BookTalk.org

According to MIT Election Data Lab

As with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare. However, even many scholars who argue that fraud is generally rare agree that fraud with VBM voting seems to be more frequent than with in-person voting.

(emphasis added)


https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/vo ... tee-voting


So a question might be why is this concern so often quashed with "although it's rare", when it is admitted that it is still more frequent than with in-person voting?


Why is an opportunity given for one thing to become more frequent when it is harder to become a frequent occurrence when done one particular way?

Judge admits to voter fraud - took bribes to stuff the ballot boxes for democrats

https://www.inquirer.com/news/voter-fra ... 00521.html


This is likely much more common than democrats admit. They are so dismissive of the topic one almost has to believe there is a valid reason why that is.

How much coverage will the NYT, CNN, and MSNBC give this story?

It would be nice if the article offered more substantial information, but it says what we might assume by common sense, that voting by mail "seems to" be a better opportunity for fraud than in-person voting. In-person fraud is thought to be exceedingly rare (except by Trump in 2016), so how significant might an increase in bad VBM votes be? Sure, we could say that the risk of only a few more fraud votes should give us pause, but there's a calculus having to do with enfranchisement, especially in these times of pandemic.

You ask if the study will receive attention from the MSM. The findings don't claim to be definitive, it appears, so that could be a reason for not reporting on it. I don't know. I have a degree of trust in the MSM, which is not to say they're perfect or immune to bias. Throwing a study like this into the political mix, you have the opposing view about voter suppression, which also is a form of voter fraud. That's where my sympathies are in the wider debate.

You ask if the study will receive attention from the MSM. The findings don't claim to be definitive

Sorry, what?

I was referring to the guilty plea where the judge admitted to stuffing ballot boxes for the democrats, not the study.

duplicate post deleted

ant wrote:

You ask if the study will receive attention from the MSM. The findings don't claim to be definitive

Sorry, what?

I was referring to the guilty plea where the judge admitted to stuffing ballot boxes for the democrats, not the study.

Yeah, okay. I conflated your two posts.

What a mess mail in ballots can become..
it leaves too much room for messes like this and or flat-out fraud.

Even the left of center NYTs can't deny it entirely.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/us/p ... virus.html

ant wrote:What a mess mail in ballots can become..
it leaves too much room for messes like this and or flat-out fraud.

Even the left of center NYTs can't deny it entirely.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/us/p ... virus.html

I'm nostalgic for voting day and wish it could be maintained. Nothing better than seeing people going out to vote. That's my preference. But clearly we need to have the exceptions in place. Those seemed to be taken care of by having mail-in or absentee ballots available by request. Part of the reason for vbm seems to be that it's easier to administer, but that's not a good reason to do it. It does seem inherently less secure. But politicians, or anyone who wants to question its wisdom, should make more reasonable warnings than Trump has chosen to do.