This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There Are No Machines
Over the past 2 years, I’ve heard a number of election denialists, both online and in the media, that suggest that “machine politics” were somehow involved in rigging the 2020 election. What these theories all have in common is that they simply take for granted the existence of political machines in large cities, mostly in the Northeast and Upper Midwest; indeed, in some cases the city is simply mentioned as if it were understood that a corrupt political machine had its finger on every vote. This post originated as a response to @jkf from the other night, where he said:
What Is a Machine?
The first part of the quote betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a machine actually is, so it’s worth exploring that. Political machines maintain their power through a system of patronage. An example of how this could have been done would be that the machine boss makes sure a crony gets appointed to chair the parks department. The crony’s appointment is not based on his qualifications as an administrator as much as it is based in his ability to use his position to obtain votes for machine candidates. So he coordinates with the boss of a ward full of poor Italian immigrants to get them all maintenance jobs. He coordinates with another ward boss to make sure that a prominent and loyal contractor in his ward gets a no-bid contract for facility renovation that will provide a ton of work to the Polish and Hungarian immigrants in his ward. And then when election time rolls around the ward boss makes sure everybody knows who they have to thank for all of this largesse and that if the machine loses control to the reformers the first thing that will happen is that they’ll get cut off. That’s just one example but there are all kinds of favors politicians can do to help normal people, down to anodyne stuff like helping them navigate bureaucracy through a few well-placed phone calls; stuff that’s so anodyne that (good) politicians still do it today. And it goes without saying that if you dare elect an opponent to lead your ward, all those services get cut off, and in the next election the machine pick will point to his inability to get anything done, even though that inability is machine-driven.
Of course, something has to give in a system like this, and it’s that problems never actually get solved. Richard Daley may not have been able to deal with poverty, but he was good enough at helping individual poor people that the machine never paid an electoral price for it. But the Chicago machine was an outlier in terms of longevity; machine politics started to die out in the 1930s, and the decline accelerated after the war. Historically, machines would get voted out of power during times of economic hardship in favor of reformers, as there wasn’t enough largess to distribute to keep the machine going. But the machine would normally make a comeback when things got better. The Depression meant that things didn’t get better for a long time. A lot of people needed help, there wasn’t much to go around, and local government was forced to focus on structural changes rather than individual favors. Some individual machines weren’t directly affected, but reforms at the state and Federal level in areas like the civil service and contract requirements gradually eroded away the machines’ ability to operate.
The upshot of all of this is that machines aren’t “faceless and anonymous” entities. Their very nature prevents them from being so. Handing out anonymous favors may be good as an act of charity, but it’s a terrible way to buy votes for your party. And when somebody sees that the town has gone to shit and wants to challenge the status quo, what do you do? Send them an anonymous threat? No; anyone trying to challenge a political machine must be aware of the fact that the machine runs the town and the machine will crush them if they try to interfere and if they’re smart enough to run the town then they’re smart enough to geta nice sinecure and maybe someday they’ll get the keys to the executive washroom. From Boss Tweed in the early days to Richard Daly at the tail end of the machine era, everyone knew who was in charge, and if they didn’t, the boss wouldn’t hesitate to let them know.
The Pittsburgh Machine
I can’t speak to every city in which fraud was alleged, but I live in SWPA and can provide a pretty detailed picture of how Pittsburgh’s government works. First, unless otherwise stated, everyone named here is a Democrat; the city hasn’t had a Republican mayor since the 1930s and that’s just the way it is. It’s also what gives rise to accusations of machine politics. But hear me out. There are 3 big players in Pittsburgh politics: The mayor, the Allegheny County Executive, and the Allegheny County Democratic Committee. The current mayor is Ed Gainey, a former state rep who beat incumbent Bill Peduto in the 2021 primary. Peduto didn’t seek the committee’s nomination and he accordingly didn’t get it; Gainey won it over Tony Moreno, a MAGA Democrat and former cop who thought Peduto was too soft on the 2020 protestors (of which we had relatively few that became problematic). Peduto also didn’t campaign, but nonetheless managed to win 39% of the vote to Gainey’s 46%, a testament to either the cluelessness of the electorate or the unwillingness of Peduto’s white, upper middle class base to support a black progressive reformer like Gainey or a cretin like Moreno. Gainey’s election was both surprising and not surprising at the same time. Had Peduto done anything to indicate that he actually wanted to be mayor he would have easily won. Before becoming mayor himself, Peduto made a name for himself by mercilessly criticizing the two previous mayors from his position on city council representing the wealthiest part of town.
