site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   18905 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 New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don’t see how ballot harvesting isn’t a concern. Not in the “fake ballots” but in a “kind of quid pro quo not really secret ballot old times machine” way

Well, this is embarrassing. I didn't realize 2000 Mules was more about harvesting than fake ballots or similar. I personally regard ballot harvesting as a form of corruption that obviously shouldn't be allowed.

Ballot harvesting is legal in most states but subject to different rules (except in Alabama where it's unconditionally a felony). I think the idea is that ballot harvesting can be used as a way to introduce fraudulent ballots, but isn't necessarily per se fraudulent by itself.

Oh, I'm aware that it's legal, I just don't think it should be. I find nothing redeeming about the process and see no valid reason for it to exist at all.

That's not really fraud though. Same as concerns over last minute COVID-related election law changes. It's just complaining about rules you don't like, which is fine, but every election is going to have rules some group of people doesn't like. It's basically the Stacy Abrams model.

Likewise, well aware, hence why I said that I expect more boomers going around complaining about dead people voting and stolen ballots and a bunch of other stuff that the evidence for is non-existent or super thin. I think arguing about rules is a worthwhile thing to do and I think ballot harvesting is a great example of the sort of thing that should be reigned in, but focusing on things like that requires letting the more aggressive claims of "mass fraud" go.

I would say in some states (family member voting isn’t what most have in mind). Also I believe that some states that allow harvesting require hoops that limit the general usefulness.

With that said, my objection (and many others objection) isn’t necessarily that ballot harvesting is introducing false ballots, but instead that ballot harvesting permits a kind of quid pro quo that the secret ballot was intended to prevent. I’m not saying people are obvious about it but you have activists target areas you know vote X; those activists help people in the community, then come election time they go to the people they help (probably with the candidates name on their person) and ask “hey have you voted — I’d be happy to help you vote and to make it easier I can drop of the ballot myself.”

Now is that fraud? No. Is it even quid pro quo? Not necessarily. But is it highly questionable? I think so.

But is it highly questionable? I think so.

To me it seems virtually indistinguishable from just campaigning or GOTV efforts. What are the minimum changes you'd want to see for the practice to no longer be questionable to you?

Minimum changes is to make that illegal. The reason why it is different is that it changes (1) the ease of which someone can cast a ballot (I might not be willing to go to the precinct but if I don’t really have to do anything) and (2) the activist actually sees who you vote for which puts more pressure into the quid pro quo.

In short, I think it is a terrible process that should only be legal for immediate family members.

the activist actually sees who you vote for which puts more pressure into the quid pro quo.

If there's anyone watching strangers' ballots be marked and taking them to ballot boxes, that's massively illegal and they should be serving jail time, excepting maybe some cases where people legitimately need help filling out their ballot (mainly thinking some elderly/blind people here), which should be handled very carefully.

My understanding of "ballot harvesting" claims is merely that activists were delivering the ballots, with similar GOTV concerns that activists can selectively give rides to the polls to only people they expect to vote the way they want.

If there's anyone watching strangers' ballots be marked and taking them to ballot boxes, that's massively illegal

Do you have a source for this?

The exact laws are state-level, but this very weird website provides the following:

  • Forty-four states have a constitutional provision guaranteeing secrecy in voting (AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NM, NV, NY, OH, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WV, WY).
  • The six remaining states, and the District of Columbia, have statutory provisions referencing secrecy in voting (DC, NH, NJ, OK, OR, RI, VT).
  • All 50 states and the District of Columbia have legislated specific exemptions to secret voting, mostly to allow voters with disabilities to request assistance in the voting booth, should they wish it. This narrowly tailored exception demonstrates the priority state legislators have placed on ballot secrecy.

You can go read the election laws for any state online. For example, this appears to be the relevant section of Oklahoma's voting laws, although I'm not quite sure how to interpret it. My non-lawyer interpretation is that I see requirements that the ballot be secret, and that description of "ballot harvesting" may cover watching someone fill out an absentee ballot, although it's not clear. And the punishment is not specified there.

More comments

I thought you couldn’t fill it out; I thought some states allowed leeway to seeing someone fill out the ballot.

