Were millions of illegal votes cast in the 2016 presidential election?

[Kodos]

I found this a bit shocking:

A YouGov poll found that 49 percent of Americans said they believe it is either “definitely” or “probably” true that millions of illegal votes were cast in the 2016 presidential election. That includes 42 percent of Democrats as well as 59 percent of Republicans.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rnor-rankings/

[BYU 14]

I think the key word is millions. Where there some, pretty certain the answer it yes and that is the case with most any election. Just like people obtain public assistance illegally or anything else.

But to say millions is stretch and falls under the narrative of if you repeat bullshit enough times, folks will start to believe it.

[tarcone]

Im sure there is fraud in every election. But that is my negative view towards politicians.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im sure there is fraud in every election. But that is my negative view towards politicians.

There have been pretty intensive studies done on this and actual voter fraud, while it occurs, is very rare.

Here are nine investigations on voter fraud that found virtually nothing - The Washington Post

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I think the key word is millions. Where there some, pretty certain the answer it yes and that is the case with most any election. Just like people obtain public assistance illegally or anything else.

But to say millions is stretch and falls under the narrative of if you repeat bullshit enough times, folks will start to believe it.

This is my thought. There might have been a few illegal votes cast here and there, but not MILLIONS of votes.

[Ksyrup]

I voted "probably not" because I don't believe this occurred at all, but I don't have enough facts to answer "definitely not."

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im sure there is fraud in every election. But that is my negative view towards politicians.

The thing is, there are various levels of fraud which might be present. But our electoral system is so fractured that you'd have to consider the likelihood of successfully stealing a given election as well as 'how the unholy blue fuck are you going to keep a conspiracy like that quiet?'

Impersonation Fraud is what Republicans and conservatives freak out over the most, and the ostensible impetus behind voter ID. Thing is? If you're trying to steal an election, that's about the worst possible bang for your buck you can get. You'd need to coordinate a massive effort to make that happen. "Millions" of fraudulent votes with impersonation fraud is going to require literally millions of people. You cannot "steal" ten million votes with ten thousand people. In cities, where population density is high, things like lines to vote are ALSO going to be an issue. In rural places where you might be able to more easily get in and out, you're also going to be dealing with small towns where everybody knows who Bob Jones is and you're not Bob Fucking Jones, asshole. The number of votes you'd need for this to affect a national or even a statewide election is significant enough that if you successfully pulled it off, there would be traces of a conspiracy on that level beyond "I really really want to believe that Democrats only win when they cheat."

It's easier to commit fraud via absentee ballot, because you don't have things like lines, but you would still need people in key places to intercept those ballots (and some states require signatures from a notary public to validate an absentee ballot, which would complicate matters if you're trying to submit multiple absentee ballots) so that you can fraudulently submit them in the first place.

The fraud Republicans and conservatives never seem to spend much time worrying about would be Counting Fraud. If you control access to the ballot box, you control who "wins" because unless you're talking about a super rural town where all of 13 votes were cast for judge, it's going to be functionally impossible for the voters to get together and be like 'hey, I didn't vote for Bob Jones, did you?' You don't even need to go full Nazi plebiscite on that ('Bob Jones wins with 99.8% of the vote!'. You just need 'enough.'

The voting system in this country is just too decentralized for stealing elections via fraudulent votes to ever have an impact with a statewide or national election. Too much effort for too little return. There are other, more effective, ways to put your thumb on the scale if you're trying to steal an election.

[QuikSand]

I do not want to pick on you here. I do want to use this as a surrogate for a larger conversation.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I voted "probably not" because I don't believe this occurred at all, but I don't have enough facts to answer "definitely not."

On the obvious level, this is a totally reasonable response. Who has time to do lots of research, right? This is maybe the 150th most important topic in public policy, give or take.

One level deeper... this is emblematic of how the battle over reality is being lost. A reasonable person has to defer to experts or a consensus on most topics. But if enough people on the other side of a consensus just keep saying it's not so, a reasonable person could conclude that the matter is unsettled, either it's a jump-ball or it's probably-so.

That's how we end up with pockets of people getting measles. And with a president who ends up being completely unaccountable, on grounds that a denial of objectively true things will be sufficient to escape consequences.

I don't really blame you for hedging on this topic, but on a certain level I kinda do want to blame us on every topic, if that makes sense.

[ISiddiqui]

Absolutely not.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I voted "probably not" because I don't believe this occurred at all, but I don't have enough facts to answer "definitely not."

I'm with you.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't really blame you for hedging on this topic, but on a certain level I kinda do want to blame us on every topic, if that makes sense.

I'm with you.

[Julio Riddols]

I don't know about millions of votes being changed, but what happened in Georgia makes me very suspicious that something happened.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I do not want to pick on you here. I do want to use this as a surrogate for a larger conversation.



On the obvious level, this is a totally reasonable response. Who has time to do lots of research, right? This is maybe the 150th most important topic in public policy, give or take.

One level deeper... this is emblematic of how the battle over reality is being lost. A reasonable person has to defer to experts or a consensus on most topics. But if enough people on the other side of a consensus just keep saying it's not so, a reasonable person could conclude that the matter is unsettled, either it's a jump-ball or it's probably-so.

That's how we end up with pockets of people getting measles. And with a president who ends up being completely unaccountable, on grounds that a denial of objectively true things will be sufficient to escape consequences.

