Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 131

Thread: Druff! Stop being a Trumptard about mail-in voting!!!!

  1. #81
    I don't like the potential for abuse with the California mail in balloting...

    i cal-exited last year and registered/voted in my new state...but i am still registered to vote in Los Angeles! I won't drop off the rolls until i don't vote in 2 consecutive federal elections. So a mail in ballot was sent to my old address twice (i was curious and checked online) -- the Cal primary & the upcoming presidential -- i didn't ask for either and i had always voted in person.

    I can see where some enterprising campaigner could organize collecting similar ballots and voting them, especially given the history of corruption in the small unincorporated cities that ring LA City.

    Many move out of California each year...

    the problem isn't likely significant for statewide offices, but for local ones (city council, school board, state assembly) could be meaningful
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  2. #82
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5564
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    38,595
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Needing a reason for absentee balloting is dumb, and I've never supported that.

    I'm not sure what I would do if I were in Texas, but that's irrelevant, because I'm not, and I'm not arguing for their system.

    I'm arguing against universal mail-in balloting.

    Still trying to understand how "studies" can show that undetectable fraud is "nonexistent". What is their method? "If we can't see it, then it's not happening"?
    So you are implying that mail-in voting in the 5 states that have had universal mail-in voting before this year — Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Utah, and Colorado — has allowed rampant undetected voter fraud??? And you do so without a shred of evidence of such voting fraud and contrary to the data collected by The Heritage Foundation??? Wow! You are so fair and unbiased!!!

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...us-states.html
    Yes, I am indeed claiming that any state with universal mail-in voting either had a problem with fraud or rejected legitimate votes. Both situations are terrible.

    These didn't likely affect any Presidential election, because the only swing state of those four was Colorado, but it has gone blue enough to where any fraud/undercount isn't likely to have affected it.

    Your "studies" are meaningless, if they cannot detect the undetectable. Which they can't.

    I don't see why that's such a tough concept to grasp.

    For example, I could commission a study on how often Mumbles jerks during 2019 in his truck when parked off of freeway exits. Unless Mumbles himself owned up to it, there would be no way to study this. Such a study would find "no evidence" that Mumbles choked the chicken in his truck, but that would be meaningless, as no evidence of this would be available, even if he had. Thus, such a study would be worthless.

    Same thing here.

    I hope you understand now.

     
    Comments
      
      MumblesBadly: Sympathy green rep because you are clearly suffering from mental illness and cannot comprehend the measures that state electiom officials use to reduce the likelihood of significant mail-in voter fraud.

  3. #83
    Platinum duped_samaritan's Avatar
    Reputation
    630
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post

    So you are implying that mail-in voting in the 5 states that have had universal mail-in voting before this year — Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Utah, and Colorado — has allowed rampant undetected voter fraud??? And you do so without a shred of evidence of such voting fraud and contrary to the data collected by The Heritage Foundation??? Wow! You are so fair and unbiased!!!

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...us-states.html
    Yes, I am indeed claiming that any state with universal mail-in voting either had a problem with fraud or rejected legitimate votes. Both situations are terrible.

    These didn't likely affect any Presidential election, because the only swing state of those four was Colorado, but it has gone blue enough to where any fraud/undercount isn't likely to have affected it.

    Your "studies" are meaningless, if they cannot detect the undetectable. Which they can't.

    I don't see why that's such a tough concept to grasp.

    For example, I could commission a study on how often Mumbles jerks during 2019 in his truck when parked off of freeway exits. Unless Mumbles himself owned up to it, there would be no way to study this. Such a study would find "no evidence" that Mumbles choked the chicken in his truck, but that would be meaningless, as no evidence of this would be available, even if he had. Thus, such a study would be worthless.

    Same thing here.

    I hope you understand now.
    All 50 states have rejected legitimate votes and have potential fraud that hasn't been proven but is impossible to disprove.

    The real reason you have such a strong opinion is because you've completely discounted the benefits of mail in voting: more people will vote.

  4. #84
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    20
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post

    So you are implying that mail-in voting in the 5 states that have had universal mail-in voting before this year — Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Utah, and Colorado — has allowed rampant undetected voter fraud??? And you do so without a shred of evidence of such voting fraud and contrary to the data collected by The Heritage Foundation??? Wow! You are so fair and unbiased!!!

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...us-states.html
    Yes, I am indeed claiming that any state with universal mail-in voting either had a problem with fraud or rejected legitimate votes. Both situations are terrible.

    These didn't likely affect any Presidential election, because the only swing state of those four was Colorado, but it has gone blue enough to where any fraud/undercount isn't likely to have affected it.

    Your "studies" are meaningless, if they cannot detect the undetectable. Which they can't.

    I don't see why that's such a tough concept to grasp.

    For example, I could commission a study on how often Mumbles jerks during 2019 in his truck when parked off of freeway exits. Unless Mumbles himself owned up to it, there would be no way to study this. Such a study would find "no evidence" that Mumbles choked the chicken in his truck, but that would be meaningless, as no evidence of this would be available, even if he had. Thus, such a study would be worthless.

    Same thing here.

    I hope you understand now.
    A poorly run study would most likely find no evidence. But if they followed me around, collected the trash I took out of my truck, and examined the soiled facial tissues in it for signature evidence of human ejaculate, they could get a pretty good idea of how often I spank the monkey.

     

    Speaking of which...

    Name:  BB1E0FA3-D49A-4292-B798-CE2608BA371B.gif
Views: 199
Size:  2.99 MB

     
    Name:  AB230D47-D543-43C0-B101-33AF61844DEC.gif
Views: 199
Size:  1.90 MB

    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    We have a horrible choice between a super-shady, self-serving, lying criminal (Hillary Clinton) and an emotionally-unbalanced, shoot-from-the-hip authoritarian who lacks the intellectual curiosity to even want to learn the complexities that come with running a major nation like the US (Donald Trump).