Peduto was mayor during the 2020 election, but that is of little consequence since the city doesn’t run elections, the county does. The County Executive is (and was) Rich Fitzgerald. He was elected in 2011 after beating Mark Patrick Flaherty in the primary and Republican D. Raja in the general. Flaherty was County Controller, the son of a judge, nephew of a former mayor, and that isn’t the half of it. Fitzgerald was a county councilman. Fitzgerald won by about ten points. Allegheny County operates differently than other counties. Most counties in PA are run by three elected commissioners and there are a slew of row offices like prothonotary, register of wills, etc. Allegheny County’s system was dysfunctional and dominated by city interests so a home rule charter was adopted in 1999 that would put power in the hands of a unified executive and a geographically-based council. Most row offices were eliminated and replaced by civil service employees. The county runs the elections.
Finally, there’s the Democratic Committee. In theory this has over 2600 members (one man and one woman from each precinct), but in reality many of these seats are vacant since not all precincts can find enough people to fill their allotment. Most committee elections involve fewer than 1000 participants, and if you live in a precinct with a vacant spot, they’ll pretty much give it to you. The committee’s main job is (obviously) to get Democrats elected, but they also endorse primary candidates. And it’s currently a mess. Ahead of the 2020 election, there were a number of stories about how the committee had a MAGA problem; some committee members were making Facebook posts supporting right-wing policies, and committee leadership was ambivalent. Then the committee went on to endorse some of these MAGA sympathizers in local races over progressive candidates. With Peduto not seeking their endorsement, nearly 40% of the committee voted to endorse former cop and current asshole Tony Moreno for mayor. With Fitzgerald’s time as executive coming to a close, the committee is endorsing moderate and longtime county Treasurer John Weinstein. Mayor Gainey, however, has endorsed progressive state legislator Sara Innamorato. But the board failed to endorse incumbent DA Stephen Zappala in favor of the more progressive Matt Dugan. And no one has yet endorsed longtime city Controller Michael Lamb for County Executive, even though he’s from a prominent political family that includes his nephew, former US Rep Conor Lamb.
If this is supposed to be some kind of machine, it’s a pretty dysfunctional one. Politicians with long pedigrees can’t get endorsements. Politicians who endorse views antithetical to the party platform do get endorsements. Politicians with endorsements lose primary elections. Prominent figures in the party can’t agree on whom to endorse. Mayors tend to be replaced by their strongest critics. This group was supposed to have participated in the rigging of a presidential election? They couldn’t rig an election for dogcatcher. This isn’t because they’re incompetent, it’s because this is the way the system is supposed to operate.
To summarize your post:
Machines had a specific organizational structure in 1910.
Pittsburg does not meet this model.
Therefore a different - but related - organizational structure in 2020 could not have interfered with elections.
You may object to the term "political machine" by insisting that the term apply only to the 1910 structure. That's fine. But then lets just apply the term Machina to the 2020 version.
A Machina is a group of organizations with a shared interest in maintaining a stream of graft and they also have some political leanings. The visible elected official at the top is not of primary importance because the graft is no longer vulnerable to interruption by a single elected official. So concretely speaking, Bloomberg or Guliani can get elected mayor of NYC. The net result is that NYC still spends 10x what the rest of the world spends on subways and that money is spread around the Machina, while Bloomberg - a competent adminstrator with no desire to continue this - has no power to do anything about it.
Similarly, Trump has no real power over the federal Machina and it mostly continues doing what it wants.
And the main thing that is known within the Machina is that you should keep quiet about stuff because even if you speak up, the court will come up with a reason to dismiss your case, the media won't say anything, the administrative procedure will find a reason to delay it, etc.
The latter is where a small conspiracy to rig votes by the small but more ideological wing can live. Nothing you've presented contradicts this thesis.
More options
Context Copy link
As someone who grow up in that area I never felt like Pittsburgh had the same partisan lines like that for machine politics. All the leaders also seem random. It’s the place where Fetterman came from. Does he seem like the kind of guy who rises the ranks in a machine? It’s sort of whose ever bored enough to run place.
More options
Context Copy link
Premise: A machine in politics is X
Premise: There is not a machine in Pittsburgh
Conclusion: There are no machine politics in the USA
???
