SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the why-wait-until-AFTER-the-election? dept.
Facebook Braces Itself for Trump to Cast Doubt on Election Results:
Facebook spent years preparing to ward off any tampering on its site ahead of November's presidential election. Now the social network is getting ready in case President Trump interferes once the vote is over.
Employees at the Silicon Valley company are laying out contingency plans and walking through postelection scenarios that include attempts by Mr. Trump or his campaign to use the platform to delegitimize the results, people with knowledge of Facebook's plans said.
Facebook is preparing steps to take should Mr. Trump wrongly claim on the site that he won another four-year term, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Facebook is also working through how it might act if Mr. Trump tries to invalidate the results by declaring that the Postal Service lost mail-in ballots or that other groups meddled with the vote, the people said.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, and some of his lieutenants have started holding daily meetings about minimizing how the platform can be used to dispute the election, the people said. They have discussed a "kill switch" to shut off political advertising after Election Day since the ads, which Facebook does not police for truthfulness, could be used to spread misinformation, the people said.
The preparations underscore how rising concerns over the integrity of the November election have reached social media companies, whose sites can be used to amplify lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory messages. YouTube and Twitter have also discussed plans for action if the postelection period becomes complicated, according to disinformation and political researchers who have advised the firms.
[...] The preparations underscore how rising concerns over the integrity of the November election have reached social media companies, whose sites can be used to amplify lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory messages. YouTube and Twitter have also discussed plans for action if the postelection period becomes complicated, according to disinformation and political researchers who have advised the firms.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday August 25 2020, @07:56AM (22 children)
Greg Palast has been making the rounds talking about voter disenfranchisement via "interstate cross check". Deep state stooges already said the game is rigged by China and Russia. Dems say it's rigged by Trump. Trump says it's rigged by Dems. Bernie bros were cheated. Tim Canova was cheated. That elections are a dumpster fire might be the only point of agreement.
And this just in:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hillary-clinton-biden-should-not-concede-under-any-circumstances [washingtonexaminer.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @12:50PM (19 children)
I'm currently registered to vote in 3 different States.
I've lived in 5 different States during my adult life, and each time I moved, I conscientiously changed my driver's licenses and vehicle registration, and registered to vote in my new location. But, although the States were clearly aware that I had moved away (no nagging letters about renewing my license, etc.), most of those States never bothered to remove me from their voter rolls. In one case, I returned to a State I had left a decade earlier, and I was still listed as a registered voter at my old address.
If you actually want an honest election, then the voter rolls should be cleaned up, but the Democrats always fight against that.
The second best solution is to verify the identity of the person casting the ballot (Voter ID), but the Democrats always fight against that.
Now, with (mostly Democrat) States deciding to send ballots to everyone "registered" to vote, I can only assume that, even if the election process is honest, at least two other people (who currently live at my previous addresses) will get ballots meant for me. Let's hope that they are honest enough not to commit election fraud with "my" ballots (even though the likelihood of them getting caught is minimal).
Of course, the real reason to keep non-elegible voters on the voter rolls is to allow corrupt election officials to stuff the ballot boxes with fake but reasonable votes.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday August 25 2020, @02:28PM (7 children)
You point is valid, sort of. Cleaning up the voting rolls is desirable. Now do it without discriminating against those who are relatively powerless. And *that's* the problem. There is little to no evidence that "people who have moved" are voting in more than one place. The evidence that exists tends to show people being caught trying to vote in more than one place.
Unfortunately, this is what one would expect whether the practice is common or not. I tend to think it's rare, but this is because I've never known anyone who either did it or wanted to do it. And one thing about electronic voting systems is that those who control the systems are the ones that I suspect of tampering with the elections, if tampering is happening. The times I've checked into it my concerns have been brushed over with "we've already signed a contract with that company", which I didn't find exactly reassuring. Particularly as the company had been shown to have easily penetrable security.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @03:38PM (3 children)
First of all, how would we catch people voting illegally when requiring any sort of ID has been made illegal (as it has been in in many, mostly Democrat-controlled areas). In most of the places I've voted, if I could provide a name and address of a registered voter, I could vote as them. If I knew (as the people who actually run the elections would know) that someone would definitely not be voting (because they moved out of state, for example), I would be perfectly safe in filling out a ballot in that person's name. I've looked for information on whether someone else voted as me in those States where I was still illegitimately registered, and that information doesn't seem to be available.
Secondly, if someone were illegitimately disenfranchised by being removed from the voter rolls, they would know it if they actually tried to vote, and they could complain. For all the hand-wringing about removing legitimate voters from the voter rolls, I've never heard of an actual case of that happening. It's easy to register to vote, and if someone is wrongly removed, it's easy to re-register. I also have never heard of an actual case of someone who was registered to vote but was prevented from voting because they couldn't provide a reasonable proof of their right to vote. All I've ever heard was hyped-up concern over the hypothetical possibility. The examples of voter suppression I've heard about involved physical intimidation. That has been a real problem in some areas, but it has nothing to do with cleaning up the voter rolls or requiring voters to prove their identity.
