site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   19147 thread views

USA Election Day 2022 Megathread

Tuesday November 8, 2022 is Election Day in the United States of America. In addition to Congressional "midterms" at the federal level, many state governors and other more local offices are up for grabs. Given how things shook out over Election Day 2020, things could get a little crazy.

...or, perhaps, not! But here's the Megathread for if they do. Talk about your local concerns, your national predictions, your suspicions re: election fraud and interference, how you plan to vote, anything election related is welcome here. Culture War thread rules apply, with the addition of Small-Scale Questions and election-related "Bare Links" allowed in this thread only (unfortunately, there will not be a subthread repository due to current technical limitations).

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sharpiegate was ultimately confirmed. Not all of the ballots were printed on bleed resistant paper, some Trump votes were found to have been lost to bleed through. Not a large number, but it was a real thing.

The original Sharpiegate claim was that tabulating machines rejected ballots filled out with a sharpie marker, and that poll workers were intentionally giving people sharpies to invalidate their ballots. What you're claiming was "confirmed" appears to be a different theory involving bleedthrough, not necessarily machine invalidation.

Either way, what is your source that Sharpiegate v2.0 was confirmed? I was able to find some confirmation that bleed through is possible, but every source I found indicated the ballots were printed off-set to avoid any issues with bleed through. What is your evidence that bleed through caused votes to be lost? How many votes exactly?

You're doing the lord's work. Please keep up the civil discourse and I will work to do the same. Don't listen to the fools wanting to destroy our beautiful corner of the internet.

"Why bother? Boo outgroup." Don't.

The article is misstating the original claim. It was always about bleed through. Republicans had seen bleed through issues in the past, that's why they were so concerned.

They were offset, but some ballots weren't properly aligned. It wasn't a significant number, but my recollection is that they found some.

my recollection is that

You know the "source: trust me, bro" joke? You are doing it to us right now. Knowing how fallible human memory is, we can't take vague recollections as meaningful evidence.

It wasn't a significant number, but my recollection is that they found some.

Do you have a source besides your recollection?

I thought that the bleedthrough was supposed to have been leading to machine invalidation, in that the part with the bleedthrough would be read as having multiple selections, and thus a spoiled ballot?

If ballots were indeed being invalidated because of sharpies, your explanation is a plausible one. But what is the evidence that ballots were invalidated? Maricopa election officials issued this statement back in Nov 4 2020:

sharpies do not invalidate ballots. We did extensive testing on multiple different types of ink with our new vote tabulation equipment. Sharpies are recommended by the manufacturer because they provide the fastest-drying ink. The offset columns on ballots ensure that any bleed-through will not impact your vote. For this reason, sharpies were provided to in-person voters on Election Day.

Has anything come up since to contradict their claims?

The Cyberninjas report definitely shows that the sharpies were bleeding through -- apparently they only examined ~7k ballots for this issue and found none where it caused invalidation -- so probably not a major impact, although they suggest that they found some ballots misaligned due to being printed on normal office printers, which suggests that the offset method was not necessarily failsafe. They promise a full evaluation by some kind of machine analysis, but I'm not sure whether they delivered on this. (ninjas are great on initial action but don't necessarily keep their promises)

This is not an issue I care about either way particularly, but a couple of things occur to me:

  • Why would you use a sharpie at all? The excuse at the time was that they dry faster than other pens, which seems to me false; normal ballpoint pens have essentially zero dry time, and even the expensive rollerball ones seem faster than a sharpie, which will definitely smudge for a few seconds after use -- and certainly bleed through when ballots are printed on office paper.

  • It sure is hard to find anything other than "Sharpiegate lol, that was totally debunked dummy" results on Google these days -- I was only able to find the cyberninja report (which actually examines the issue in a serious way, and seems to give a fair assessment of the results) because I remembered that some organization with a dumb name had audited the Maricopa ballots, and thus could search for it directly.

Why would you use a sharpie at all?

...When filling in my ballot selections this afternoon, while laboriously scribbling in the tenth little square, I found myself thinking "man, I wish I could use a sharpie for this". This despite having read the sharpiegate claim here this morning,

Thank you for digging that up! That's at least plausible indicator that bleed through might theoretically be a problem. I agree with you that the sharpie drying claim is suspicious, based solely on everyday experience, but I also have no idea what kind of paper is used in ballots. The Cyberninjas did, and they could've spent $20 at Office Depot and thoroughly tested this theory out.

@DradisPing could the Cyberninja report be what you remember? If so, does it help you recall where you picked up the other claims of Trump ballots being invalidated because of bleed through?

Sorry had some stuff to do earlier.

So from the time I remember seeing articles like this focussed on bleed through https://itnshow.com/2020/11/07/arizona-election-official-seems-to-confirm-that-bleed-through-from-sharpie-markers-do-impact-votes/

It was a well known issue, Sharpies had been banned in previous elections for that reason. That's why the woman was freaking out.

The response was there was no need to worry because of a combination of offset printing and VoteSecure paper to avoid bleed through issues. It turns out the paper wasn't used in all cases.

https://rumble.com/vjw41g-audit-team-caught-them-ballots-were-on-wrong-paper-stock-verifies-sharpiega.html

https://www.westernjournal.com/az-audit-revelation-wrong-paper-used-ballots-confirm-sharpiegate-according-az-sen-president/

So the paper thing irked me because it was a specific broken promise. If a printout was misaligned then it would register as an invalid over vote.

Someone fairly prominent on Twitter was claiming they found a handful of instances of bleed through invalidating Trump votes, but I can't for the life of me remember who.

Someone fairly prominent on Twitter was claiming they found a handful of instances of bleed through invalidating Trump votes, but I can't for the life of me remember who.

If your only evidence of ballots being invalidated from bleed through is that you remember someone prominent saying that on Twitter, do you still stand by that belief?

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