US 2024 Presidential Election

[Silvanus]

Pulling at random is itself purely speculative.

To give an analogy, imagine 10 people apply for a job and 8 of them had no related experience, the other 2 did. If you pick randomly, chances are high that the final hire would have no related experience. In actuality, it is not random, and the people with experience are much more likely to get the job. Treating it as random when it isn't leads to the wrong conclusion, it's a fallacy.

In that analogy, you have a single known factor pushing in one direction. So its not an applicable analogy at all.

To make the analogy function: we have 10 applicants. 6 are black haired, 4 are blond.

There will surely be a dozen other factors affecting who gets hired. The ultimate hiring process isn't objectively random, after all! But we don't know anything else about that process or the candidates. Those other factors could boost the black haired, it could boost the blond, it could do either or neither. We know only the 6/4 split.

Evidential (Bayesian) probability is judged on the basis of available information.

 

[Schadrach]

Do you believe that they were storming the Capital to appoint Trump as president?

I don't think most of the people storming the Capitol really knew what they were doing. They were useful idiots, pushed by the psychology of crowds - it's why you have examples of some of them getting into the Capitol and just kind of...stalling out as far as what to do. The goal behind the people actually planning things was to cause either a contingent election (used when the electoral college count does not produce a majority, which have 1 vote per state and Trump would likely win and would most easily have been caused by Pence refusing to accept one or more slates of electors) or a violation of the Electoral Count Act, creating a legal crisis they could take to court and delay things 2 weeks or more to create a constitutional crisis.

Again, why do you think the crowd wanted to "Hang Mike Pence" since he refused to do anything other than fulfill his role in the count as normal? Killing the VP certainly prevents him fulfilling his role prescribed by the Electoral Count Act...

People have asked for recounts before.

People have sued over alleged election crimes before.

Trump actually did more of this than basically any other candidate prior and lost every case but one about how close poll watchers were allowed to stand.

People have prepared alternates in case an election got flipped before.

Yes, when there's a court case that might change the outcome, and they want to have the slate ready before the deadline in case they win. If they lose, they are supposed to destroy that slate. You'll notice Pence refusing to get in a Secret Service car on Jan 6 was kind of a key point as to what happened - if he had left the Capitol he couldn't have completed the count, that would have violated the Electoral Count Act. Had he challenged the slates of electors in a way that resulted in no clear winner, that would have triggered a contingent election which Trump would have probably won.

People have had rallies at the Mall before. Rallies and protests have turned to riots before. Not a single part of what happened is terribly unique or worrying, except maybe that Republicans were involved this time.

Those rallies/protest turned riots are not usually targeted at trying to prevent the election process in a way that would either change the winner directly or create a legal challenge that could just be delayed into a constitutional crisis.

Say what you want about Bush and Gore but it was close, and the supreme court did have to get involved.

Close enough that the last set of requested recounts would have, by all estimations, still led to Bush winning. Applying the alternative standard created for that last set of recounts statewide might not have by some estimations, but no one had asked for that at the time of the ruling.

Because early voting and sandwiches are not the same thing, to anyone approaching this conversation in an even remotely honest way.

If they were given out in a certain radius of a polling place with any even potential political discourse attached, or were given out in exchange for voting or showing up to vote then they would be explicitly illegal, for essentially the same reason as Musk's "giveaway" or the CAH humanity one created in response to it. It's a difference of scale, not kind. The only real legal way to buy turnout with sandwiches is to do something like offer a freebie to all comers with no exceptions on election day, and even that is questionable and still probably illegal if you're too close to a polling place.

Which is why Republicans are absolutely desperate to restrict voting wherever and however they can, because they know with how Trump has screwed everyone over, their party will get absolutely annihilated in the midterms if every American citizen is allowed to keep their rights.