I don't really blame you for hedging on this topic, but on a certain level I kinda do want to blame us on every topic, if that makes sense.

I get that. It's actually a purposeful response given the ignorance of people deciding they know what's true without actually knowing anything. I could easily answer this question as definitely not, because I know logically that it didn't happen. But if you're just asking me my gut feeling and I don't know one thing about whether it did or didn't happen, I'm going to answer "probably not." That's also not meant as 51%, either.

I didn't answer this way because "the media lies" or anything like that. It's simply holding myself to a higher standard than to just agree or disagree without having facts to support an absolute opinion to an absolute degree of certainty. I have no doubt it did not happen, but what do I really know?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I get that. It's actually a purposeful response given the ignorance of people deciding they know what's true without actually knowing anything. I could easily answer this question as definitely not, because I know logically that it didn't happen. But if you're just asking me my gut feeling and I don't know one thing about whether it did or didn't happen, I'm going to answer "probably not." That's also not meant as 51%, either.

I didn't answer this way because "the media lies" or anything like that. It's simply holding myself to a higher standard than to just agree or disagree without having facts to support an absolute opinion to an absolute degree of certainty. I have no doubt it did not happen, but what do I really know?

Given all the studies that have been done since then, don't you think that we'd have had some sort of evidence to the contrary by now? I mean the question poses a theory, but they offer no evidence to support the theory.

The burden of proof falls to the theorist not the the side that is supported today, based on mounds of historical data.

[Ksyrup]

The question doesn't ask what I think. I don't believe for a minute that it occurred. The question is asking what I know, with shades of certainty. If it had been yes or no, I would have answered no easily. But I'm not giving an unequivocal answer about what I know to a question on a topic I really haven't spent any time learning anything about. That doesn't mean I believe it might have happened.

[chinaski]

This bullshit narrative is only being pushed by Trumpets who refuse to believe the Maga God con man got trounced in the popular. Voter fraud is extremely rare, which one would logically assume given the abysmal turnout numbers to begin with. Election hacking is what people need to be hitting the panic button over, no voting machine should ever have remote access, period. Paper ballots, and a national holiday, if anyone was sincere about protecting democracy that's the way we would go.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by chinaski

This bullshit narrative is only being pushed by Trumpets who refuse to believe the Maga God con man got trounced in the popular. Voter fraud is extremely rare, which one would logically assume given the abysmal turnout numbers to begin with. Election hacking is what people need to be hitting the panic button over, no voting machine should ever have remote access, period. Paper ballots, and a national holiday, if anyone was sincere about protecting democracy that's the way we would go.

I don't think that's all of it. The Dem response seems likely driven by the unsupported idea that the Russians actually changed votes, ie voted illegally. Just as there's no evidence to support widespread fraud, there's no evidence of Russian vote tampering.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Election hacking is what people need to be hitting the panic button over, no voting machine should ever have remote access, period. Paper ballots, and a national holiday, if anyone was sincere about protecting democracy that's the way we would go.

I'm okay with computers but I want paper ballots/printout to confirm the results or identify any major discrepancies.

[Kodos]

I think paper ballots is the way to go. And put a system in place where voting precincts can easily verify that the numbers they sent are what the state used in their overall tallies.

[stevew]

Trump has found that if you repeat the same stuff over and over and over again people will just believe it because if not "fake news"

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think paper ballots is the way to go. And put a system in place where voting precincts can easily verify that the numbers they sent are what the state used in their overall tallies.

Unless it's really close an exact count is basically irrelevant over several million votes in a state.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think that's all of it. The Dem response seems likely driven by the unsupported idea that the Russians actually changed votes, ie voted illegally. Just as there's no evidence to support widespread fraud, there's no evidence of Russian vote tampering.

I've not seen democrats push the idea that Russians tampered directly with votes - simply the proven fact that they campaigned on behalf of Trump via. online trolling and fake news propagation.

The effect of that is debatable - but I expect it had an effect.

PS - I voted 'definitely not' on the basis that most (if not all) polling station systems are NOT connected directly to the internet and as such would require indirect hacking (i.e. someone plugging an infected item directly into them which would already have the require software installed to infect them and bias things, that seems unlikely unless done with intent).
Those areas which allow internet voting I am presuming tie that to voter registration or some other ident system which is easily verified.
So in essence while its not 'impossible' that some votes were directly hacked - I think it'd be unlikely without an inside influence simply because even if you got to the software transmissions etc. without knowledge of the packet make up etc. in advance it'd be near impossible to manipulate.

[JPhillips]

It's out there. One of the Deadspin family just ran a piece a few days ago about voting machines being hacked in 2016.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's out there. One of the Deadspin family just ran a piece a few days ago about voting machines being hacked in 2016.

Then immediately took it down because it was sloppy and misleading.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Then immediately took it down because it was sloppy and misleading.

Yeah, I'm just saying the belief is out there.

[RainMaker]

Rigging the vote is dumb and dangerous. You win by voter suppression. That goes for both parties who are constantly trying to keep power.

[DanGarion]

I only picked Probably Not because I am not a fan of definites in the case. The facts and information out there basically show this doesn't happen and I agree it wasn't in the "millions" but I'm sure there were some illegal votes cast.