Until someone can explain to me how the States will ensure that they don't send out ballots with my name and former addresses on them, I'm going to assume that mail-in voting is just another way to cheat.
(Score: 3, Informative) by helel on Tuesday August 25 2020, @05:18PM
During the 2000 election "News organizations unearthed numerous accounts of law-abiding citizens turned away at the polls because they could not prove their innocence. Several thousand people appealed to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and half were found to not be felons." [tampabay.com]
Now that you're heard of it happening and happening in far greater numbers than the total cases of voter fraud in the US [heritage.org], I invite you to join us in fighting to prevent the purge of legitimate voters from voter registration.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:20PM
Maybe if you keep saying this enough it will become true /s
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 26 2020, @04:22AM
Canadian here. Couple of Federal elections back, when the Conservatives were in power, they took advice from the Republicans on how to run an election. Neutered Elections Canada, our independent people who run the election, no power of subpoena, no advertising how to register, no more lists of registered voters in the grocery store etc with some nice old people to help verify if registered and register you if needed. They also tightened up the required ID a lot, we've needed proof when showing up to vote for the longest time but it didn't take much proof, some shitty ID and a bill with your name and address or just sign an affidavit. Suddenly a small list of accepted ID, with current address, great for students who were at university with their parents address on their ID or natives on the reserve where they don't have addresses.
Only place to look up the voter list was online. My wife is a native and the Conservatives really wanted to suppress their vote so I was suspicious. She uses her maiden name, her ID, the phone and power bills, all in her maiden name. Web site showed her registered under her maiden name. Show up to vote, early, and she's registered to vote in her married name with nothing but her marriage license with that name on it for ID. Took hours for the election people arguing on the phone to Ottawa before she could vote. Luckily we had planned to have hours to wait otherwise her vote would have been successfully suppressed. My son just didn't bother as his ID suddenly wasn't good enough, new ID was $75 and a 60 mile round trip with no bus service.
Requiring proof of who you are is fine in principal but it is easy to abuse, make the ID requirements strict and targeted. Make it hard to get ID. Change the voters list to not agree with peoples ID. Make alternatives really hard. Many people, especially poor working people just don't have the time to screw around to exercise their franchise.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by rleigh on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:41PM (2 children)
In the UK, the local authority running elections in your area posts an annual form through your door which is mandatory to return. You fill out the eligible voters at the address and post it back (which is free), or you fill it out online. Old names are dropped, and new ones are added. So the records are continuously kept up to date. And if you move in between times, you can update the details as needed.
What is it with the US system that prevents old records from being dropped?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:56PM (1 child)
Budget constraints in postage and man hours to send out those pings as you described?
Concern that poor people won't post a reply?
Reluctance to "mandate" a response to a government request that is considered minor, for exercising a voluntary activity?
There is a process here to clean out old records. Relocations within the county are updated immediately. If voters haven't voted for a couple of years, they need to affirm that they still live at their address. Finally after about 6 years, their entry is purged.
There is also a notification process for people to report the death of their child, parents, wife, which will purge those entries.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rleigh on Tuesday August 25 2020, @10:36PM
I don't believe that "poor people are less likely to reply" is reasonable. Filling in the details takes less than 5 minutes, and you can drop it into a postbox at your convenience. The postage is prepaid for a reason, so that there is no financial barrier to participation, even if it's just a single stamp. And since you have to send in the details to register in the first place, this really only concerns removals and changes. At least in the UK it's also a civil offence not to return the form; you can be fined for not returning it. It's part of your civil obligations, and this part is not a "voluntary activity" (though voting itself is).
As for the cost, the voter registration is part of the cost of running a democracy. They are updating the records in different areas all year round, so there's a fixed cost in people and resources. It's already paid for as part of local government running costs.
(Score: 2, Troll) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 25 2020, @03:27PM (8 children)
Maybe if the Republicans weren't such dicks about making it hard to get IDs, they wouldn't?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @03:48PM (5 children)
And how did the Republicans do that?
The idea that there are massive number of valid voters who, among other things, can't drive a car, open a bank account, get a job, get on an airplane, travel outside of country (at least if they hope to return), get a prescription for certain drugs, buy a house, etc., etc., etc. is ridiculous.
I guess there was talk of charging a small fee (~ $2) for a special ID. I know that in my current State, a non-driver ID card, which would be perfectly sufficient to prove the right to vote, costs $2 (and, if I remember correctly, is valid for as long as you live at the same address). The Dems want to spend Billions of dollars to "fix" the Post Office so they can rush through mail-in voting (which has already been a disaster in a number of primary elections). Compared to that, providing everyone who either legitimately couldn't prove their identity, or legitimately couldn't afford the $2, is trivial.
