Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerkstate | Hacker News Reader

> In May 2014, DeMuro inflated vote totals by adding 27 fraudulent ballots in the primary election, 40 votes in May 2015, and 46 in 2016, according to court documents outlining the scheme and the charges against him.

> While those numbers may seem small, prosecutors said, they made up a significant percentage of the total votes cast at the polling place. In 2014, 118 total ballots were reported there, which means that DeMuro’s fraudulent votes accounted for over 22% of the total voting in that division in 2014. In 2015, his fraud accounted for over 15% of the votes in the division; in 2016, his fraud accounted for over 17% of the votes.

DeMuro is an election official, not "someone"

View on HN

Yes but the topic is mail-in voting fraud. He was physically at the polling place and stuffing the box. It's fraud and should be punished, but it has nothing to do with mail-in voting fraud.

The example is a demonstration that a member of the opposition party to the incumbent President was both willing and able to commit election fraud for even a paltry sum of money in a local election. The implication is that election officials from that party cannot be trusted to NOT fraudulently influence the election. If they are willing & able to exploit System A, then they are probably WILLING to exploit System B, and it's likely they are ABLE to exploit System B because its security sucks.

Basic risk management principles would lead to implementing controls to either reduce the probability of the risk, or reduce the effective impact of the risk. The US has been stuck doing neither since the Bush/Gore election.

Republicans have a long history of voter fraud. Here's an example from North Carolina

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-north-caroli...

Based, on this, Republicans cannot be trusted to hold impartial elections

Clearly both major parties in the US are guilty of fraud. All the more reason to implement objective, unbiased security measures to ensure the integrity of the process.

100% agreed. But that has nothing to do with the claim that mail in ballots will have significant fraud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com