  5. #85
    update on my California voting registration

    well tonight i got a robot call warning me that my ballot had not been received at a drop-off box or by mail-in...my current state has only early voting at city halls or court-houses: thus, i'm sure the call was from California...

    a relief that no one has forged my vote, YET.

    Even though i've moved i still have the same cell phone number, so although i am far away from Los Angeles, the call came to me
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  6. #86
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    20
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    8,343
    Wow! The whole time I was referencing the relatively miniscule number of voter fraud cases the Heritage Foundation had identified in its 20+ year database, I assumed that it had been developed accurately and objectively.

    But seriously... What the FUCK was I thinking??? The Heritage Foundation is NOT operated by honest actors! And even the super small number of “voter fraud” cases they had identified in that database has turned out to be substantially overblown. I’m talking about by a factor of about 5-10 times. Fucking insane!!! But not altogether surprising.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...-are-overhyped

    Seriously, Druff! Your side appears to be engaged in a ridiculous amount of fraud regarding the data and arguments it advances re the potential level of voter fraud that mail-in ballots is likely to result in. Perhaps you better take a refresher course on detecting fraud, sir. Just saying.
    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    We have a horrible choice between a super-shady, self-serving, lying criminal (Hillary Clinton) and an emotionally-unbalanced, shoot-from-the-hip authoritarian who lacks the intellectual curiosity to even want to learn the complexities that come with running a major nation like the US (Donald Trump).

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    "No evidence of fraud from mail-in voting" is such a misleading statement, and you are smart enough to know that, Mumbles.

    There are certain crimes where little-to-no evidence is left behind, and voter fraud is one of them, unless there are highly organized efforts to do it.

    If I go through the trash of Ken Scalir's large apartment complex on the day ballots are received in the mail, there will be a TON of them in there. Some will be from people who don't feel like voting, and others will be ballots for former residents whose information is still on the local voter rolls.

    I could take all of these ballots, mark Trump, and send them all in.

    There would be zero evidence that this happened, and even if it was known that it occurred, zero ability to catch who did it.
    had skipped this thread before, but wanted to chime in. I'll be working my local election on Tuesday, and went through the training a few days ago.

    If this happened in Boston, it would almost surely be caught. All mail in ballots are processed at the same local location that those voters would be normally be voting in, and all votes are accounted for in the same log books no matter how they are cast, mail-in or in person.

    Every ballot envelope is gone thru by 2 people working in tandem, and sorted by address. Someone is looking at every ballot, signature, envelope, to make sure everything is all checked out and proper, so if you are using the same handwriting, you;re pretty much gonna get caught before any votes even get opened, never mind scanned. Lets give you some credit and say you did 15 ballots, with 15 different pens and handwriting, so as to get around the human picking up on the problem. If so, we move on.

    Next, you have to hope nobody in that building decides to vote that day, because if they try to, it will become immediately obvious that a vote has already been cast in their name. At this point, the Warden of the precinct immediately calls this in to the election department, and the investigation begins immediately. Since all ballots and the envelopes they came in are saved, the person's mail-in vote immediately is challenged, and will not be counted. At this point, it is potentially evidence, and is treated as such, in a special box inside the voting machine.

    But that's just one vote caught, right? Well, not so fast. Every mail in ballot gets scanned, not just for the votes, but for the signatures. The election department has every voter's signature in a database, and any vote that has a signature that the machine claims is not a match gets flagged, challenged, and is analysed by 2 poll workers, likely the clerk and the warden of the precinct. If there's any question at all at this point whether a ballot is legit or not, the election department actively starts contacting voters, on the phone or in person depending on location, to question them about their vote, and the vote goes into the "challenge" box, until its veracity is affirmed or not. If 2 or more ballots were found to be fraudulent coming from the same building, the election department, the boston police, and the FBI would be on it very, very quickly.

    So to get away with voting a whole building's worth of votes, you have to hope none of them vote in person or any other way, you have to know how to forge all the respective signatures, and you have to hope none of the local poll workers know anyone in the building and have any reason to think something's up. But beating the signature scan is pretty much the hardest part, because once the machine flags a signature, you get actual humans looking at the sig and the signature(s) already on file. If you come real close to the signature and its style for every single person, you got a good chance of getting the ballots cast, but if you fail on any one of them, they'll all get more scrutiny, and if more than 1 are apparently fraudulent in the same building, it would quickly be visited by election workers, city police, and the FBI, most likely.

    Finally, if the margin of victory for a candidate is bigger than the amount of challenged ballots at any point in the counting, those challenged ballots won;t be counted anyway. If the race hinges on challenged ballots, the election won;t be certified until they are all approved or disqualified.

    Voter fraud isn;t as easy as you think. It is detectable, there are a bunch of safeguards, and there indeed is evidence left behind (the fraudulent votes). A quick google shows me that Cali also checks every mail in signature against the on-file signatures of the election department, which means, more than likely, none of the ballots in druff's scenario would be counted.

     
    Comments
      
      MumblesBadly: Druff got some owned with this post, I’m nearly crapping my pants laughing!!!
      
      Walter Sobchak: Severely underrated poster
      
      Bootsy Collins: You are a saint for doing this
      
      Sanlmar: Rich with detail.
      
      adamantium:
      
      gimmick:
      
      nunbeater: lmao explaining shit to these republitards
      
      1marley1:
    Last edited by Crowe Diddly; 11-01-2020 at 10:05 PM.

  8. #88
    Crowe forgot to mention Massachusetts activating the National Guard Election Day.

    I’ve never been more proud of America.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanlmar View Post
    Crowe forgot to mention Massachusetts activating the National Guard Election Day.