I'm still waiting for actual examples of these people who are eligible to vote but can't prove it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:00PM (2 children)
Yes, but they could even make it free, but it wouldn't matter if the office is only open every-other-Thursday for 3 hours in the afternoon or whatever, and there's a line out the door, so you have to take the day off from your crappy job that doesn't give you vacation. I'm not questioning whether the ID exists, but how easy it is to actually procure one.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet [aclu.org]
Oh fuck off
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Troll) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 26 2020, @03:00PM (1 child)
Would love to see whoever modded me Troll defend that decision
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @08:10PM
Welcome to SN, you thought all the people complaining about terrible downmods was 100% false? My very anecdotal opinion is that conservatives got modded troll for pushing rightwing propaganda and got very hurt feelings. Now they go downmodding anything that goes against them as some kind of retribution.
There is no more appealing to reality, they have drawn their lines over which nothing but their masters can make them cross.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 26 2020, @12:01AM (1 child)
Personally, I don't think there should be ANY FEE AT ALL for a state issued photo ID. Driver's license, I can go along with a nominal fee. Plain old ID, no way.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 26 2020, @04:41AM
Provincial ID here costs $75, same as a drivers license, which it is very similar to. When the Conservatives made the ID requirements for voting much stricter, my son didn't bother making the 60 mile round trip (doesn't drive and no public transportation) to pay for his ID and so didn't vote.
Since then the Province has updated our C.A.R.E. cards (needed to access health care) to have picture ID due to too many Americans sneaking in for free health care and they're free and basically required to prove Provincial residency if you don't want to pay for a Doctor/hospital visit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @04:49PM (1 child)
A voter registration card was sufficient ID here, was free, and you needed to register to be able to vote at all.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 26 2020, @04:49AM
Was like that here once, then it changed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @04:42PM
I am a (local) elections official.
Our district's absentee ballots were requested on voter need (out of town). The envelopes come to our district, and are announced to the public. If someone wants to vote in person, we cancel their absentee ballot, and they vote normally.
With the mail-in ballots they had done already for the primaries, those envelopes are collected centrally. If a voter comes in, and a mail-in ballot had been issued, we can only vote a provisional ballot. Regardless of whether they say they actually requested one, or they bring in their unopened envelope.
When voting in person, the voter can spoil his ballot if he makes a mistake and request a new one. With a mail-in, the process is unclear if they can request a new one and have that ballot supersede his previous ballot. Timing is probably critical if possible at all.
Absentee ballots are counted in our district with local poll watchers being allowed to watch. Mail-in ballots are counted centrally, where the supervision process is unclear, definitely not local, and can have millions of ballots to be processed.
Mass mail-in voting can lead to requests from people in a position of power forcing voters to show their choices to another person, perhaps even let that person fill out the ballot. Neighborhood ballot collections by people "volunteering to drop them in the mail for them" can let them compare names to political party affiliation and discard those that are "ungood".
Mail-in ballots sent to people who have moved away can lead to the new residents filling them out.
Provisional ballots are supposed to be adjudicated by a judge, but can the disavowed mailed-in ballot be removed from the counting? Probably only if the judges make their decision before they are opened (which would have to wait at least until the local districts return their materials with the provisional envelopes).
In short, I think mail-in voting, as done in this state at least, is incompatible with what I would call a free, fair and open election. The results would only be known days or weeks after, like for the primary.
Voter ID rules that the republicans were pushing for their benefit were invalidated years ago. I hope the same happens to our mail-in voting process pushed for by the democrats for their benefit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2020, @09:19AM
Would you be open to possibly selling one of your votes? I have connections with certain very wealthy heads of the Postal Service who would quite gladly pay you for your vote on the day, for a hamburger a few days later.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @05:01PM (1 child)
This is easily checked. The state of California is one of 20 states requiring that Facebook hire certain groups to suppress "hate speech". [kiwifarms.net] Dig a little into who [archive.is] is running this state-mandated "Civil Rights Audit" and you'll find out that they are Hamas sponsored by the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office [archive.org] using George Soros as their front man to take the blame, and the United Nations Foundation [foundationcenter.org] (whose board includes Russian ambassador Igor Ivanov) and its "B Team" [archive.is] (also known as Avaaz, Purpose, and SumOfUs [wrongkindofgreen.org]) who are all led by [ngo-monitor.org] a group called al-Shabaka [archive.org] which includes Electronic Intifada, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the BDS movement.
The Democrats have been rigging the hell out of the election by using foreign agents to suppress any kind of dissent online or offline, paying foreign terrorists to organize their campaigns and attack their political opponents, using the public school system to force children to support them, using the state security services to spy on their political opponents and forward their information on to foreign agents for further action, using religious tests to exclude non-Democrats from employment in government and the private sector, all while openly [mideast-times.com] taking truckloads [foundationcenter.org] of money from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and doing this all under the umbrella of "national security" so the people involved are not allowed to talk about it.
This leaked from the New York Times [kotakuinaction2.win] which did not consider this newsworthy, possibly because their board member Joi Ito was neck deep in the scam and was mixed up [catbox.moe] with a Saudi spy ring [archive.is] that used to be called the SAAR Network [nationalreview.com]. Clinton and Obama put them in charge of national security and education. This is what Gamergate and Common Core were about. 4chan caught them and was starting to unravel the network. It led straight to the World Jewish Congress and the Rothschilds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:19PM
Meds. Don't forget your meds. Really, they will help you.