It seems obviously different to me, because the interlocutor can confirm that you have in fact voted, and even who you voted for. If a door-to-door GOTV person comes by, I can simply lie to them that I really do plan to vote and go about my day. Or even take their offer for a ride to the polls, then get a guaranteed secret vote.

If they are harvesting, I can't lie to them and tell them I will vote. They can pester me and use social pressure until I actually vote for they person they want me to. They can track that information unless I rudely try to conceal what I am doing, which is itself suspicious. They can report this information back to their bosses. Or to my boss for that matter.

ETA: Minimum change I would want would be for any such harvesting to be noticed at least 48 hours in advance and required to allow partisan witnesses.

the interlocutor can confirm that you have in fact voted, and even who you voted for.

Do you think these people are opening the ballot envelopes and resealing them? Or do you think there's a lot of people going door-to-door insisting on committing a felony (violating the secret ballot) with witnesses?

What felony? Just fill the ballot out right now, it'll just take a second, here, I have a pencil, you can keep it. You're going to vote for Our Guy, who cares about us and our community right? Go to another room? Why? That's weird.

If they are harvesting, I can't lie to them and tell them I will vote.

I'm obviously not aware of the specifics of your jurisdiction, but could you not claim that your ballot was already postmarked and in the mail or an official drop box? At least for the mail, proof-of-receipt wouldn't be expected to show up immediately.

That said, I'm generally against ballot harvesting except maybe households making a single trip to the neighborhood post box. In addition to the already-mentioned concerns, partisan harvesting operations present lots of chain-of-custody concerns and the possibility of a badgering and/or "accidentally" losing ballots.

i watched 2000 mules when it came out, IIRC the best evidence they had was video of a grandpa dropping off 10-20 votes for his family, which is a lot of votes but not quite the type of proof one would hope for when the crime in question is supposedly systematic and widespread.

They also had some phone telemetry stuff showing that some people came and went from the area of a polling station repeatedly, but i don't think they have any way to know the difference between a door dasher and a secret squirrel.

Would it be reasonable to be suspicious when two thousand cell phones have a pattern of pings along paths from nonprofits to three or four different dropboxes at 2am?

I literally don't know. In a vacuum that sounds like a lot of cell phones but i have absolutely no context for whose phone or what these paths look like. Can you show that these cell phones aren't cars that simply pass the geofence closest to the nonprofit, then pass a fence near the poll, all while never getting out of their car?

You certainly could -- I don't think the "Mules" people did that work though. (Or if they did they didn't show it)

Would it be reasonable to be suspicious when two thousand cell phones have a pattern of pings along paths from nonprofits to three or four different dropboxes at 2am?

If the movie showed that actually happening, yes. But they only speculate that it's happening and fail to follow-up that speculation with confirming evidence, which should've been trivially easy given the amount of video footage they boasted of having.

They don’t “speculate” in the sense of disclosing uncertainty, they outright state they have the data. The book actually lays out that data.

They don’t “speculate” in the sense of disclosing uncertainty, they outright state they have the data. The book actually lays out that data.

They speculate that their data reflects a conspiracy of vote fraud. What they never show is a single actual person going to multiple ballot dropoffs. Not just in one night, but ever. Their "4 million minutes" or whatever of video either fails to corroborate their claim or they decided not to show that it does, which is very weird.

I didn't know that there was a book, too. I doubt that it proves anything more than the movie did, beyond possibly doubling their profits on their uncorroborated speculation.

Apparently, the book intended to "name names" and then was recalled under threat of lawsuits: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/25/1131077739/heres-what-changed-in-dinesh-dsouzas-2-000-mules-book-after-it-was-recalled

Now, D'Souza and Regnery have officially released the 2,000 Mules book, and changed that section.

D'Souza had previously described left-wing nonprofits as "doing vote trafficking."

The newly-released book tones down that phrase to "potentially storing ballots."

And the names of specific nonprofits that D'Souza accused of election fraud have all been removed.

Well maybe don’t be too embarrassed. 2000 mules combined harvesting with fake ballots. That seems silly to me.

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