MLs would also need tell the difference between disinformation and real information. This is incredibly hard to do, since disinformation looks like real information unless your understanding of the world is broad and specific. And then eventually you end up with the same problem as humans, which is that if the world context leaves out trustworthy information needed to discriminate real information from faulty information, then the ML will also fall prey to the hack. And of course, for truly nefarious misinformation, it is just consistent enough with trustworthy information to appear trustworthy.
Absolutely.
There is all sorts of methods that can be employed. Facts can be obfuscated, I suppose a natural language model might be able to detect if this is unusual for that source but it doesn’t mean fake news. Another is simply lying with statistics, this would be much harder for NLP as now your talking getting the model to understand statistically information, understanding the background and why certain ways of presenting stats might be disingenuous for that subject.
You are also just relying on a model that only its owner could verify.
Ultimately though, this is fighting a losing battle because the source of the issue isn’t in propaganda which has long existed but in the channels through which it spreads. Something that has been known for a long time is flaming passions is more effective than fact. So too for social media is the spread of information faster when false[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fake-news-spreads-...]. Which makes it difficult to counteract if the false information spreads faster than the rebuttal.
What's the next legal step if they do "find" discrepancies? A court challenge? I imagine no fool judge would accept a priavely-funded politically-backed organization's conclusions over that of the legal audit precedent.
I'm having trouble seeing a route that doesn't involve asking people to ignore the law and put someone unelected into power.
This is actually a good counterpoint. I would expect a good court battle then. But the legal precedent allows third parties, observers, etc, in a regular recount.
It won't get that far. At this point, the court does not have the power to change the election outcome of that county. That will lead to immediate dismissal of the case as moot.
If, for example, out of blue they declare there is a water pipe burst and rush everyone out, yet a few people remain and bring in fake/doctored ballots, that should prove that votes weren't being counted properly.
>If, for example, out of blue they declare there is a water pipe burst and rush everyone out, yet a few people remain and bring in fake/doctored ballots, that should prove that votes weren't being counted properly.
Ah yes, one of the numerous and thoroughly debunked Trump camp conspiracy theories about the election. Are you going to bring up missing suitcases full of ballots or sharpies as well?
If you actually look at the evidence, you will realise it is not debunked. If youtube hasn't pulled the video, they go through the evidence in a hearing in front of the Georgia State Legislature.
Many of them originally doubt the evidence, believing it to be den=bunked as reported in the media. After seeing the evidence, they are appalled at the deceit of the election officials.
The power structures that be wish to ignore it, but like like Galileo being confident in his findings against a biased establishment Catholic Church, the truth will come out.
If "YouTube hasn't pulled the video", I should imagine you'll have no problem finding and linking the purportedly groundbreaking evidence you're claiming exists. Otherwise, Occams razor slices your argument to ribbons.
Well youtube's algorithm made these hard to find, maybe youtube only promote videos turfed by BigTech bots
Long videos, but as you can see has been watched by many. Bit describing the "pipe burst" starts at 13:50 of the 2nd link. But there is so much more evidence here than just that once instance.
It's entirely uncharted territory. There is absolutely no precedent for this. People can cite elections being invalidated for lower positions, but nothing on the level of the Presidency. A do-over for something like state senate seat is no big deal, but a new presidential election is unthinkable and probably unconstitutional as well.
Can you imagine the absolute chaos that would result if the audit was able to find enough evidence that would change the outcome? If I were a judge having to make a decision with such implications I would fear for my life. I would fear for the rule-of-law and being seen as a 21st century Roger Taney. My name would probably be listed in the Wikipedia article under "Causes of the Second American Civil War".
So here's what I predict will happen. The audit will find fraud (that's what it was designed to do here). But the amount and impact will be debatable enough such that the results are not overturned. Media outlets are not interested in making this Watergate 2.0 and they most certainly do not want Donald J. Trump back in office. They certainly do not want to give energy to conducting an audit in Georgia and giving any credibility to the Arizona audit would facilitate that. In 40 or 50 years maybe we will find the truth.
They are not looking to overturn presidential results. Or even local results. All this "middle talk" is just optics. It makes for good coverage.
If this was a legal case they would be doing it differently. It's not. They are using their opposition's tactics for generating support that will extend into future elections.
If they find something wrong, then they know what to fix. If not, they pivot.
The outrage over how the audit is being conducting is expected. They want this to be covered by outlets such as NPR.
There is no legal path that leads from this audit to a change in the election results; the election is over, the results are certified, the electors have voted, etc.
The goal of this audit is to find evidence that will bolster the claims that there was significant election fraud. That evidence could be used to push for changes to future elections, for campaigning purposes, whatever.
