site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  22hr ago (text post)   12830 thread views

U.S. Election (Day?) 2024 Megathread

With apologies to our many friends and posters outside the United States... it's time for another one of these! Culture war thread rules apply, and you are permitted to openly advocate for or against an issue or candidate on the ballot (if you clearly identify which ballot, and can do so without knocking down any strawmen along the way). "Small-scale" questions and answers are also permitted if you refrain from shitposting or being otherwise insulting to others here. Please keep the spirit of the law--this is a discussion forum!--carefully in mind.

If you're a U.S. citizen with voting rights, your polling place can reportedly be located here.

If you're still researching issues, Ballotpedia is usually reasonably helpful.

Any other reasonably neutral election resources you'd like me to add to this notification, I'm happy to add.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Under what circumstances will you (interested in a sample of opinions) accept the election as legitimate and not having been tampered with to any significant degree?

My question is predicated on the fact that I see a lot of Trump supporters preemptively asserting that there will be significant voter fraud this election. I do think it is quite an increasing trend among the left as well.

For the people on both sides that say the above, what does their candidate winning mean to them? Does it mean that their political rivals did not commit fraud and decided to conduct the election honorably? Or does it mean they committed fraud which was irrelevant or not on a scale large enough to matter? Does it imply that there was fraud committed on both sides? Does it imply they believe their candidate committed fraud but because it's their candidate they don't particularly care?

Does fraud require positive evidence for you, or is it assumed without direct evidence of significant fraud countermeasures?

This might seem like a facetious question, but I have a hard time understanding what political assumptions people have baked in when talking about election fraud (for example, whether it is expected to be a magnitude worse this time than previous elections, or whether it is a common thing that has happened in every election)

My own intuition is that (absent direct evidence of fraud which moved the needle one way or the other) the overwhelming likelihood is on either no significant fraud or fraud here and there on both sides which should mostly cancel out, regardless of which candidate wins. I assume there would be more this election than previously but not an order of magnitude more

We've had this discussion a few times now and my answer remains the same.

For me personally, I’d want to see significant statistical anomalies— over or under performance, precincts in which apparently every single person voted for Kamala. Places where more people voted than live in the district. Stuff like that. I think the statistics will be much more likely to show the fraud than anything else.

Under what circumstances will you (interested in a sample of opinions) accept the election as legitimate and not having been tampered with to any significant degree?

I consider most elections to have a lot of fraud in them, not just because of the sheer size of the populace but also because of the fact that humans cheat. The idea that there are totally fair elections always seemed bogus to me, does not mean that it is all fraudulent but that there are plenty of ways to cheat, whether long term (evm hacking, booth capturing, not asking for id) or long term (demographic shifts like in California or West Bengal).

The cathedral needs both sides to believe that the electoral process and the judiciary are these pristine unquestionable things that are keeping us together, safe from a chaotic world whereas reality could not be further apart.

No matter who wins, election legitimacy cannot be challenged, if half the country explicitly does so and refuses to partake in elections, it will lead to actual chaos, good or bad, I cant tell for now. Because if you can prove that there is enough voter fraud this time, you can start questioning previous elections and a lot more.

Everyone wants to look at this as a black and white issue. I think that's a mistake.

Elections can be more or less legitimate. The most legitimate elections are victories that are "too big to steal". I'm pretty sure the 1984 election was 100% legitimate, for example.

But U.S. election security is a joke. There's almost certainly a low level of fraud and incompetence in every election, although it's hard to measure by design. Many razor thin victories have fallen well within the margin of error for fraud and incompetence. For example, it's possible (even likely) that Nixon was the rightful victor of the 1960 election, but was defeated by fraud engineered by Democrat machines in Texas and Illinois.

More recently, it's almost certain that Gore would have defeated Bush in 2000 if not for poorly designed "butterfly ballots" in Florida.

So unless one candidate or another wins by a convincing margin, I'd withhold any judgment on full legitimacy.

In terms of things to watch this election, I'd look at Trump's relative performance in states that have adequate election security (Virginia, Florida) vs. those that don't (Minnesota, Pennsylvania).

although it's hard to measure by design

I've been wondering recently if there is a term for the science/art/engineering of organizational structures for a specific goal. I know it very peripherally in how IT security engineering starts overlapping with physical security (two factor, physical access control, social engineering attacks), but I haven't seen a collected book or corpus of "how to design your organization to align incentives and ensure people can be kept honest". Does such a thing exist? Or is it too broad and disorganized of a topic? On the gripping hand, would I even trust something based on psychology and human factors research given the replication crisis?

Unsure, but interested in reading more.

Institutional Design?

Would like to know this as well

VA going red would be a dream come true. But Northern VA is TDS ground zero, and very populous. I still see people, alone in their car on 66 wearing their stupid little covid mask. Although less this year than last, finally.

I've seen a lot of trump signs, it's hard to tell if it's trolls enjoying a layup or some real groundswell of support.

The road I live on in a rural exurb has a pretty solid mix of Harris/Trump signs along the 20 miles I take to drop my daughter off at school. I wouldn't take anything for granted.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats