Hacker News Reader

Comment by lordvon | Hacker News Reader

Is Trump lying though? Here’s a list of tons of convictions on fraudulent use of absentee ballots (and other forms of voter fraud): https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p...

View on HN

> Here’s a list of tons of convictions on fraudulent use of absentee ballots (and other forms of voter fraud): https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p....

wait, 938 convictions over what looks like is over two decades? Just in the presidential election years that's something like 625 million votes. That's very little fraud.

(and there's some nonsense in there if it's trying to present itself as voter fraud...like the California cases of candidates misrepresenting their home address. What does that have to do with any voters?)

Please read the report by the GAI. 15,000 to 45,000 duplicate votes in the 2016 election alone. And that is only what was caught.

http://www.g-a-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Voter-Fraud-...

Not sure where 15,000 to 45,000 comes from, as the report itself concludes only c.8500 cases of duplicate voting.

I'm also not sure about the methodology there, so perhaps someone could explain it to me.

From what it looks like, GAI started with 60,000 matches from the state data. Then they... added additional identifiers and confirmed c.7000 of them? How do you get from uncertain data to more certain data in this way?

There seem to be c.15,000 instances of prohibited addresses being registered, which I don't believe alone indicates voter fraud.

"Extending GAI’s conservative matching method to include all 50 states would indicate an expected minimum of 45,000 high-confidence duplicate voting matches"

GAI was unable to conduct a comprehensive review since a complete data set of state voter rolls is currently unobtainable. (it was denied)

I don't quite understand why the expect that there would be ~6x the number detected, though, assuming that the ~8500 cases detected is accurate. It would be very (and probably statistically naive) if the minimum total cases was simply because they have only ~1/6 of the total number of state pairings.

I think the other major concern I have, other than the methodology, are the definitions - I still don't know whether 8500 represents 8500 people who voted twice (17000 total votes cast), or 4250 people who voted twice, or something in between, or some thing completely different. Perhaps I missed this.

As a US citizen, I would prefer to have 0 such convictions. I would not belittle these results, as these may not be all convictions, and these are just the ones that got caught.

And of course even if the sheer number of votes is not on the same order of magnitude as all votes cast, we should still worry because a relatively small number of votes can have an outsized effect when placed appropriately.

Edit: as the first page states, this is not a comprehensive list, but a ‘sampling’.

> As a US citizen, I would prefer to have 0 such convictions

great, but what does that have to do with providing evidence that

> There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent."

is not substantial nonsense based on zero evidence, but more importantly (given that this thread is about "lying"), that

> The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one.

isn't at all true?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com