Detroit is what I was talking about at least. Detroit had ballot harvesting introduced just before the 2020 election. It is dominated by Democrats, about 95%. It's notoriously crime-ridden and corrupt. Amongst other things, the city recently started awarding marijuana sales licenses, essentially a license to make money. Half of these licenses go to 'social equity' candidates. It's easy to see how they could arrange that these licenses go to trustworthy local leaders who can be relied upon to ensure that plenty of votes arrive.
Or if they didn't do that, they could arrange for other aspects of the vast welfare apparatus to flow through
In the words of Sam Riddle, "The only difference between Detroit and third world nations -- where corruption is concerned -- is goats in the street". He should know - he was found guilty of corruption in Detroit! Rigged elections are part and parcel for third world nations. You have backroom deals where sinecures are distributed and agreements made.
Even if there's internal division as to who should get more or less of the spoils, the interests of Detroit's leaders are surely all to favor higher spending and more social services, as opposed to fiscal or other kinds of conservatism.
More options
Context Copy link
On the object level, I think you are wrong machines still exist. Chicago's machine even in your classic sense is about 80% intact. Regardless of patronage, that sort of political power doesn't evaporate organically. In fact, it typically accumulates. As we saw in 1982, 1/10 votes in Chicago was a fraudulent vote. I've tried looking for statistical evidence that Chicago voter turnout collapsed post 1982, but it is not evident. So roughly the same amount of "people" kept voting.
Thus, the fraud machine is durable and undetectable. Why is it so different than the highly visible patronage system you think has evaporated? Well, because instead of structure, it thrives off chaos. Go to any polling place in a poorer area of a major city. What do you see? Well, firstly you will see illegal electioneering at the entrance. So, its obvious that basic laws are not being followed. Second, when you get inside, ballots will be strewn about. Boxes will contain them, or not. The voter roll is a piece of paper with checkboxes filled out by a woman with glaucoma. Signature verification to receive your ballot is impossible to fail. Over 50% of the voters on the roll haven't voted in 3+ elections. In other words, there are nearly an unlimited array of options to infiltrate the system. One competent person at one polling place could easily produce 5000 votes with 0% chance of detection. Bang.
Just going through Chicago mayoral election results since Daley was first elected
1955: 1,290,000 votes cast Daley wins 54-45
1959 1,090,000.votes cast Daley wins 71-28
1963 1,220,000 votes cast Daley wins 55-44
1967 1,084,000 votes cast Daley wins 73-25
1971: 1,056,000 votes cast Daley wins 70-30
1975: 698,000 votes cast Daley wins 77-19
1977: special election cause Daley died: 634,000 votes cast, Bilandic (D) wins 77-21
1979: 854,000 votes cast Byrne (D) wins 82-16
The FBI finds tons of fraudulent ballots in the 1982 federal election, this could be breakpoint though I don't know exactly when reforms in response to this went into effect
1983: 1,290,000 votes cast, Washington (D) wins 51-48
1987 1,160,000 votes cast Washington (D) wins 53-42
1989 Special Election Cause Washington died: 1,040,000 votes cast, Daley Jr. (D) wins 55-41
1991: 637,000 votes cast, Daley Jr. (D) wins 71-26
1995 598,000 votes cast, Daley Jr. (D) wins 60-36
1999: 595,000 votes cast, Daley Jr. (D) wins 71-28.
You're suggesting that a ~10% decline in voter turnout would be a good indication that the machine stopped working, but that roughly the same number of people voted so it was will still working. But there was a massive surge in voting after 1982 not a collapse. Does that mean the machine faked more votes than ever, or that people who had given up started to believe elections were fair and turned out to vote.
I don't know but it just doesn't seem like raw vote totals are a good indication of whether "a machine" is in operation. The lowest total votes cast seem to coincide with the largest margins for the incumbent.
That is another plausible explanation. But it also, IMO, overly privledges the position of free and fair elections, which from my POV is what the law generally overly does, and instead I'd prefer people take election integrity much more seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't have a fixed POV on this issue, but I think your accurate historical definition of "political machine" is beside the point. My "election truther" buddies, if they were to refer to a "machine" behind ballot fraud, would be using a known old term to refer to something new and different, a difference that is key to their argument. In their worldview, a paradigm shift has taken place that has removed the common man from the political machine (this is the essence of Trumpism). Now that the titans of industry are predominantly Democrats, they have conspired with Democrat politicians to circumvent the inconvenience of getting votes from regular people. The argument is that they have figured out how to rig the game at a higher level, and everything else is kayfabe. They use "current thing" to distract the public from realizing that the public is now irrelevant. Meanwhile, a closed loop of graft and favors is making everyone in the elite richer and richer. (Add to this recipe some degree of Satanic grooming, if you want a full picture of this theory of the world.)
