Timeline for What fact-based arguments exist that mail-in voting would lead to significantly higher instances of US voter fraud?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2020 at 3:06 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 13, 2020 at 4:31 | |||||
| Aug 7, 2020 at 14:31 | vote | accept | AffableAmbler | ||
| Aug 7, 2020 at 14:12 | history | edited | agc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Tweaked title, after considering OP body text.
|
| Aug 7, 2020 at 7:15 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @BobE "What reasons have they given" is wholly different from "What are their reasons". The latter is speculative, the former is not as you can answer it by simply quoting interviews etc. Granted you're right the particular madman I have in mind rarely ever substantiates things, but Affable suggested inquiring about more than just one person, and some of those may have offered more substantive remarks. If it includes Kobach, for example, then there are court filings he/his lawyers made we could quote at the least. | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 6:23 | comment | added | Thomas Koelle | In US the debate is people talking about two different things. Potential for fraud, and likelihood for fraud. So when US Postal service loose millions of ballots there is a potential for fraud, but if nobody really cares then the likelihood does not change. | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 3:20 | answer | added | BobE | timeline score: 17 | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 23:56 | comment | added | BobE | Regarding your suggested change to the Q (4 hours ago), that Z is agreeable to. What Z is suggesting you to do is to alter the Q so that he (and others) can close it claiming that you are seeking the motivations of politicians, something that is unknowable and thus unanswerable. Even his suggestion of "what reasons..." when Z knows full well that explanations offered by "the madman" (quoting Z) are incoherent. Your approach to seek fact-based arguments is entirely approppriate. | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 19:45 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @AffableAmbler It's definitely very difficult at best, which is precisely why politicians tend to invoke such rhetorical devices. The actual validity and significance of the evidence and support they claim is a different matter from simply enumerating the justifications provided. That might be suited for a question on Skeptics, though it's highly likely they have one or more well-answered questions relating to claims of voter fraud (mail-in and otherwise) already. | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 19:37 | comment | added | AffableAmbler | @BobE I don’t think it should matter but I didn’t ask the question because I’m opposed to vote by mail or because I like Trump and want him to be right. I asked because when the president says something, people tend to listen and you can’t persuasively argue against something so broad and elusive as “many opportunities for fraud.” | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 19:36 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @AffableAmbler In short, yes, but something more in the form "what reasons do...give for saying..." would be even better. Either way it may feel like a minor change to some, but for me that'd firmly place the question as a (potentially) answerable factual question on politics, rather than conjectures and conjuration. The distinction is one of "finding some sort of facts somewhere that we can then try to shoehorn into an explanation of what was said" versus "finding justifications given by particular political actors for their actions". | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 19:21 | comment | added | AffableAmbler | @zibadawa If I change the question to “Why do Trump, et al. say mail in voting increases fraud?” would that address the issue? | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 18:54 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @BobE "Here's a random claim, find me evidence for it" is intrinsically a poor question that invites the worst actors, neither of which is suitable for SE, in my estimation. It's the sort of thing you expect from a nefarious corporate fat cat to demand of his research department. Questions like "what reasons has X given for saying Y" are suitable here, but not "what reasons can we conjure up for X to say Y?" | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 18:01 | comment | added | BobE | @zibadawatimmy, perhaps I'm being overly gracious, but I tend to look at this question as an honest request for facts to support an argument rather than a veiled attempt to rationalize "assertions of a madman". There are arguments that can be made to support those assertions, albeit that IMO those factual arguments are weak and non-persuasive. I believe that those fact arguments should be heard, and countered as necessary. | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 0:38 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | I'm inclined to vote to close this for the reason that we're not here to rationalize and support the random assertions of a madman (or anyone else, that's just the salt in the wound). This is the sort of thing that agenda-pushers jump on or initiate. | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 0:06 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 6, 2020 at 1:33 | |||||
| Aug 5, 2020 at 23:51 | history | edited | Rick Smith |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 5, 2020 at 23:47 | answer | added | cbeleites | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 2, 2020 at 20:48 | comment | added | dandavis | The theoreticals are just that; otherwise Trump, Barr, Conway, etc wouldn't have voted by mail themselves. | |
| Jul 31, 2020 at 23:23 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jul 31, 2020 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/1289259563246424069 | ||
| Jul 31, 2020 at 7:56 | comment | added | AffableAmbler | @Azor (a) would be a story but not really an argument, IMO. Presumably there are also types of fraud that can only be done with in-person voting. What would lead a well-informed individual (which admittedly I am not) to believe the risks with mail-in voting are greater than the risks with in-person voting? | |
| Jul 31, 2020 at 0:23 | history | edited | AffableAmbler | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 30, 2020 at 23:02 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | Would you like (a) a list of fraud that can be only done under vote-by-mail; or (b) math showing that fraud under vote-by-mail would exceed fraud in the normal system, even excluding classic voter suppression tactics? The first is answerable; the second is, in IMO, not demonstratable. | |
| Jul 30, 2020 at 21:49 | history | edited | AffableAmbler | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Jul 30, 2020 at 21:49 | comment | added | divibisan | Related, possibly duplicate: Is there a higher incidence of electoral fraud in states that use all-mail voting? and Why don't all States switch to all postal voting? | |
| Jul 30, 2020 at 21:45 | history | edited | AffableAmbler | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Jul 30, 2020 at 21:39 | history | asked | AffableAmbler | CC BY-SA 4.0 |