectively.
More options
Context Copy link