Are American elections free and fair?

[historia]

According to Pew, the percentage of Americans expressing confidence that our elections will be run well has dropped from four years ago (2018), especially among voters who support Republican candidates (-30%).

Question for debate: Are elections in the United States free and fair?

[Purple Knight]

So you would overturn the fundamental right to a secret ballot.

Yes. I don't think there's a point to it since we can already see who people donated to and discriminate based on that, so we need anti-discrimination measures anyway. However, if donation information was private, and we still had the benefit that privacy brings, honestly I might say no to that.

And again, how would that prevent fraudsters from faking the info available to the public? If Granny voted for Democrats but her vote was fraudulently switched, what would stop the fraudsters from just faking the info she sees?

Because if everybody can see who everybody else voted for, on tape, and the tallies, and it's all 100% transparent, Granny might not know, but a hundred thousand bitter Trump supporters combing the videos and tallies, will.

Whichever side loses will be bitter. They will comb the videos and tallies. Crowdsourcing millions of hours of observation that would cost billions? Yes please. The only thing you could argue is that cheating probably won't be caught if the side that lost ended up being the cheaters, but you don't seem to care as much if the result wouldn't be affected.

[Jose Fly]

So you would overturn the fundamental right to a secret ballot.

Yes. I don't think there's a point to it since we can already see who people donated to and discriminate based on that, so we need anti-discrimination measures anyway. However, if donation information was private, and we still had the benefit that privacy brings, honestly I might say no to that.

And again, how would that prevent fraudsters from faking the info available to the public? If Granny voted for Democrats but her vote was fraudulently switched, what would stop the fraudsters from just faking the info she sees?

Because if everybody can see who everybody else voted for, on tape, and the tallies, and it's all 100% transparent, Granny might not know, but a hundred thousand bitter Trump supporters combing the videos and tallies, will.

Whichever side loses will be bitter. They will comb the videos and tallies. Crowdsourcing millions of hours of observation that would cost billions? Yes please. The only thing you could argue is that cheating probably won't be caught if the side that lost ended up being the cheaters, but you don't seem to care as much if the result wouldn't be affected.

Really? You would have everyone cast their vote on video? How about putting all voters in stadiums, and then calling them forward one by one to vote in front of everyone else in the stadium?

[Purple Knight]

Really? You would have everyone cast their vote on video? How about putting all voters in stadiums, and then calling them forward one by one to vote in front of everyone else in the stadium?

If you're saying the loss of privacy is unreasonable, I agree. The problem is that privacy is already lost because we can already see who everyone donated to. So we might as well have the benefit of everyone in the country being able to check who everyone else voted for. Nobody could possibly claim fraud then. We're already paying for it. Money is more important than votes. Without money you'll get no votes.

[Jose Fly]

If you're saying the loss of privacy is unreasonable, I agree. The problem is that privacy is already lost because we can already see who everyone donated to.

Not always. It depends on who you donate to and how much you donate.

So we might as well have the benefit of everyone in the country being able to check who everyone else voted for.

So...."X is bad, therefore lets have more of X"?

Nobody could possibly claim fraud then.

As long as your goal is "nobody can claim fraud", nothing you do will be successful. I've already identified ways that your measures could still be subverted.

[Purple Knight]

If you're saying the loss of privacy is unreasonable, I agree. The problem is that privacy is already lost because we can already see who everyone donated to.

Not always. It depends on who you donate to and how much you donate.

$200 or more.

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201610 ... ign-money/

So we might as well have the benefit of everyone in the country being able to check who everyone else voted for.

So...."X is bad, therefore lets have more of X"?

Not even close. It's more like, if we don't have the privacy anyway, it's pointless to use privacy as an excuse not to just show who everyone voted for.

Nobody could possibly claim fraud then.

As long as your goal is "nobody can claim fraud", nothing you do will be successful. I've already identified ways that your measures could still be subverted.

You haven't. You've just said you have. If you record all of it, make it all public, nobody's getting away with anything.

[Jose Fly]

$200 or more.

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201610 ... ign-money/

There's a bit more to it than that. For example, it varies by state and again, who you donate to. Ever hear of "dark money"?

So we might as well have the benefit of everyone in the country being able to check who everyone else voted for.

So...."X is bad, therefore lets have more of X"?

Not even close. It's more like, if we don't have the privacy anyway, it's pointless to use privacy as an excuse not to just show who everyone voted for.

Um....that's exactly the same thing. You just agreed that loss of privacy in elections is undesirable. Yet despite that, you're also saying that since there's not much privacy in campaign donations, we might as well do away with privacy in voting.

You haven't. You've just said you have. If you record all of it, make it all public, nobody's getting away with anything.

Are you saying videos can't be faked? That no one has ever faked any video, ever? I raised that specific point in post #78 and you didn't refute it.

[Purple Knight]

$200 or more.

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201610 ... ign-money/

There's a bit more to it than that. For example, it varies by state and again, who you donate to. Ever hear of "dark money"?

Dark money is not going to help Granny Weatherall hide her donation to Trump because she doesn't know how to circumvent the system. I hope we care more about Granny than we do about some multibillion-dollar company.

Um....that's exactly the same thing. You just agreed that loss of privacy in elections is undesirable. Yet despite that, you're also saying that since there's not much privacy in campaign donations, we might as well do away with privacy in voting.

It's not the same thing as saying X is bad, therefore more of X. The maximum detriment of lack of privacy is discrimination. There is already opportunity for discrimination. There is no reason to expect there would be more discrimination if we just make it public who everyone voted for. If we add anti-discrimination law we can reduce the opportunity for discrimination AND have the benefit of a 100% public tally.

