Aircraft safety is important. That's why we let political activists and airlines make FAA rules, shout down anyone who suggests they're not completely and absolutely safe already, denigrate anyone investing an alleged "accident" as a conspiracy theorist, and delete paper trails. Thank God we take elections just as seriously. Why think of the harm that could befall our nation if cabals of the wealthy managed to strongly influence our electoral process.
You know, I just wish this social mind cancer that has befallen US society, where everybody is on some "side" against each other, and talks like you in your comment, would die.
I'm specifically not saying you are "worse" than others. It's more that that is the standard of how we treat each other now. And that is fucked up.
(Call me off-topic, but this matters.)
There is no "left". There is no "right". There are only people. With needs. If they all get what they need, the beef gets buried.
Itâ(TM)s pretty hard to reach consensus with people who strait up do not agree with the laws or their implementation. One group wants for example Voter ID. The other group doesnâ(TM)t (presumably because there is an impression illegal votes favor their side?). We canâ(TM)t have consensus.
I have always felt that voters should be assigned a unique ID known only to the state and the voter. The full register of votes should be public. You should be able to see all the IDs and how they voted,
You may have just done that which you said was impossible.
It took me until middle age to really learn this well, but I learned something a few years ago. (I guess I knew it intellectually before, but it really sank in a few years ago). You said:
> One group wants for example Voter ID. The other group doesn't (presumably because there is an impression illegal votes favor their side?). We can't have consensus.
What I realized a few years ago, and my six year old seems to already know, is that voter ID isn't
Most of what you say is reasonable. You can phrase it another way: systems always have two complementary types of error (known as "type I" and "type II" errors). In this case, a Type-I error would be NOT allowing somebody to vote when they SHOULD be allowed to vote, and a type-II error would be ALLOWING somebody to vote when they should NOT be allowed to vote.
For systems in general, methods reduce type-I errors tends to increase type-II errors, and vice versa. For example, if a system is a switch, and a typ
I skimmed over a list of a few hundred convictions for voter fraud and that supports what you said - it's via mail-in ballots much more often than in-person. I guess people commiting fraud think absentee is the way to do it.
Fraud on petitions to get in the ballot is also much more frequent than getting caught and convicted for fraudulently voting in person.
I did notice an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was enough that it swung the election.
I clicked on your first link, to an advocacy organization. Of course given the nature of the organization it's their purpose to try to portray that voter fraud isn't a big issue, but I figured I'd look at what they had to say. I can take what they say with a grain of salt. The first thing they cite says about 4,000 fraudulent votes in each presidential election. (They call it 0.0025%). Just a bit further down the page they say somebody said they find 35 incidents "credible". That's quite a spread of numbers all on the same page. I guess they don't really know. Which makes sense - at best we can know how many got caught and convicted, and there is no central registry of even that.
Aircraft safety is important (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Aircraft safety is important (Score:2, Offtopic)
You know, I just wish this social mind cancer that has befallen US society, where everybody is on some "side" against each other, and talks like you in your comment, would die.
I'm specifically not saying you are "worse" than others. It's more that that is the standard of how we treat each other now. And that is fucked up.
(Call me off-topic, but this matters.)
There is no "left". There is no "right".
There are only people. With needs.
If they all get what they need, the beef gets buried.
So, can I make a proposa
Re: Aircraft safety is important (Score:1)
I have always felt that voters should be assigned a unique ID known only to the state and the voter. The full register of votes should be public. You should be able to see all the IDs and how they voted,
Maybe you did the impossible (not what they want) (Score:5, Insightful)
You may have just done that which you said was impossible.
It took me until middle age to really learn this well, but I learned something a few years ago. (I guess I knew it intellectually before, but it really sank in a few years ago). You said:
> One group wants for example Voter ID. The other group doesn't (presumably because there is an impression illegal votes favor their side?). We can't have consensus.
What I realized a few years ago, and my six year old seems to already know, is that voter ID isn't
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of what you say is reasonable. You can phrase it another way: systems always have two complementary types of error (known as "type I" and "type II" errors). In this case, a Type-I error would be NOT allowing somebody to vote when they SHOULD be allowed to vote, and a type-II error would be ALLOWING somebody to vote when they should NOT be allowed to vote.
For systems in general, methods reduce type-I errors tends to increase type-II errors, and vice versa. For example, if a system is a switch, and a typ
Re:Maybe you did the impossible (not what they wan (Score:2)
I skimmed over a list of a few hundred convictions for voter fraud and that supports what you said - it's via mail-in ballots much more often than in-person. I guess people commiting fraud think absentee is the way to do it.
Fraud on petitions to get in the ballot is also much more frequent than getting caught and convicted for fraudulently voting in person.
I did notice an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was enough that it swung the election.
I clicked on your first link, to an advocacy organization.
Of course given the nature of the organization it's their purpose to try to portray that voter fraud isn't a big issue, but I figured I'd look at what they had to say. I can take what they say with a grain of salt. The first thing they cite says about 4,000 fraudulent votes in each presidential election. (They call it 0.0025%). Just a bit further down the page they say somebody said they find 35 incidents "credible". That's quite a spread of numbers all on the same page. I guess they don't really know. Which makes sense - at best we can know how many got caught and convicted, and there is no central registry of even that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'd have preferred not to use links from advocacy organizations, but sometimes that's the best of what's available.