Whether this is a good-faith effort to identify actual potential fraud or an attempt to manufacture FUD about the elections process is left as an exercise for the reader.
The real disinformation secret recipe is to start with people wanting to believe something. A disinformation campaign can not be construed to sew just any arbitrary belief. Its time to recognize that no one is being tricked by disinformation. It is like willful ignorance but not quite ignorance. Willful wrongness.
>typically claiming belief in more falsehoods than liberals
I haven't read the whole thing, but here's the major issue which any such study would need to control for (but likely hasn't). Is it proper belief (as in belief as anticipation control) or is it belief as attire?
And that's where propaganda/advertising come in. It's not just red vs. blue politics, there's brainwashing in effect in the consumer market and about economics/taxation/education as well.
Spend years saying something is true, and when you can will it into power using a power grab, you actualize a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Disinformation campaigns aren't lone wolves - they're part of a wolf pack that's been harrying their prey for a LONG time.
To be fair, a good argument only needs to appeal to two sides of the rhetorical triangle. Logos and Ethos are two perfectly viable platforms to make a statement on.
Even formal mathematical proofs "appeal to authority" when they invoke theorems without re-deriving them every time. It's a shorthand reference to knowledge that time and energy has already been spent discovering. The parallel for this in society, where the present cumulative scope of knowledge is completely impossible for a single person to independently discover on their own, is called expertise. When you are denigrating experts, you are denigrating acquired, shared knowledge.
Pure reason has limits, but one of the neat things about rational argumentation is that it can be applied to itself to discover what alot of its own limits are.
No, because with mathematical proof you can realistically go through the derivations to approve/refute them. It is a short hand referencing something which can be disproven, therefore not an appeal to authority.
Using "experts" here IS an appeal to authority. Bias is at play here in a way that it is not in mathematical proofs. "Experts" is used here to provide cognitive ease to the reader, as a way of encouraging them not to examine deeper.
I'm not sure where you check into this but the whole things I a clown show. I'm walking distance to the site, even outside the venue it is weird stuff.
This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this.
This is amazing gaslighting by the media.
This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back.
"Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While the term has been used in a non-hostile way, it has grown in its negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators and Third party politicians"
Indeed, I'm flagged all the time for pretty much anything. It's been non-stop since October 2020. I've discussed this with Dang, because it's often topics that are more mundane.
I wish a discussion could actually happen, because down voting based on emotion is actually hiding facts from people.
Yes, there's a possible conflict of interest -- if true.
There are 2 other counters, unless the whole table decided to cheat the same way every time, it wouldn't matter. It's also recorded on camera as well, and being checked by software (in a following planned audit).
I opened the live and the only reasonable thing I can say is that there are people in the stadium?
How can it be considered as a proof that these people are not faking it?
The democratic party sued to ensure there were no videos closer, primarily for identification purposes. That this shows is the chain of custody. You can ensure the ballots aren't moved, modified or stolen. This dispels conspiracy theories on the right, they're trying to show their base the audit is legit.
There are many additional cameras (one at each table, one recording the ballot, etc) which are not public. Those can be viewed by the court.
"Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While the term has been used in a non-hostile way, it has grown in its negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators and Third party politicians"
See what you said, typing to fast; appreciate it. Added in the "ic". My bad there, based on other discussion I hope it's clear I typed "democratic" not "democrat".
I also disagree with your claim about this being a ‘well controlled and good audit’. These are the same people that were searching for bamboo and using a black light for watermarks that do not exists and never have.
> that were searching for bamboo and using a black light for watermarks that do not exists and never have.
Yes, their constituents wanted them to check this. It was a conspiracy theory and the goal is to dispel conspiracy theories... So they are.
The electorate should be able to inspect their ballots no?
The prior audits were checking software on the machines. Not looking at the ballots. This audit is looking at the ballots and supposedly will check the validity of voter(s) via re-canvassing.
Please, review the link I provided regarding the findings; the senate and auditors explain this.
It might be worth going into lettergram's bio and taking note of the companies they've started if you're a discerning individual who doesn't want to be employed by a psychopath.
This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this.
This is amazing gaslighting by the media.
This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back.
I reviewed his post history before posting a rebuttal, figured it would be worthless as he is railing against Marxism in preschool. Poster is heavily partisan.
They won't. They just keep saying "democrat party" over and over as a signal to others with their bias.
Fun fact: As a counterpoint, the Democratic Party debated adopting a similar derisive nomenclature for the Republicans. They decided against it because "Republican is the name by which our opponents' product is known and mistrusted".
This whole Democrat/Democratic Party thing seems really frivolous to me. The idea that dropping the "ic" is some kind of slur seems very petty.