This isn't my worldview -- I expect more uncoordinated chaos in how things fold and unfold -- but I hear it a lot, in different degrees of eloquence. Like most other machines that have been around since the dawn of the industrial revolution, political machines have gone through technological changes that would now confuse the mechanics of that earlier time.
But that is his point - the word isn't adding anything to 'dems rig elections', neither what happened nor what they allege happened resembles the old 'political machines' at all, so it's just increasing confusion. Analogies can be informative, even if mostly inaccurate literally, and this sometimes gives words new - and useful - meaning. It wouldn't be unreasonable for, if a novel form of political organization sprang up that took some things from the old 'political machines' but was very different, to use the term, and maybe for its meaning to evolve. But that analogy or new meaning, like anything interesting, can be uninformative - which is what's happening here.
More options
Context Copy link
If that's the case then it's a classic motte and bailey. The reason they use the word "machine" is to invoke images of Daly stuffing ballot boxes in Chicago and the like. But when you point out that the system of political organization that allowed this to happen doesn't exist anymore in any meaningful sense, they retreat back to saying that it's really just a vague understanding among elites.
I don't think the "motte" version of the argument is just "a vague understanding among elites." There would be a lot of discussion of the various blue-team "pop-up" NGOs funded by elites (e.g. IDEX and that network of shell-charities in D.C. that got coverage about six months ago whose name I've forgotten - Blue something?), progressive capture of institutional philanthropy, the illegible and incestuous relationships between various "civil society" groups, and the ways in which this funding and influence can reach deep into official government functions, like voting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is good effort post, but it sounds to me a bit like proving that communist USSR didn't exist, because look how dysfunctional the ruling system was, how many dissidents were there, how if you look at any particular party functionary, they were regularly removed from their posts and assigned to random places or even just sent into retirement (or sometimes worse). I mean, if the communist dictatorship was as real as the conspiracy theorists claim, would it not be able to function much more efficiently and would something like removal of Khrushchev (who was supposed to be an all-powerful communist dictator, following right into the footsteps of the mythical uber-tyrant Joseph Stalin figure!) ever happen? Clearly, the supposed "dictatorship" and "totalitarian society" there is nothing but a conspiratorial fakery, and not even a well done one.
Of course The Machine would be full of infighting for who exactly controls the levers and who gets to be in the driver seat. Of course you can be the Chief Machinist one day and cast out by a coup on another. Of course mafia bosses would order hits on each other and sometimes even rat out each other to the feds. That doesn't mean the Machine or the mafia does not exist. A better test would be - can an outsider - or, horrible dictu, even a deplorable - ever get to the levers at all? What challenges would they encounter - besides the obvious "convince the voters" ones?
It's more like proving the USSR isn't feudalist, because its social structure has little resemblance to one with lords, vassals, or peasants. This doesn't prove it's not dysfunctional or malicious, just that it isn't so in that way.
More options
Context Copy link
Outsiders get in all the time. Ed Gainey was a state rep before he became mayor, and he was elected to that post after defeating a 30-year incumbent on the third try. Plus, Pittsburgh's one of the whitest major cities in the country and Gainey is probably the first black guy to get elected to any city office that isn't a council seat representing a heavily black area. He's endorsing Sara Innamorato for county exec. She's another state rep, a DSA member who beat an incumbent who belongs to another prominent local family in a white working-class district. As I alluded to earlier, the ACDC endorsed a vocal Trump supporter and ACA opponent over an autistic LGBT activist. the Trump supporter lost the primary, but if the litmus test for a political system not being a machine would be something akin to a Republican who loves AOC and tweets against Trump's immigration policy winning a GOP primary in the Bible Belt, I don't know what to tell you.
I know Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt, but this is not exactly what I think of when I say "outsider".
DSA is an outsider to Dem party like Sanders is an "Independent" senator - formally it's true, but we all know what they'd be voting for. If they are "outside" it's the part of "outside" that the mainstream body can't venture to go without risk losing the independents, but not the part which they disagree with.
Not sure about AOC, but there are plenty of Republicans tweeting against Trump's anything, from his hair color to his politices, real or imagined. That said, if I would discover that there's a Republican Machine in, say, Wyoming, I wouldn't be exactly shocked. I'm not saying there necessary is, just saying it wouldn't be a huge surprise for me if there were.