    I’ve never been more proud of America.
    One fun note just for you. Someone asked the guy from the Election Dept what they expect for observers and people generally fucking with things, what if they decide to challenge votes, etc. Guy was like "We have no indications of any forthcoming problems, the Wardens and cops all know how to handle things, we have procedures for everything, etc. BUT there's a state senate race with a certain write-in campaign that has already proven they don't like or maybe even understand election rules, and they're sure to be a problem somewhere to some unfortunate precinct, but we don;t believe it'll be in our fair city. More likely Brookline or Cambridge." He was talking about Shiva Ayyadurai, and I had to laugh because that's the 100% objectively true take, as far as I can tell.

  10. #90
    Plutonium big dick's Avatar
    Reputation
    1293
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    fuck krypt
    Posts
    10,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    "No evidence of fraud from mail-in voting" is such a misleading statement, and you are smart enough to know that, Mumbles.

    There are certain crimes where little-to-no evidence is left behind, and voter fraud is one of them, unless there are highly organized efforts to do it.

    If I go through the trash of Ken Scalir's large apartment complex on the day ballots are received in the mail, there will be a TON of them in there. Some will be from people who don't feel like voting, and others will be ballots for former residents whose information is still on the local voter rolls.

    I could take all of these ballots, mark Trump, and send them all in.

    There would be zero evidence that this happened, and even if it was known that it occurred, zero ability to catch who did it.
    had skipped this thread before, but wanted to chime in. I'll be working my local election on Tuesday, and went through the training a few days ago.

    If this happened in Boston, it would almost surely be caught. All mail in ballots are processed at the same local location that those voters would be normally be voting in, and all votes are accounted for in the same log books no matter how they are cast, mail-in or in person.

    Every ballot envelope is gone thru by 2 people working in tandem, and sorted by address. Someone is looking at every ballot, signature, envelope, to make sure everything is all checked out and proper, so if you are using the same handwriting, you;re pretty much gonna get caught before any votes even get opened, never mind scanned. Lets give you some credit and say you did 15 ballots, with 15 different pens and handwriting, so as to get around the human picking up on the problem. If so, we move on.

    Next, you have to hope nobody in that building decides to vote that day, because if they try to, it will become immediately obvious that a vote has already been cast in their name. At this point, the Warden of the precinct immediately calls this in to the election department, and the investigation begins immediately. Since all ballots and the envelopes they came in are saved, the person's mail-in vote immediately is challenged, and will not be counted. At this point, it is potentially evidence, and is treated as such, in a special box inside the voting machine.

    But that's just one vote caught, right? Well, not so fast. Every mail in ballot gets scanned, not just for the votes, but for the signatures. The election department has every voter's signature in a database, and any vote that has a signature that the machine claims is not a match gets flagged, challenged, and is analysed by 2 poll workers, likely the clerk and the warden of the precinct. If there's any question at all at this point whether a ballot is legit or not, the election department actively starts contacting voters, on the phone or in person depending on location, to question them about their vote, and the vote goes into the "challenge" box, until its veracity is affirmed or not. If 2 or more ballots were found to be fraudulent coming from the same building, the election department, the boston police, and the FBI would be on it very, very quickly.

    So to get away with voting a whole building's worth of votes, you have to hope none of them vote in person or any other way, you have to know how to forge all the respective signatures, and you have to hope none of the local poll workers know anyone in the building and have any reason to think something's up. But beating the signature scan is pretty much the hardest part, because once the machine flags a signature, you get actual humans looking at the sig and the signature(s) already on file. If you come real close to the signature and its style for every single person, you got a good chance of getting the ballots cast, but if you fail on any one of them, they'll all get more scrutiny, and if more than 1 are apparently fraudulent in the same building, it would quickly be visited by election workers, city police, and the FBI, most likely.

    Finally, if the margin of victory for a candidate is bigger than the amount of challenged ballots at any point in the counting, those challenged ballots won;t be counted anyway. If the race hinges on challenged ballots, the election won;t be certified until they are all approved or disqualified.

    Voter fraud isn;t as easy as you think. It is detectable, there are a bunch of safeguards, and there indeed is evidence left behind (the fraudulent votes). A quick google shows me that Cali also checks every mail in signature against the on-file signatures of the election department, which means, more than likely, none of the ballots in druff's scenario would be counted.
    haha hit the showers druff

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    He was talking about Shiva Ayyadurai, and I had to laugh because that's the 100% objectively true take, as far as I can tell.
    That guy is a real piece of work. I highly recommend checking out his live streams now and then, it's just pure unfiltered insanity

  12. #92
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5564
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    38,595
    Blog Entries
    2
    Interesting information, Crowe, but it really doesn't negate any of my points.

    First off, you're talking about Boston. There is no uniform standard of care for universal mail-in ballots around the country. It's up to the state and local governments, some of which will be undermanned or will mishandle it badly.

    However, your "secure voting" scenarios are unrealistic, and it is very unlikely things would happen this way, unless there was an organized attempt by one person to submit hundreds or thousands of votes.

    I'll answer various claims of yours one by one.

    Every ballot envelope is gone thru by 2 people working in tandem, and sorted by address. Someone is looking at every ballot, signature, envelope, to make sure everything is all checked out and proper, so if you are using the same handwriting, you;re pretty much gonna get caught before any votes even get opened, never mind scanned. Lets give you some credit and say you did 15 ballots, with 15 different pens and handwriting, so as to get around the human picking up on the problem. If so, we move on.
    lolwut?

    Let's say John Smith finds 15 ballots in his apartment building, fills them all out (in the same handwriting and blue pen), and mails them. If those were the only 15 ballots to show up, or if they all showed up together with no other ballots in between, it's likely that these "two people" would catch on.

    However, John's ballots will be among thousands received that day, and those 15 won't be ordered together.

    I do not believe for a second that two people going through tons of ballots would recognize the same handwriting for 15 of them. That's extremely far fetched. Plus, as you said, someone more cautious could modify his handwriting for all 15 anyway.


    Next, you have to hope nobody in that building decides to vote that day, because if they try to, it will become immediately obvious that a vote has already been cast in their name. At this point, the Warden of the precinct immediately calls this in to the election department, and the investigation begins immediately. Since all ballots and the envelopes they came in are saved, the person's mail-in vote immediately is challenged, and will not be counted. At this point, it is potentially evidence, and is treated as such, in a special box inside the voting machine.
    The same level of "investigation" would take place if I went into my local post office and reported my mail stolen. Technically it's a federal crime. But in reality, they do zero investigation, unless there's a recurring or large-scale problem (such as mail stolen from 50 mailboxes on the same day, or regular mail theft aimed at certain individuals).

    It is highly unlikely that there would be any kind of investigation like this for low-level election fraud.

    Also, it's safe to say that people who throw away their universal mail-in ballots in a public trashcan probably aren't planning to go vote in person. It can happen, but it probably won't.


    But that's just one vote caught, right? Well, not so fast. Every mail in ballot gets scanned, not just for the votes, but for the signatures. The election department has every voter's signature in a database, and any vote that has a signature that the machine claims is not a match gets flagged, challenged, and is analysed by 2 poll workers, likely the clerk and the warden of the precinct. If there's any question at all at this point whether a ballot is legit or not, the election department actively starts contacting voters, on the phone or in person depending on location, to question them about their vote, and the vote goes into the "challenge" box, until its veracity is affirmed or not. If 2 or more ballots were found to be fraudulent coming from the same building, the election department, the boston police, and the FBI would be on it very, very quickly.
    There isn't time for this. There are going to be a ton of signatures which don't match. Hell, my signature today doesn't match my voter registration at age 18. I don't even know if they're going to count my vote (dead serious). If we had until the end of 2020 to verify questionable signatures, this might work. In a few days, or even in 2 weeks, there's zero point zero chance you can contact everyone with questionable signatures and verify their authenticity. Also, what about voters without phones? They just lose their votes? C'mon, man.



    Also, you aren't accounting for what would be the most common two versions of voter fraud:

    1) Voting for relatives who are either dead, apathetic, or incapacitated. If 98-year-old grandma barely knows her name, you can easily cast a vote for her without anyone ever finding out. If grandma died last year, you can also do it (and then feign ignorance if caught, claiming you threw it away, and someone must have fished it out). If your 18-year-old son says, "Voting is a fucking waste of time" and tosses it in the trash in front of you, then you can retrieve it and cast votes for him.

    2) Voting for people who moved, but their ballots show up at your house anyway. In this case, none of the security checks there work aside from the aforementioned signature thing (which I already explained is very flawed). Someone who moved likely isn't in the precinct anymore, so there won't be a duplicate voting scenario. Again, you could submit their vote while knowing you could feign ignorance by saying you threw it away, and someone must have fished it out of the trash. But nobody is going to investigate you aggressively for throwing in 1 or 2 extra votes.


    Again, you are also talking about Boston, which appears to be putting some effort into a more secure system (which is good). Many areas do not have this. There will be more fraud in this election than the last several elections combined. Some will be for Trump, some will be for Biden. I don't even know which one will have more of it, but I assume probably more for Biden, because some people believe Trump is so evil that it's imperative to knock him out of office, even if some criminal activity is necessary. The riots we've seen this year prove that.

    There will also be brute force forms of fraud -- such as vandalism of voter drop boxes. Some areas even allow vote harvesting, where people are allowed to go around collecting votes for the neighborhood, and then drop them all off at once. Obviously you can see how that can be abused.

    This is going to be a mess.

  13. #93
    Diamond Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Reputation
    719
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bowling Alley
    Posts
    5,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    "No evidence of fraud from mail-in voting" is such a misleading statement, and you are smart enough to know that, Mumbles.

    There are certain crimes where little-to-no evidence is left behind, and voter fraud is one of them, unless there are highly organized efforts to do it.

    If I go through the trash of Ken Scalir's large apartment complex on the day ballots are received in the mail, there will be a TON of them in there. Some will be from people who don't feel like voting, and others will be ballots for former residents whose information is still on the local voter rolls.

    I could take all of these ballots, mark Trump, and send them all in.

    There would be zero evidence that this happened, and even if it was known that it occurred, zero ability to catch who did it.
    had skipped this thread before, but wanted to chime in. I'll be working my local election on Tuesday, and went through the training a few days ago.

    If this happened in Boston, it would almost surely be caught. All mail in ballots are processed at the same local location that those voters would be normally be voting in, and all votes are accounted for in the same log books no matter how they are cast, mail-in or in person.

    Every ballot envelope is gone thru by 2 people working in tandem, and sorted by address. Someone is looking at every ballot, signature, envelope, to make sure everything is all checked out and proper, so if you are using the same handwriting, you;re pretty much gonna get caught before any votes even get opened, never mind scanned. Lets give you some credit and say you did 15 ballots, with 15 different pens and handwriting, so as to get around the human picking up on the problem. If so, we move on.

    Next, you have to hope nobody in that building decides to vote that day, because if they try to, it will become immediately obvious that a vote has already been cast in their name. At this point, the Warden of the precinct immediately calls this in to the election department, and the investigation begins immediately. Since all ballots and the envelopes they came in are saved, the person's mail-in vote immediately is challenged, and will not be counted. At this point, it is potentially evidence, and is treated as such, in a special box inside the voting machine.

    But that's just one vote caught, right? Well, not so fast. Every mail in ballot gets scanned, not just for the votes, but for the signatures. The election department has every voter's signature in a database, and any vote that has a signature that the machine claims is not a match gets flagged, challenged, and is analysed by 2 poll workers, likely the clerk and the warden of the precinct. If there's any question at all at this point whether a ballot is legit or not, the election department actively starts contacting voters, on the phone or in person depending on location, to question them about their vote, and the vote goes into the "challenge" box, until its veracity is affirmed or not. If 2 or more ballots were found to be fraudulent coming from the same building, the election department, the boston police, and the FBI would be on it very, very quickly.

    So to get away with voting a whole building's worth of votes, you have to hope none of them vote in person or any other way, you have to know how to forge all the respective signatures, and you have to hope none of the local poll workers know anyone in the building and have any reason to think something's up. But beating the signature scan is pretty much the hardest part, because once the machine flags a signature, you get actual humans looking at the sig and the signature(s) already on file. If you come real close to the signature and its style for every single person, you got a good chance of getting the ballots cast, but if you fail on any one of them, they'll all get more scrutiny, and if more than 1 are apparently fraudulent in the same building, it would quickly be visited by election workers, city police, and the FBI, most likely.

    Finally, if the margin of victory for a candidate is bigger than the amount of challenged ballots at any point in the counting, those challenged ballots won;t be counted anyway. If the race hinges on challenged ballots, the election won;t be certified until they are all approved or disqualified.

    Voter fraud isn;t as easy as you think. It is detectable, there are a bunch of safeguards, and there indeed is evidence left behind (the fraudulent votes). A quick google shows me that Cali also checks every mail in signature against the on-file signatures of the election department, which means, more than likely, none of the ballots in druff's scenario would be counted.
    K fucking O
    SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798

    PRESIDENT-ELECT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

  14. #94
    I'm only gonna do this for this one post, I'm not gonna keep going back and forth with you, but I'm also not gonna just allow you to say things authoritatively and act like its fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post

    Let's say John Smith finds 15 ballots in his apartment building, fills them all out (in the same handwriting and blue pen), and mails them. If those were the only 15 ballots to show up, or if they all showed up together with no other ballots in between, it's likely that these "two people" would catch on.

    However, John's ballots will be among thousands received that day, and those 15 won't be ordered together.

    I do not believe for a second that two people going through tons of ballots would recognize the same handwriting for 15 of them. That's extremely far fetched. Plus, as you said, someone more cautious could modify his handwriting for all 15 anyway.
    Before I start, I want to point out that I was merely using the scenario you threw out there. That said, you must have missed the part that by the time these ballots are going to be opened and processed, they are indeed in order by street address and number, so even though they may have been received over the course of a few weeks, they will indeed be processed one after another, because they are in the same building, therefore their addresses would be consecutive, or very close to it. That's how the voter rolls are organized (because street address determines where you vote), so that's how they are sorted, so as to make it easier to count and validate the votes. Also, doesn;t matter how many handwriting styles you use, they will likely all be flagged for not looking like the signatures on file once they hit the scanner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post

    The same level of "investigation" would take place if I went into my local post office and reported my mail stolen. Technically it's a federal crime. But in reality, they do zero investigation, unless there's a recurring or large-scale problem (such as mail stolen from 50 mailboxes on the same day, or regular mail theft aimed at certain individuals).

    It is highly unlikely that there would be any kind of investigation like this for low-level election fraud.

    Also, it's safe to say that people who throw away their universal mail-in ballots in a public trashcan probably aren't planning to go vote in person. It can happen, but it probably won't.
    A bunch of false ballots from the same building would indeed be investigated by the election department, and the FBI would 100% be informed about it. That's not in question, that's policy, and it has no correlation with how the post office treats mail fraud. The more votes that were fraudulent, the larger the investigation. While I very much exaggerated in saying the police would be there that very day, the fact is that all challenged ballots are investigated until one of 2 things happen, either the ballot is proven legit or false, or there's no longer any chance it could effect the election outcome.

    AS far as "it's safe to say that people who throw away their universal mail-in ballots in a public trashcan probably aren't planning to go vote in person," I'm not even sure what type of logic you are using here. I'll use myself as the example, because I can speak definitively and truthfully about this. I got the mailer to apply for a mail-in ballot, and I threw it in the trash after it sat on my coffee table as a coaster for a few days. Had I received an actual ballot, the exact same thing would have happened, not because I was unlikely to vote in person, but because it was a 100% lock I was going to vote in person, either early or on the day (I had not yet signed up to work the election). It's way easier to make the logical argument that people who throw out their mail-in ballot are more likely to vote in person, not less. It's quite literally what I would do if I got one.

    There isn't time for this. There are going to be a ton of signatures which don't match. Hell, my signature today doesn't match my voter registration at age 18. I don't even know if they're going to count my vote (dead serious). If we had until the end of 2020 to verify questionable signatures, this might work. In a few days, or even in 2 weeks, there's zero point zero chance you can contact everyone with questionable signatures and verify their authenticity. Also, what about voters without phones? They just lose their votes? C'mon, man.
    This is a key paragraph where you get almost everything sideways, if not exactly 100% wrong. Yes, there is time for all of this, because it's expected and planned for. Your sig doesn;t match your sig from when you were 18? OK, that's fair, but its probably pretty close to the one on your driver's license, and that's another database that election commissions use, because that's also where a massive number of people register to vote. If your sig doesn't look like either, then yes, you might indeed have cast a vote that won;t count. (Have you been tracking your ballot to see if it has been counted yet?) That's exactly why so many mail-in ballots are challenged and NOT counted, and why I had decided long ago to vote in person where there's zero chance of my vote getting thrown out. This isn't a secret, anyone paying attention should be aware that there's a lot that can be done incorrectly on a mail-in ballot that will invalidate a vote, which is why so many states start counting those votes early and reach out to citizens to give them a chance to correct any errors or mistakes.

    "BUT THERE ISN'T TIME TO VERIFY ALL THE BALLOTS!!!" Dude, there's all sorts of time before an election has to be certified, and an election can very well be certified if you have 10K ballots you cannot verify but the margin of error is >20K ballots. Guess what? Those votes indeed DON'T get counted. That's how it works, pretty much everywhere. "Also, what about voters without phones? They just lose their votes? C'mon, man." If your challenged ballot cannot be verified by the election people, yes, you DO lose your vote, and it dies in the challenge bin unless there's a recount ordered or a court order of some sort. This is not just a local policy, this is pretty much standard business, best practices. This is not new, & this is not a secret. Not every single vote gets counted in elections, and if you want to get mad about it, a lot of armed services people would be right there with you, because they've historically been the group with the most mail in ballots, and consequently, they are the group that has their votes go uncounted the most often. A bit ironic and sad, really, but it doesn;t effect the outcome, or else they would be counted. Sorry if this is news to you.

    Also, you aren't accounting for what would be the most common two versions of voter fraud:

    1) Voting for relatives who are either dead, apathetic, or incapacitated. If 98-year-old grandma barely knows her name, you can easily cast a vote for her without anyone ever finding out. If grandma died last year, you can also do it (and then feign ignorance if caught, claiming you threw it away, and someone must have fished it out). If your 18-year-old son says, "Voting is a fucking waste of time" and tosses it in the trash in front of you, then you can retrieve it and cast votes for him.

    2) Voting for people who moved, but their ballots show up at your house anyway. In this case, none of the security checks there work aside from the aforementioned signature thing (which I already explained is very flawed). Someone who moved likely isn't in the precinct anymore, so there won't be a duplicate voting scenario. Again, you could submit their vote while knowing you could feign ignorance by saying you threw it away, and someone must have fished it out of the trash. But nobody is going to investigate you aggressively for throwing in 1 or 2 extra votes.
    Brother Druff, I was merely ripping apart the scenario you presented early in the thread, I have no interest in going back & forth with you on various other situations that I can;t speak knowledgeably on, especially since you have no real knowledge of how these things are handled either. As for the signature thing that you"already explained is very flawed", you don;t seem to get the point that the flaw works against voters, not for them. It's flawed in the sense that it will disqualify voters who's sig has changed and can;t be reached, it's not flawed in any sense that makes it easier to get a ballot into the ballot box.


    Again, you are also talking about Boston, which appears to be putting some effort into a more secure system (which is good). Many areas do not have this.
    Unless you feel like giving provable examples, you are just saying stuff here. The American South is very well known for being extremely hard on vetting mail-in ballots. Boston isn't special in any regard, and you have no basis for saying that it is better or worse than any other place, other than to try to bolster your own points by making Boston an exception, rather than a norm.

    There will be more fraud in this election than the last several elections combined. Some will be for Trump, some will be for Biden. I don't even know which one will have more of it, but I assume probably more for Biden, because some people believe Trump is so evil that it's imperative to knock him out of office, even if some criminal activity is necessary. The riots we've seen this year prove that.
    Again, just you saying stuff, based on no facts at all. The fact you think Biden voters are more likely to commit fraud seems strange, especially since the Republican party has made voter suppression one of its central paths to victory, along with getting the courts to throw out votes and make it as hard as possible for largely democratic areas to even vote at all. One party has a very strong recent history of trying to fuck with elections for their own benefit, and it ain;t Biden;s party, but we're both just speculating here.

     
    Comments
      
      adamantium: But her emails
      
      MumblesBadly: Druff is hopelessly and desparating clinging to a false narrative that cannot be rectified with logic and facts. Because emotionally, he can’t let go of it. Very sad.
      
      nunbeater: help I'm being repressed
    Last edited by Crowe Diddly; 11-02-2020 at 02:03 PM.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    I'm only gonna do this for this one post, I'm not gonna keep going back and forth with you, but I'm also not gonna just allow you to say things authoritatively and act like its fact.


    Before I start, I want to point out that I was merely using the scenario you threw out there. That said, you must have missed the part that by the time these ballots are going to be opened and processed, they are indeed in order by street address and number, so even though they may have been received over the course of a few weeks, they will indeed be processed one after another, because they are in the same building, therefore their addresses would be consecutive, or very close to it. That's how the voter rolls are organized (because street address determines where you vote), so that's how they are sorted, so as to make it easier to count and validate the votes. Also, doesn;t matter how many handwriting styles you use, they will likely all be flagged for not looking like the signatures on file once they hit the scanner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post

    The same level of "investigation" would take place if I went into my local post office and reported my mail stolen. Technically it's a federal crime. But in reality, they do zero investigation, unless there's a recurring or large-scale problem (such as mail stolen from 50 mailboxes on the same day, or regular mail theft aimed at certain individuals).

    It is highly unlikely that there would be any kind of investigation like this for low-level election fraud.

    Also, it's safe to say that people who throw away their universal mail-in ballots in a public trashcan probably aren't planning to go vote in person. It can happen, but it probably won't.
    A bunch of false ballots from the same building would indeed be investigated by the election department, and the FBI would 100% be informed about it. That's not in question, that's policy, and it has no correlation with how the post office treats mail fraud. The more votes that were fraudulent, the larger the investigation. While I very much exaggerated in saying the police would be there that very day, the fact is that all challenged ballots are investigated until one of 2 things happen, either the ballot is proven legit or false, or there's no longer any chance it could effect the election outcome.

    AS far as "it's safe to say that people who throw away their universal mail-in ballots in a public trashcan probably aren't planning to go vote in person," I'm not even sure what type of logic you are using here. I'll use myself as the example, because I can speak definitively and truthfully about this. I got the mailer to apply for a mail-in ballot, and I threw it in the trash after it sat on my coffee table as a coaster for a few days. Had I received an actual ballot, the exact same thing would have happened, not because I was unlikely to vote in person, but because it was a 100% lock I was going to vote in person, either early or on the day (I had not yet signed up to work the election). It's way easier to make the logical argument that people who throw out their mail-in ballot are more likely to vote in person, not less. It's quite literally what I would do if I got one.

    There isn't time for this. There are going to be a ton of signatures which don't match. Hell, my signature today doesn't match my voter registration at age 18. I don't even know if they're going to count my vote (dead serious). If we had until the end of 2020 to verify questionable signatures, this might work. In a few days, or even in 2 weeks, there's zero point zero chance you can contact everyone with questionable signatures and verify their authenticity. Also, what about voters without phones? They just lose their votes? C'mon, man.
    This is a key paragraph where you get almost everything sideways, if not exactly 100% wrong. Yes, there is time for all of this, because it's expected and planned for. Your sig doesn;t match your sig from when you were 18? OK, that's fair, but its probably pretty close to the one on your driver's license, and that's another database that election commissions use, because that's also where a massive number of people register to vote. If your sig doesn't look like either, then yes, you might indeed have cast a vote that won;t count. (Have you been tracking your ballot to see if it has been counted yet?) That's exactly why so many mail-in ballots are challenged and NOT counted, and why I had decided long ago to vote in person where there's zero chance of my vote getting thrown out. This isn't a secret, anyone paying attention should be aware that there's a lot that can be done incorrectly on a mail-in ballot that will invalidate a vote, which is why so many states start counting those votes early and reach out to citizens to give them a chance to correct any errors or mistakes.

    "BUT THERE ISN'T TIME TO VERIFY ALL THE BALLOTS!!!" Dude, there's all sorts of time before an election has to be certified, and an election can very well be certified if you have 10K ballots you cannot verify but the margin of error is >20K ballots. Guess what? Those votes indeed DON'T get counted. That's how it works, pretty much everywhere. "Also, what about voters without phones? They just lose their votes? C'mon, man." If your challenged ballot cannot be verified by the election people, yes, you DO lose your vote, and it dies in the challenge bin unless there's a recount ordered or a court order of some sort. This is not just a local policy, this is pretty much standard business, best practices. This is not new, & this is not a secret. Not every single vote gets counted in elections, and if you want to get mad about it, a lot of armed services people would be right there with you, because they've historically been the group with the most mail in ballots, and consequently, they are the group that has their votes go uncounted the most often. A bit ironic and sad, really, but it doesn;t effect the outcome, or else they would be counted. Sorry if this is news to you.

    Also, you aren't accounting for what would be the most common two versions of voter fraud:

    1) Voting for relatives who are either dead, apathetic, or incapacitated. If 98-year-old grandma barely knows her name, you can easily cast a vote for her without anyone ever finding out. If grandma died last year, you can also do it (and then feign ignorance if caught, claiming you threw it away, and someone must have fished it out). If your 18-year-old son says, "Voting is a fucking waste of time" and tosses it in the trash in front of you, then you can retrieve it and cast votes for him.

    2) Voting for people who moved, but their ballots show up at your house anyway. In this case, none of the security checks there work aside from the aforementioned signature thing (which I already explained is very flawed). Someone who moved likely isn't in the precinct anymore, so there won't be a duplicate voting scenario. Again, you could submit their vote while knowing you could feign ignorance by saying you threw it away, and someone must have fished it out of the trash. But nobody is going to investigate you aggressively for throwing in 1 or 2 extra votes.
    Brother Druff, I was merely ripping apart the scenario you presented early in the thread, I have no interest in going back & forth with you on various other situations that I can;t speak knowledgeably on, especially since you have no real knowledge of how these things are handled either. As for the signature thing that you"already explained is very flawed", you don;t seem to get the point that the flaw works against voters, not for them. It's flawed in the sense that it will disqualify voters who's sig has changed and can;t be reached, it's not flawed in any sense that makes it easier to get a ballot into the ballot box.


    Again, you are also talking about Boston, which appears to be putting some effort into a more secure system (which is good). Many areas do not have this.
    Unless you feel like giving provable examples, you are just saying stuff here. The American South is very well known for being extremely hard on vetting mail-in ballots. Boston isn't special in any regard, and you have no basis for saying that it is better or worse than any other place, other than to try to bolster your own points by making Boston an exception, rather than a norm.

    There will be more fraud in this election than the last several elections combined. Some will be for Trump, some will be for Biden. I don't even know which one will have more of it, but I assume probably more for Biden, because some people believe Trump is so evil that it's imperative to knock him out of office, even if some criminal activity is necessary. The riots we've seen this year prove that.
    Again, just you saying stuff, based on no facts at all. The fact you think Biden voters are more likely to commit fraud seems strange, especially since the Republican party has made voter suppression one of its central paths to victory, along with getting the courts to throw out votes and make it as hard as possible for largely democratic areas to even vote at all. One party has a very strong recent history of trying to fuck with elections for their own benefit, and it ain;t Biden;s party, but we're both just speculating here.
    what a very well thought out, great post. but,

    Name:  9rxrwoax.png
Views: 118
Size:  29.7 KB

    Name:  OnlyAdorableAoudad-small (1).gif
Views: 118
Size:  621.7 KB

  16. #96
    dwai, just so I can set my expectations here, are you still on daily gif rationing, or are you allowed to fuck up threads as you see fit again?

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    dwai, just so I can set my expectations here, are you still on daily gif rationing, or are you allowed to fuck up threads as you see fit again?
    I don't know, I'm posting the gif once per day per Druff's rules

  18. #98
    Diamond Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Reputation
    719
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bowling Alley
    Posts
    5,472
    Quote Originally Posted by dwai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    dwai, just so I can set my expectations here, are you still on daily gif rationing, or are you allowed to fuck up threads as you see fit again?
    I don't know, I'm posting the gif once per day per Druff's rules
    One per day is precious, so really it's an honor to the person whose thread you fag up.
    SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798

    PRESIDENT-ELECT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

  19. #99
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5564
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    38,595
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post
    I'm only gonna do this for this one post, I'm not gonna keep going back and forth with you, but I'm also not gonna just allow you to say things authoritatively and act like its fact.


    Before I start, I want to point out that I was merely using the scenario you threw out there. That said, you must have missed the part that by the time these ballots are going to be opened and processed, they are indeed in order by street address and number, so even though they may have been received over the course of a few weeks, they will indeed be processed one after another, because they are in the same building, therefore their addresses would be consecutive, or very close to it. That's how the voter rolls are organized (because street address determines where you vote), so that's how they are sorted, so as to make it easier to count and validate the votes. Also, doesn;t matter how many handwriting styles you use, they will likely all be flagged for not looking like the signatures on file once they hit the scanner.
    I didn't know this, but it's hard to believe every precinct in the country is doing this ordering. It would actually be fairly cumbersome to do it this way. I'm not saying you're lying (I believe your description of how it's done in Boston), but that this isn't necessarily the standard everywhere.


    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
    A bunch of false ballots from the same building would indeed be investigated by the election department, and the FBI would 100% be informed about it. That's not in question, that's policy, and it has no correlation with how the post office treats mail fraud. The more votes that were fraudulent, the larger the investigation. While I very much exaggerated in saying the police would be there that very day, the fact is that all challenged ballots are investigated until one of 2 things happen, either the ballot is proven legit or false, or there's no longer any chance it could effect the election outcome.
    "FBI would be informed", yes. "FBI would investigate", no.

    The FBI is extremely undermanned compared to the number of reports they get (for everything, not just this). Aside from an organized form of voter fraud, they would not bother -- even if there was a fair amount of evidence that some guy grabbed 50 ballots out of the trashcan and submitted them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
    "BUT THERE ISN'T TIME TO VERIFY ALL THE BALLOTS!!!" Dude, there's all sorts of time before an election has to be certified, and an election can very well be certified if you have 10K ballots you cannot verify but the margin of error is >20K ballots. Guess what? Those votes indeed DON'T get counted. That's how it works, pretty much everywhere.
    Right. And that's exactly my problem. If you go vote in person, there is no chance your vote will be invalidated unless you screw up marking it. If you do it by mail, who knows? There's a ton of things that can happen. It's a bad combination of increased fraud and invalidated real votes in an attempt to fight that fraud. Yuck.



    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff
    Also, you aren't accounting for what would be the most common two versions of voter fraud:

    1) Voting for relatives who are either dead, apathetic, or incapacitated. If 98-year-old grandma barely knows her name, you can easily cast a vote for her without anyone ever finding out. If grandma died last year, you can also do it (and then feign ignorance if caught, claiming you threw it away, and someone must have fished it out). If your 18-year-old son says, "Voting is a fucking waste of time" and tosses it in the trash in front of you, then you can retrieve it and cast votes for him.

    2) Voting for people who moved, but their ballots show up at your house anyway. In this case, none of the security checks there work aside from the aforementioned signature thing (which I already explained is very flawed). Someone who moved likely isn't in the precinct anymore, so there won't be a duplicate voting scenario. Again, you could submit their vote while knowing you could feign ignorance by saying you threw it away, and someone must have fished it out of the trash. But nobody is going to investigate you aggressively for throwing in 1 or 2 extra votes.
    Brother Druff, I was merely ripping apart the scenario you presented early in the thread, I have no interest in going back & forth with you on various other situations that I can;t speak knowledgeably on, especially since you have no real knowledge of how these things are handled either.
    These are the two most common forms of voter fraud by mail, which will add up with a lot of people doing it. These will happen a lot more often than a guy going through his apartment's lobby trashcan. I can respect that you won't debate these because you don't have firsthand knowledge about the topic.

    However, the above two items show that even if I were to concede 100% of your points, there would still be a huge hole in the mail-in voting process.


    I just submitted by ballot today, in a drop box.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Druff
    I didn't know this, but it's hard to believe every precinct in the country is doing this ordering. It would actually be fairly cumbersome to do it this way. I'm not saying you're lying (I believe your description of how it's done in Boston), but that this isn't necessarily the standard everywhere.
    It's not that hard, it's done every day by the US mail already. Every piece of mail is already mechanically read and encoded by the USPS, it's not like we have to do it on the day of the election, save a few states that love drama and attention and lawsuits I guess. Holding and delivering mail at your day of choice is already a free USPS service, and pre-printed election envelopes make sorting as easy as the sorter can make it.

    It was a fun day working my local polling location. 6AM-almost 9PM, from the cop delivering the box of ballots until it was locked and back in his truck on the way to city hall, an hour lunch in the middle there. I'll tell a few dumb stories tomorrow, but I know for me, local elections are a far more palatable thing for me to be involved in than local politics.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-27-2020, 08:06 PM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12-19-2019, 11:18 AM
  3. Druff, was your invite lost in the mail?
    By Steve-O in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-06-2013, 04:38 AM
  4. Druff & Drexel Show - 04/09/2013 - Stop the Music
    By Dan Druff in forum Radio Archives
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 10:16 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 02:19 AM