I suspect the main reason why people end up using "Democrat Party" is because party members are referred to as "Democrats" and it's a natural extension to drop the 's' and and Party.
And to go even further, why is this point being harped on? Is it because claiming the mantle of the "Democratic" inherently makes the other side seem Anti-Democratic? The United States is a Democratic-Republic and those chosen names of our two parties just seems farcical.
"democrat party" is literally a documented epithet used derisively by conservatives. It's like referring to Repuiblicans as Publicans (something the DNC debated in response to 'democrat party') or Republicants, a later proposal. There's an entire wikipedia page on it detailing its increased usage over the past few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
I went through the page and I just don't see why this is a big deal.
Now I can certainly understand something like calling the other side the "Know Nothings" when their actual name is the "Native American Party". But all I see here is getting the grammar slightly wrong. Especially because the term 'Democrat(s)' is acceptable when talking about party membership.
The "Publican" hypothetical is just that, because no one actually uses that term. But you're welcome to. I likewise do not consider calling the Republican Party the GOP to be a derisive epithet. Or an individual to be a GOP'er. Again, there is no real life direct parallel that works in this situation.
I did? This guy spammed all over my posts saying “Democratic Party” is in some way insulting. It was literally a party in the lawsuit I was discussing.
You can obviously see the difference between "democrat party", a derisive epithet used by conservatives and "Democratic Party". You even used it correctly in this post, albeit in quotes.
I take offense to be honest. I'm attempting accurately depicting what I am seeing. I'm more than willing to hear alternative views. It's important to have our views challenged.
I'm interested in the truth, regarding my recent prior post(s) I explained what I saw at my families school(s).
Regarding this, I've been following this closely and provided links to the senate (to let the senate speak for itself, as opposed to the NPR article).
For reference, I didn't vote for Trump. I didn't and don't agree with his methods or viewpoints. BUT I can also recognize the argument(s) they are making and treat their views and concerns with respect. In my assessment after hundreds of hours of research, is that this audit is being done fairly well. I provided evidence to that regard and attempted to provide links to source documents (unlike NPR).
I typically retweet so I have a record. Not necessarily stuff I agree with FYI.
I only believe what is provable in documentation.
I also never stoop down to insulting people when I don’t have an argument. We all deserve mutual respect and should discuss opinions not character flaws or personality traits.
You may think me the fool, but I’ll still engage with your arguments. Would you do the same? Spend an hour and watch the AZ senate hearing. If you disagree, explain why. I don’t see that occurring, but that’s what is required to have a civil discussion.
Does anyoone find it interesting that the expert (Matt Masterson) is a Democrat appointed by the Obama Administration?
Maybe we should get a an International organization to certify the results so we don't have either political party involved in the outcome.
Here is another problem, NPR is the source. I think it's safe to say they will always draw on experts that support their narrative (and that's ok). If I posted a FOX News report with a Republican Expert, would that be ok?
There is nothing wrong with making sure the results were accurate and correct (in a unbiased way), just like there is nothing wrong with requiring an ID that is recognized by the Government to be able to cast a vote in this country.
This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this.
This is amazing gaslighting by the media.
This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back.
Unless of course said ID is expensive for the poor and they can't afford it (hint: it is). Or you purposely close offices/DMVs in black districts to make it harder to obtain that ID (hint: Republicans do).
Side note: If you're comparing NPR to Fox News in terms of trustworthiness, your bias is showing.
It is imperative (and almost universally common) that citizens show solid proof of eligibility to vote. Making excuses for why this should not be so in US elections is absolutely ridiculous. And to take it farther and impute nefarious motives to those you don't agree with is about as biased an action as can possibly exist.
If you can't afford an ID in the USA (which is already subsidized for poor people), then there is something very wrong. I still don't want anyone voting that can't prove their identity. And I think we can already guess your bias.
Never had 66 million votes that were barely vetted.
So if you're pro No-ID for voting, are you pro No-ID for driving or employment? Maybe we should just get rid of the option for people to be identified. I'm sure it work out well for society.
Your statement boils down to not wanting older black people to vote. Many black Americans were born at home in the South because they weren't allowed to use the hospitals and their counties refused to record the births and issue certificates. This was as recently as 50 years ago.
No, because the quoted expert continued to serve with integrity during the Trump administration. He appeared to transition from one non-partisan government agency (US Election Assistance Commission) to another (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in DHS).
The polls were off by miles, but in the other direction from the alleged fraud; Democratic candidates received fewer votes and Republican candidates more than would have been predicted by polls.