I think that's conflating national and local political dynamics. If you're part of the Democratic establishment in a solidly blue city your personal political career is never meaningfully threatened by Republicans, it's threatened by challengers from the left. If Trump wins by 1 point you're still gonna win by 19, keep your job and be paying your dues with the party establishment so you can move up over time. If the DSA wins you have to find a different job and all that time you put in at low low level functionary positions was for nothing.
This is anecdotal but I know a former city council member of a solidly blue small Midwestern college town who is still involved in local politics. He hates Republicans, but what he wants to talk about day in and day out is how bad the the local hard left student organizations and Sander's aligned groups like Justice Democrats are. It's a "heretics are a bigger threat then pagane" dynamic.
That's to say that If Pittsburgh election administration is controlled by a corrupt tight knit organization capable of casting fraudulent ballots en masse without any defectors; they're also going to use that power to consistently rig local elections in favor of their organization. If local candidates outside of the democratic establishment can win then either this group is deeply principled enough not to interfere in intra-left fights, or they just don't actually have the ability to rig elections.
Well, as you proved, in local matters there is no unified local control - DSA people watch the establishment types like a hawk for shenanigans. However, both the establishment Dems and the DSA-types are on the same side when it comes to presidential general election politics. So if there was to be fraudulent efforts in presidential elections, you would not expect the DSA to complain about it; to the contrary you would expect them to participate.
Why does the DSA have a capacity to "watch establishment types like a hawk" and prevent voter fraud against them in local elections but the larger and better funded Republican party does not?
It depends on conditions on the ground. In deep blue counties the local DSA chapter is likely to be far better manned, resourced, and organized - at least because more likely to succeed in day-to-day politics - than the local GOP. Likewise, in deep red areas, I would expect the local insurgent right-wing group (Tea Partie, MAGA, etc.) to be at least as well-organized and active in local politics as the local Democratic party operation (though Dems are better at springing grass-roots activism up in inhospitable terrain than the GOP because the left has a longer tradition of activism, more sophisticated techniques, popularity among demographic groups willing and able to forego lucrative careers to engage in activism work, and, at least these days, much more money and PMC support, plus a friendly media and educational environment).
More options
Context Copy link
From 1982 to 2018, the Republicans were subject to a consent decree which prevented them from doing so, and in that time their organization withered.
Also, I suspect the DSA is better-funded than the Republican Party in the relevant jurisdictions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But when people claiming there was foul play in the 2020 election point to "machine politics" as evidence, the implication is that this is a well-run political organization that does this kind of thing all the time to maintain their own power and thus already has the mechanisms in place to commit fraud. What you're arguing is that an ad hoc group of political opponents conspired to rig an election due to ideological consensus regarding one issue, despite that fact that none of them had ever done something like that before. That's the opposite of machine politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have no particular claims regarding the 2020 election, but the 1997 Miami mayor race in which Xavier Suarez was removed from office for ballot fraud is probably the most obvious recent memory example of what some are claiming happened. Per the wiki article:
The 1997 race was particularly recent during the 2000 election controversy in Florida. I have no information regarding more recent elections, but while I'd like to think it can't happen these days it doesn't seem completely impossible.
A bit further back than 1997, but still after the purported demise of the machine politics era, the grand jury report for the 1982 Chicago election is informative on the different fraud strategies used to generate over 100,000 fraudulent votes in the midterms that year. The specific strategies included
Absent voter canvassing - paid canvassers who were supposed to correct voter rolls instead used canvassing to identify voters who had died, moved, or had no intention of voting as targets for fraudulent votes.
Fraudulent use of absentee registration - precinct captains and canvassers would convince residents to sign up for absentee ballots, then fill out the ballots themselves voting party line
Paying drunks, homeless and aliens to vote
Manually altering the vote counts
Harvesting ballots from nursing homes
Of those methods, manually altering the vote counts is more difficult now. The other methods are no more difficult or much, much easier to pull off. In the 41 years since then, we have expanded the mail-in vote to be broad enough to cover everyone. Ballot harvesting is now explicitly legal in quite a few jurisdictions with minimum verifications in place to ensure that the ballots are actually cast by the person on the registration card. In jurisdictions where it is illegal, there is an awful lot of wink and nod non-enforcement.
Much of the opportunity for fraud is now outsourced to GOTV organizations tied to both the local and national parties. They conduct the registration drives, canvassing, and harvesting with a degree of separation from the party proper so that when an employee is caught being "inadequately supervised" it doesn't implicate the party.