Are you saying videos can't be faked? That no one has ever faked any video, ever? I raised that specific point in post #78 and you didn't refute it.

I'm saying I don't think livestreams can be faked, which people will watch and record. Crowdsourcing rules. I'm also saying you don't need the videos if you just make every vote public. They will not dare say Granny voted for Biden when she will look and see that she didn't. All she can see now is that her ballot was counted.

[Jose Fly]

$200 or more.

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201610 ... ign-money/

There's a bit more to it than that. For example, it varies by state and again, who you donate to. Ever hear of "dark money"?

Dark money is not going to help Granny Weatherall hide her donation to Trump because she doesn't know how to circumvent the system. I hope we care more about Granny than we do about some multibillion-dollar company.

Um....that's exactly the same thing. You just agreed that loss of privacy in elections is undesirable. Yet despite that, you're also saying that since there's not much privacy in campaign donations, we might as well do away with privacy in voting.

It's not the same thing as saying X is bad, therefore more of X. The maximum detriment of lack of privacy is discrimination. There is already opportunity for discrimination. There is no reason to expect there would be more discrimination if we just make it public who everyone voted for. If we add anti-discrimination law we can reduce the opportunity for discrimination AND have the benefit of a 100% public tally.

Are you saying videos can't be faked? That no one has ever faked any video, ever? I raised that specific point in post #78 and you didn't refute it.

I'm saying I don't think livestreams can be faked, which people will watch and record. Crowdsourcing rules. I'm also saying you don't need the videos if you just make every vote public. They will not dare say Granny voted for Biden when she will look and see that she didn't. All she can see now is that her ballot was counted.

At this point I'm content to say we'll just have to disagree. Thanks for your time.

[AgnosticBoy]

Until some of the mail-in voters check the status of their ballot via their county or state website -- as many do -- and then the scheme would be exposed.

[emphasis added]
Addressing the part in bold font. I'd like to think that many do, but without evidence we can only speculate. If anything, I think that the voters who are in the poor population may not bother to check on the status of their ballot. This would be the prime group to take advantage of.

The fact that in this thread all anyone can point to are completely imaginary, made-up, elaborate schemes that are already illegal is a very good indication that our voting systems work extremely well.

If there were any actual real problems, y'all would've pointed them out a while ago.

I'll take you up on that challenge.
Reported by news station KSBW:

The United States Postal Service and the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters are investigating after a woman reported finding a bag stuffed with valid and completed Santa Clara County ballots in a ravine in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

The ballots reportedly ended up in a torn bag off Sugarloaf Road near Highway 17.

An update report from KSBW:

Postal inspectors in Washington, D.C. have now joined the investigation into completed ballots reportedly found down a ravine in the Santa Cruz mountains.

Several voters said they mailed those ballots using the drive-thru mailbox at the aforementioned location because the post office lobby is closed on weekends. Now, that mail box is out of service.

According to some of the people whose ballots were recovered, their ballots were delivered at the post office on Payne Avenue in west San Jose - which is now a starting point for the investigation.

So not only do we have some rogue mailman throwing away voting ballots, but we can also see that election officials did not discover it themselves. A private citizen reported it. Furthermore, the fact that the voters of those trashed ballots did not report their ballots missing undermines historia's point to some degree regarding "many" voters checking the status of their ballot/vote.

I would say PurpleKnight has good foresight.

[Jose Fly]

Until some of the mail-in voters check the status of their ballot via their county or state website -- as many do -- and then the scheme would be exposed.

[emphasis added]
Addressing the part in bold font. I'd like to think that many do, but without evidence we can only speculate. If anything, I think that the voters who are in the poor population may not bother to check on the status of their ballot. This would be the prime group to take advantage of.

The fact that in this thread all anyone can point to are completely imaginary, made-up, elaborate schemes that are already illegal is a very good indication that our voting systems work extremely well.

If there were any actual real problems, y'all would've pointed them out a while ago.

I'll take you up on that challenge.
Reported by news station KSBW:

The United States Postal Service and the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters are investigating after a woman reported finding a bag stuffed with valid and completed Santa Clara County ballots in a ravine in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

The ballots reportedly ended up in a torn bag off Sugarloaf Road near Highway 17.

An update report from KSBW:

Postal inspectors in Washington, D.C. have now joined the investigation into completed ballots reportedly found down a ravine in the Santa Cruz mountains.

Several voters said they mailed those ballots using the drive-thru mailbox at the aforementioned location because the post office lobby is closed on weekends. Now, that mail box is out of service.

According to some of the people whose ballots were recovered, their ballots were delivered at the post office on Payne Avenue in west San Jose - which is now a starting point for the investigation.

So not only do we have some rogue mailman throwing away voting ballots, but we can also see that election officials did not discover it themselves. A private citizen reported it. Furthermore, the fact that the voters of those trashed ballots did not report their ballots missing undermines historia's point to some degree regarding "many" voters checking the status of their ballot/vote.

I would say PurpleKnight has good foresight.

To repeat, we don't hold elections to a standard of perfection, and we have to make sure our responses are proportional. Here we potentially have a mail carrier who threw away ballots. If that turns out to be the case, we can't overreact, as I illustrated with the example of catching a speeder in a school zone leading to armed checkpoints in front of every school.

If the person is caught, they will likely be facing decades in federal prison. I'll be curious to see if during sentencing the person still feels it was worth it.