There have, however, been very few claims of fraud benefiting Republican candidates, because this is mostly explained by high turnout by Republican voters due to strong personal support for Trump in a segment of the party that historically has low turnout. This is illustrated by improved performance by Democrats in runoff elections where Trump was no longer on the ballot.
I find the article itself to be a masterclass in propoganda. As someone that follows this loosely, the article makes some good points, but totally skips over everything of importance from the perspective of half the country.
The real genesis of these audits, which could fairly be called witch hunts, is the purposeful weakening of security practices in election law.
Democrats went first and changed all kinds of laws, legally and not so legally. They purposefully made fraud easier, knowing that no one would be able to look into fraud without probable cause. That means anyone could grab a neighbor's ballot, fill it out, and mail it in. Or troll datasets to find eligible voters and then register and vote for them. Did this happen? No one knows yet. Democrats batted first, and claimed victory with a myriad of shady election laws and procedure changes. Nothing Trump supporters could do. It certainly seems fair to me that Trump supporters get their at bat, and these audits are exactly that.
We are at an interesting crossroads where weakened election security meets heightened scrutiny.
The interesting thing is that no one actually knows the baseline fraud rate.
Almost certainly in this polarized time where everyone and every institution was out to get Trump, the fraud rate is higher.
I think the real fear here is that cheating did take place, and Republicans have a pretty good idea where to find it. If they find it, even a 0.25% fraud rate would taint all the other elections, unfairly so because they picked the worse hotspots to investigate.
The real devil is in the details, and neither side will tell you the truth.
For example, there are probably enough "illegal" votes out there to throw the results of the election in doubt, but no judge would ever overturn the results. What am I talking about? Take Georgia and Stacy Abrams get out the vote campaign. They "Illegally" encouraged teens under the age of 17.5 to register to vote. Thousands registered before they were eligible to register. The problem is they would have been 18 when the election happened anyway, so the illegal registration is kind of moot.
And yet it's a perfect illustration of the disregard for laws and rules on the Left, and the Right then using those transgressions to push the narrative that there are tens of thousands of illegal votes. Technically true, but those voters had the right to vote, and their intent was clear. No judge is going to throw those votes out.
Another example is the "indefinitely confined" issue in Wisconsin (?). Same deal. 100,000+ people LIED. For convenience, or for whatever other reason. But they were eligible to vote, and made their intent clear even if they registered or voted Illegally.
In these instances and more, lawmakers and decision makers, legally and illegally injected the potential for massive abuses into the election system.
They did so because they were given the message right from the top, "Every vote counts".
Whether massive fraud took place is unknown as of now. The previous audits weren't looking for that. They had their hands tied and were only looking to make sure the system operated as it should. They weren't looking into the weaknesses of the system. They weren't allowed too.
And we haven't even touched on the Center for Civic Life and the one sided effort they did.
I believe the statistical anomalys seen in urban areas of the 5 states are not proof positive of fraud, but proof positive of a job well done by Mark Zuckerberg.
These audits are Trumps revenge, and everyone deserves to know the truth of what happened. To not use illegal rule changes and irregularities as probable cause to perform mass forensic audits would be a disservice to the nation. This opportunity to legally investigate and come up with an answer to "how much fraud is there" may never come around again, certainly not for a generation or two.
Hey ipspam, I think that you should probably question the sources that you're using. I chose to look into one allegation you made:
> They "Illegally" encouraged teens under the age of 17.5 to register to vote. Thousands registered before they were eligible to register. The problem is they would have been 18 when the election happened anyway, so the illegal registration is kind of moot.
But the very first search result for "voter registration age georgia" was the Georgia Secretary of State's voter registration guidelines, which states:
> To register to vote you must:
> ...
> Be at least 17 1/2 years of age to register and 18 years of age to vote
Casting aspersions on a legal voter registration campaign as illegal, despite being so easily proven as lawful, strongly suggests to me that you've been targeted by disinformation which you've accepted as fact.
I found these potential pieces of disinformation in your comment:
* Hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes in Wisconsin
* Absentee/mail voter fraud in general
* That there are enough fraudulent votes to throw the Arizona election result into doubt
* That the "left" has a disregard for laws and rules
* That it's unknown whether "massive fraud" took place
* A conspiracy theory involving the "Center for Civic Life"
* Statistical anomalies in multiple states suggesting fraud
-Let's start with the 17.5 age. Thanks for pulling the data up. As I stated, Teens UNDER the age of 17.5 were registered to vote en masse. These are technically illegal registrations and therefore votes, but as I said, no judge is going to throw them out. This is blatant disregard for the rules by the left, giving the right reason to drum up conspiracy theories by being misleading and not explaining that the voters were 18 when they voted.