While I assume that both parties engage in fraud to the extent they can get away with it, I would expect that Democrats benefit from it more simply due to the parties' positions on whether greater voter fraud protections are needed. I think it's unlikely but not impossible that the 2020 presidential election was within the margin of fraud.
Number one doesn't work anymore (at least in Pennsylvania) since maintaining voter rolls isn't the responsibility of the parties. In PA when someone dies the department of vital records notifies the county election board within 60 days so they can be removed from the rolls. Obviously people who recently died or died out of state can still slip through, but we aren't talking huge numbers of people. As for the fraudulent absentee registrations, I think that widespread mail-in voting actually makes it less likely for this kind of fraud to happen. Absentee balloting used to be rare enough that unscrupulous people could take advantage of the lack of familiarity with the system. If someone from your own party came to your door and told you about an easier way to vote that you weren't familiar with, it might seem okay that, yeah, just give the ballot to him, he'll mark all the Democrats for me. In the run up to the 2020 election there was a media blitz about how to properly fill out mail ballots. There were news stories on regularly, and I got tons of emails from both the party and the election commission with instructions on how to request and fill mine out, just in case I decided to vote by mail.
Registration fraud I'm not worried about because registration forms require enough verifiable information that it would be impossible to register enough fake applicants at scale to make it worthwhile. At the very least, you need to be able to match a name with a state ID# or Social and the kind of person willing to give that information to a stranger apropo of nothing probably isn't the kind of person you can rely on to provide accurate information.
More options
Context Copy link
That Jury Report lists the use of a computer to check whether deceased people voted or whether people voted twice as a novel investigative technique used by the FBI. They say the FBI targeted precincts where lots of people voted twice or where dead people voted and then checked the handwriting of precinct officials against the handwriting on ballots cast twice. Once that started they were able to get lots of people to flip and testify.
That's one way technology makes this all harder. Fraudulent absentee scheme and ballot harvesting are going to have some error rate where double ballots get cast and if a whole bunch of them are cast in one precinct then that suggests that a lot is going on. Just scrolling through Heritage.org's list of voter fraud convictions there's tons of people who got caught voting in two states or for their dead relatives. It's just a much harder crime to pull off in an era of digital voter rolls and databases of obituaries.
More options
Context Copy link
Before the 2020 election, the Republicans' campaign for tougher rules against voter fraud focussed on the rarest type of voter fraud - retail in-person voter fraud such as non-citizen immigrants registering and voting - and conspicuously ignored postal vote fraud. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Republicans expected to benefit from postal vote fraud - it is more likely that they were worried about military being tossed on technicalities as a result of harsh laws against postal vote fraud, in the same way that the Democrats are worried about Republican voter-ID laws which de facto require a driving license to vote disenfranchising poor urbanites.
If the Republicans thought that the Democrats routinely committed postal vote fraud of the type they are now complaining about, the True the Vote crowd would have spent more time talking about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I tried to find numbers for the magnitude of that shitshow, but this was the best I got.
Now the invalidation was technically for the initial election, not the runoff, but I think it's safe to expect similar turnout. That suggests in an election with circa 50,000 votes, the state was not only able to find various examples, but publicize and prosecute them. But in 2020, despite having 3,000x the number of ballots, such cases were vanishingly rare.
It's not at all impossible. Just improbable.
Yes, plus you'd expect the personnel involved and the potential for whistleblowers to increase dramatically. You'd also need to avoid producing statistical irregularities by overstuffing in certain places so you'd have to coordinate between different groups. The complexity is just much higher.
More options
Context Copy link
How many sting operations were conducted by the FBI? How many undercover agents acted as fake poll workers in Atlanta and Miami?
No idea. It sounds like the commission relied on overwhelming witness testimony.
Why do you ask?
If you are not actively searching from within the process, almost all fraud will be invisible to you. There is a reason the only time the Chicago machine was ever caught was due to a disgruntled fraudster outing them. Its because voting is inscrutable the way it is done in urban environments.
So why didn't that apply in the very urban, very visible Miami case?
It should be strictly harder to organize a national voter fraud campaign with no leaks even in the face of considerable public and private effort.
Not national, just a lot of local things like this: friendly outreach organizations signing homeless up for the rolls using the charity's own address. Is there a plausible good faith explanation for this? Sure! Is it a gaping opportunity for vote fraud? Also yes!
More options
Context Copy link
Why would it be national? It would just happen every year. The people who end up getting caught typically get snitched on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link