-Hundreds of thousands of "fraudulent" votes in Wisconsin. These aren't fraudulent, they are improperly cast, and have the potential to provide cover for fraud. Again, the left cheats, the right takes advantage of the left's cheating and brainwashes people that it's fraud.
-absentee voter fraud: unknown amount, but easily accomplished with the voting rule changes if any bad actor desired to do so.
Arizona: words matter. There is a difference between illegally cast and fraudulently cast. I don't think I said what you implied. But I don't have it in front of me.
-the left has a disregard for laws: yes, they do, just look at this election. They said the quiet part out loud, count all votes, laws, regulations and procedures be damned. We can look at this from the perspective of accepting votes after election day or even just accepting that if someone is eligible to vote, they can vote and the rules around voting don't apply, the vote will be counted.
-it IS unknown if massive fraud took place. No one has looked before now, they weren't legally allowed because all investigations must have a predicate.
Center for Civic Life: not a conspiracy. They gave massive amounts of money, targeted to areas where they could find the most votes, and all areas were majority Democrat voting. They attached strings to the money that required cities and counties to follow rules that were contrary to state and local laws, including equal access laws. They sent special envoys who were given privileged access to voters data and paid people to correct and cure ballots in only areas that vote heavily Democrat. Mostly grey area lawwise but certainly not ethical.
-Statistical anomalys DO Indicate fraud. Like ultra high turnout. But there is another explaination. Zuckerbergs nonprofit was given privileged access and used government data to run the most successful voter turnout campaign in history.
In the end, yes, it was a conspiracy against Trump. But it was mostly legal, and grey area. The forensic audits are to see if the left overplayed their hand and allowed real straight cut fraud. I don't think it's particularly likely, but I've also seen what has been done to Trump. So I do think it's entirely possible, and no one knows yet. We are only 6 months out from the election. Nothing happens that fast.
I believe you're spreading misinformation that has no place on Hacker News - or anywhere else to be honest. It's wildly accusatory and as you say, you are suggesting a vast "conspiracy against Trump" which involved unprecedented amounts of fraud, "improper" voting, and so on.
Imagine spending 4 years calling Donald Trump an illegitimate president then having a cry when they want to validate votes.
You want Trump Republicans to calm down? Prove Joe won, let them look at the ballots. Elections should be open and transparent, and trying to stonewall something like this that has no real next step beyond reform to stop any fraud in the future just undermines the confidence you could be building
104 comments
[ 6.2 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] threadhttps://text.npr.org/1000954549
This is no easy slice.
Ultimately though, this is fighting a losing battle because the source of the issue isn’t in propaganda which has long existed but in the channels through which it spreads. Something that has been known for a long time is flaming passions is more effective than fact. So too for social media is the spread of information faster when false[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fake-news-spreads-...]. Which makes it difficult to counteract if the false information spreads faster than the rebuttal.
I'm having trouble seeing a route that doesn't involve asking people to ignore the law and put someone unelected into power.
[1] regardless of one's other beliefs about access journalism, which if you are replying to this because I cited Haberman, I likely agree with.
It won't get that far. At this point, the court does not have the power to change the election outcome of that county. That will lead to immediate dismissal of the case as moot.
https://azaudit.org/
^ You can listen to their findings and explanations. They dont' expect anything besides improving elections for the future; this is per the AZ senate.
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-throws-out-tru...
Ah yes, one of the numerous and thoroughly debunked Trump camp conspiracy theories about the election. Are you going to bring up missing suitcases full of ballots or sharpies as well?
Now at least we know which side you're on.
If you actually look at the evidence, you will realise it is not debunked. If youtube hasn't pulled the video, they go through the evidence in a hearing in front of the Georgia State Legislature.
Many of them originally doubt the evidence, believing it to be den=bunked as reported in the media. After seeing the evidence, they are appalled at the deceit of the election officials.
The power structures that be wish to ignore it, but like like Galileo being confident in his findings against a biased establishment Catholic Church, the truth will come out.
Long videos, but as you can see has been watched by many. Bit describing the "pipe burst" starts at 13:50 of the 2nd link. But there is so much more evidence here than just that once instance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjbAFuoQOvo&t=9842s&ab_chann...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e35f4pUIYOg&ab_channel=Right...
Can you imagine the absolute chaos that would result if the audit was able to find enough evidence that would change the outcome? If I were a judge having to make a decision with such implications I would fear for my life. I would fear for the rule-of-law and being seen as a 21st century Roger Taney. My name would probably be listed in the Wikipedia article under "Causes of the Second American Civil War".
So here's what I predict will happen. The audit will find fraud (that's what it was designed to do here). But the amount and impact will be debatable enough such that the results are not overturned. Media outlets are not interested in making this Watergate 2.0 and they most certainly do not want Donald J. Trump back in office. They certainly do not want to give energy to conducting an audit in Georgia and giving any credibility to the Arizona audit would facilitate that. In 40 or 50 years maybe we will find the truth.
If this was a legal case they would be doing it differently. It's not. They are using their opposition's tactics for generating support that will extend into future elections.
If they find something wrong, then they know what to fix. If not, they pivot.
The outrage over how the audit is being conducting is expected. They want this to be covered by outlets such as NPR.
The goal of this audit is to find evidence that will bolster the claims that there was significant election fraud. That evidence could be used to push for changes to future elections, for campaigning purposes, whatever.
Whether this is a good-faith effort to identify actual potential fraud or an attempt to manufacture FUD about the elections process is left as an exercise for the reader.
I haven't read the whole thing, but here's the major issue which any such study would need to control for (but likely hasn't). Is it proper belief (as in belief as anticipation control) or is it belief as attire?
[1]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nYkMLFpx77Rz3uo9c/belief-as-...
Spend years saying something is true, and when you can will it into power using a power grab, you actualize a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Disinformation campaigns aren't lone wolves - they're part of a wolf pack that's been harrying their prey for a LONG time.
Pure reason has limits, but one of the neat things about rational argumentation is that it can be applied to itself to discover what alot of its own limits are.
Using "experts" here IS an appeal to authority. Bias is at play here in a way that it is not in mathematical proofs. "Experts" is used here to provide cognitive ease to the reader, as a way of encouraging them not to examine deeper.
What's the problem with another audit? Given the transparency, they aren't going to fake anything.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/post-election-audits-ar...
Please do your own research -- not listen to partisan talking points.
Here's a public discussion around some of the findings, the Arizona Senate is very clear about what is going on and seems extremely reasonable:
https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90...
This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this.
This is amazing gaslighting by the media.
This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back.
You can view the audit live on some of the cameras: https://azaudit.org/
I imagine there is bot activity going on here too, as there is with reddit.
"Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While the term has been used in a non-hostile way, it has grown in its negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators and Third party politicians"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
This has no place on HN
I wish a discussion could actually happen, because down voting based on emotion is actually hiding facts from people.
There are 2 other counters, unless the whole table decided to cheat the same way every time, it wouldn't matter. It's also recorded on camera as well, and being checked by software (in a following planned audit).
There are many additional cameras (one at each table, one recording the ballot, etc) which are not public. Those can be viewed by the court.
EDIT: missed ic
"Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While the term has been used in a non-hostile way, it has grown in its negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators and Third party politicians"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
This has no place on HN
I'm correct it's the "Arizona Democratic Party" - https://azdem.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Democratic_Party
Dismissing actual evidence or views because they aren't using the "correct language" is not useful.
You understand what I mean, that's the important aspects of discussion.
Maybe you need to read that a little slower. You were clearly not correct.
Response: ‘Democrat Party’ is a slur used by political opponents of the part, it actually the ‘Democratic Party’.
You: I'm accurately describing what happened.
Response: You’re using the ‘democrat party’ slur used by opponents of the party, not the actual name.
You: ...this is pedantic and you're incorrect. I'm correct it's the "Arizona Democratic Party"
Say what now?
I also disagree with your claim about this being a ‘well controlled and good audit’. These are the same people that were searching for bamboo and using a black light for watermarks that do not exists and never have.
Yes, their constituents wanted them to check this. It was a conspiracy theory and the goal is to dispel conspiracy theories... So they are.
The electorate should be able to inspect their ballots no?
The prior audits were checking software on the machines. Not looking at the ballots. This audit is looking at the ballots and supposedly will check the validity of voter(s) via re-canvassing.
Please, review the link I provided regarding the findings; the senate and auditors explain this.
I live in the district that incumbent Anthony Kern ran in and lost, he has been photographed processing ballots at this "audit".
The person who ran the election in the county they are "auditing", Adrian Fontes, lost his seat in the same supposedly manipulated election.
I personally know so many people who believe the election was stolen.
I have never been so fearful for the future of my country.
Please do your own research -- not listen to partisan talking points.
Here's a public discussion around some of the findings, the Arizona Senate is very clear about what is going on and seems extremely reasonable:
https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90...
This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this.
This is amazing gaslighting by the media.
This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back.
You can view the audit live on some of the cameras: https://azaudit.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Democratic_Party
Fun fact: As a counterpoint, the Democratic Party debated adopting a similar derisive nomenclature for the Republicans. They decided against it because "Republican is the name by which our opponents' product is known and mistrusted".
I suspect the main reason why people end up using "Democrat Party" is because party members are referred to as "Democrats" and it's a natural extension to drop the 's' and and Party.
And to go even further, why is this point being harped on? Is it because claiming the mantle of the "Democratic" inherently makes the other side seem Anti-Democratic? The United States is a Democratic-Republic and those chosen names of our two parties just seems farcical.
Now I can certainly understand something like calling the other side the "Know Nothings" when their actual name is the "Native American Party". But all I see here is getting the grammar slightly wrong. Especially because the term 'Democrat(s)' is acceptable when talking about party membership.
The "Publican" hypothetical is just that, because no one actually uses that term. But you're welcome to. I likewise do not consider calling the Republican Party the GOP to be a derisive epithet. Or an individual to be a GOP'er. Again, there is no real life direct parallel that works in this situation.
I take offense to be honest. I'm attempting accurately depicting what I am seeing. I'm more than willing to hear alternative views. It's important to have our views challenged.
I'm interested in the truth, regarding my recent prior post(s) I explained what I saw at my families school(s).
Regarding this, I've been following this closely and provided links to the senate (to let the senate speak for itself, as opposed to the NPR article).
For reference, I didn't vote for Trump. I didn't and don't agree with his methods or viewpoints. BUT I can also recognize the argument(s) they are making and treat their views and concerns with respect. In my assessment after hundreds of hours of research, is that this audit is being done fairly well. I provided evidence to that regard and attempted to provide links to source documents (unlike NPR).
I'm just providing documentation in the opposing view. Particularly, documentation the NPR author decided to omit.
HN has a rule of going to the source material, which I provided. The NPR article is partisan take on the issue.
You're not a bot, you're just a fool.
I only believe what is provable in documentation.
I also never stoop down to insulting people when I don’t have an argument. We all deserve mutual respect and should discuss opinions not character flaws or personality traits.
You may think me the fool, but I’ll still engage with your arguments. Would you do the same? Spend an hour and watch the AZ senate hearing. If you disagree, explain why. I don’t see that occurring, but that’s what is required to have a civil discussion.
dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh!
Maybe we should get a an International organization to certify the results so we don't have either political party involved in the outcome.
Here is another problem, NPR is the source. I think it's safe to say they will always draw on experts that support their narrative (and that's ok). If I posted a FOX News report with a Republican Expert, would that be ok?
There is nothing wrong with making sure the results were accurate and correct (in a unbiased way), just like there is nothing wrong with requiring an ID that is recognized by the Government to be able to cast a vote in this country.
Please do your own research -- not listen to partisan talking points.
Here's a public discussion around some of the findings, the Arizona Senate is very clear about what is going on and seems extremely reasonable:
https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90...
This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this.
This is amazing gaslighting by the media.
This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back.
You can view the audit live on some of the cameras: https://azaudit.org/
Side note: If you're comparing NPR to Fox News in terms of trustworthiness, your bias is showing.
So if you're pro No-ID for voting, are you pro No-ID for driving or employment? Maybe we should just get rid of the option for people to be identified. I'm sure it work out well for society.
There have, however, been very few claims of fraud benefiting Republican candidates, because this is mostly explained by high turnout by Republican voters due to strong personal support for Trump in a segment of the party that historically has low turnout. This is illustrated by improved performance by Democrats in runoff elections where Trump was no longer on the ballot.
The real genesis of these audits, which could fairly be called witch hunts, is the purposeful weakening of security practices in election law.
Democrats went first and changed all kinds of laws, legally and not so legally. They purposefully made fraud easier, knowing that no one would be able to look into fraud without probable cause. That means anyone could grab a neighbor's ballot, fill it out, and mail it in. Or troll datasets to find eligible voters and then register and vote for them. Did this happen? No one knows yet. Democrats batted first, and claimed victory with a myriad of shady election laws and procedure changes. Nothing Trump supporters could do. It certainly seems fair to me that Trump supporters get their at bat, and these audits are exactly that.
We are at an interesting crossroads where weakened election security meets heightened scrutiny.
The interesting thing is that no one actually knows the baseline fraud rate.
Almost certainly in this polarized time where everyone and every institution was out to get Trump, the fraud rate is higher.
I think the real fear here is that cheating did take place, and Republicans have a pretty good idea where to find it. If they find it, even a 0.25% fraud rate would taint all the other elections, unfairly so because they picked the worse hotspots to investigate.
The real devil is in the details, and neither side will tell you the truth.
For example, there are probably enough "illegal" votes out there to throw the results of the election in doubt, but no judge would ever overturn the results. What am I talking about? Take Georgia and Stacy Abrams get out the vote campaign. They "Illegally" encouraged teens under the age of 17.5 to register to vote. Thousands registered before they were eligible to register. The problem is they would have been 18 when the election happened anyway, so the illegal registration is kind of moot.
And yet it's a perfect illustration of the disregard for laws and rules on the Left, and the Right then using those transgressions to push the narrative that there are tens of thousands of illegal votes. Technically true, but those voters had the right to vote, and their intent was clear. No judge is going to throw those votes out.
Another example is the "indefinitely confined" issue in Wisconsin (?). Same deal. 100,000+ people LIED. For convenience, or for whatever other reason. But they were eligible to vote, and made their intent clear even if they registered or voted Illegally.
In these instances and more, lawmakers and decision makers, legally and illegally injected the potential for massive abuses into the election system.
They did so because they were given the message right from the top, "Every vote counts".
Whether massive fraud took place is unknown as of now. The previous audits weren't looking for that. They had their hands tied and were only looking to make sure the system operated as it should. They weren't looking into the weaknesses of the system. They weren't allowed too.
And we haven't even touched on the Center for Civic Life and the one sided effort they did.
I believe the statistical anomalys seen in urban areas of the 5 states are not proof positive of fraud, but proof positive of a job well done by Mark Zuckerberg.
These audits are Trumps revenge, and everyone deserves to know the truth of what happened. To not use illegal rule changes and irregularities as probable cause to perform mass forensic audits would be a disservice to the nation. This opportunity to legally investigate and come up with an answer to "how much fraud is there" may never come around again, certainly not for a generation or two.
> They "Illegally" encouraged teens under the age of 17.5 to register to vote. Thousands registered before they were eligible to register. The problem is they would have been 18 when the election happened anyway, so the illegal registration is kind of moot.
But the very first search result for "voter registration age georgia" was the Georgia Secretary of State's voter registration guidelines, which states:
> To register to vote you must:
> ...
> Be at least 17 1/2 years of age to register and 18 years of age to vote
Casting aspersions on a legal voter registration campaign as illegal, despite being so easily proven as lawful, strongly suggests to me that you've been targeted by disinformation which you've accepted as fact.
I found these potential pieces of disinformation in your comment:
* Hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes in Wisconsin
* Absentee/mail voter fraud in general
* That there are enough fraudulent votes to throw the Arizona election result into doubt
* That the "left" has a disregard for laws and rules
* That it's unknown whether "massive fraud" took place
* A conspiracy theory involving the "Center for Civic Life"
* Statistical anomalies in multiple states suggesting fraud
* A conspiracy theory involving Mark Zuckerberg
-Hundreds of thousands of "fraudulent" votes in Wisconsin. These aren't fraudulent, they are improperly cast, and have the potential to provide cover for fraud. Again, the left cheats, the right takes advantage of the left's cheating and brainwashes people that it's fraud.
-absentee voter fraud: unknown amount, but easily accomplished with the voting rule changes if any bad actor desired to do so.
Arizona: words matter. There is a difference between illegally cast and fraudulently cast. I don't think I said what you implied. But I don't have it in front of me.
-the left has a disregard for laws: yes, they do, just look at this election. They said the quiet part out loud, count all votes, laws, regulations and procedures be damned. We can look at this from the perspective of accepting votes after election day or even just accepting that if someone is eligible to vote, they can vote and the rules around voting don't apply, the vote will be counted.
-it IS unknown if massive fraud took place. No one has looked before now, they weren't legally allowed because all investigations must have a predicate.
Center for Civic Life: not a conspiracy. They gave massive amounts of money, targeted to areas where they could find the most votes, and all areas were majority Democrat voting. They attached strings to the money that required cities and counties to follow rules that were contrary to state and local laws, including equal access laws. They sent special envoys who were given privileged access to voters data and paid people to correct and cure ballots in only areas that vote heavily Democrat. Mostly grey area lawwise but certainly not ethical.
-Statistical anomalys DO Indicate fraud. Like ultra high turnout. But there is another explaination. Zuckerbergs nonprofit was given privileged access and used government data to run the most successful voter turnout campaign in history.
In the end, yes, it was a conspiracy against Trump. But it was mostly legal, and grey area. The forensic audits are to see if the left overplayed their hand and allowed real straight cut fraud. I don't think it's particularly likely, but I've also seen what has been done to Trump. So I do think it's entirely possible, and no one knows yet. We are only 6 months out from the election. Nothing happens that fast.
You want Trump Republicans to calm down? Prove Joe won, let them look at the ballots. Elections should be open and transparent, and trying to stonewall something like this that has no real next step beyond reform to stop any fraud in the future just undermines the confidence you could be building