I feel like the Dems are fucking up the response to this though - they should absolutely get on the voter ID train, but only if coupled with a fully federally subsidized national photo ID that indicates citizenship status. Including subsidizing the documents required to get such an ID, and mandating minimum office hours to ensure accessibility. Give states the option to fold state-level IDs into it as endorsements (for example "Licensed to drive by PA, expires 8/1/2028" or "WV concealed carry permit") if the state desires to simplify things at the state level. Solve the "problem" that voter ID is meant to solve, in a way that prevents it being used to achieve the goals the GOP wants it to achieve.

 

[tstorm823]

In that analogy, you have a single known factor pushing in one direction. So its not an applicable analogy at all.

It demonstrates the principle that picking randomly from a pool is not necessarily a representation of a real system. It doesn't need to be perfectly parallel to be a useful analogy.

You are genuinely making the argument that we can't know anything about the effects on election results from actual election results, so the only valid assertion is to measure through proxy variables that still only support your conclusion if we treat the system as random chance.

 

[tstorm823]

Solve the "problem" that voter ID is meant to solve, in a way that prevents it being used to achieve the goals the GOP wants it to achieve.

The goal the GOP wants to achieve is to win elections. Voter ID is like a 80:20 issue. You don't need to contrive an ulterior motive for why a political party trying to win would push for a policy supported by 80% of people.

Instead, consider why a party would take the 20% side, because that requires explanation. If we assume the Democrats are also trying to win, they must think it a winning argument to oppose voter ID, which they call racist, which may be worth it to them. You think they are missing a win on voter ID, but if they were to take your advice, they would be sacrificing one of their arguments for convincing people Republicans are racist, and then they couldn't convince you that Republicans have ulterior motives in the first place.

 

[Agema]

The goal the GOP wants to achieve is to win elections.

Sure.

Unfortunately, winning elections is more important to them than democratic principles of encouraging and supporting the votes of citizens. In fact, I'm no longer confident they even believe in elections.

 

[Silvanus]

It demonstrates the principle that picking randomly from a pool is not necessarily a representation of a real system. It doesn't need to be perfectly parallel to be a useful analogy.

You are genuinely making the argument that we can't know anything about the effects on election results from actual election results, so the only valid assertion is to measure through proxy variables that still only support your conclusion if we treat the system as random chance.

No, that's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing.

Judgements of evidential probability does not require that the phenomenon under observation be literally random. Get your head around that and you'll grasp the argument.

 

[tstorm823]

No, that's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing.

Judgements of evidential probability does not require that the phenomenon under observation be literally random. Get your head around that and you'll grasp the argument.

I said your argument is "we treat the system as random chance." That is what you argued, "so we're back to random." I did not claim that your claim is that its actually random, but your argument is that we need to treat it as such, and any other perspective I suggest is invalid. Your rebuttal here didn't answer me at all.

Sure.

Unfortunately, winning elections is more important to them than democratic principles of encouraging and supporting the votes of citizens. In fact, I'm no longer confident they even believe in elections.

Have you considered that election security is supportive of the votes of citizens?

Set aside the euphemism in your head where "election security" is code for disenfranchisement and consider the actual concept of election security. Having a secure election encourages and supports the votes of citizens. It supports them by making sure they count fairly and aren't invalidated by cheating or fraud. It encourages them by giving them the confidence that their vote matters.

There is no benefit to encouraging voter participation in unsecure and potentially fraudulent election. Turnout in Russian elections is meaningless.
There is also no benefit to having a secure election if nobody shows up to vote. That is also true.

The majority of people are simultaneously supportive of efforts to make voting more accessible and efforts to make voting more secure because they have the sensibility to see that rather than the obsession about which party might benefit.

 

[Hades]

Have you considered that election security is supportive of the votes of citizens?

Theoretically. But when a whole party lied through their teeth that there was mass voter fraud when they lost in a desperate attempt to retain power, then it becomes deeply suspicious when they start pushing for reforms to decrease fraud.

2020 showed us their definition of fraud. Their disaster president losing power was enough for them to cry fraud without anything pointing towards it. How can anyone trust they are honest about these ''concerns'' this time? They weren't last time and the same extremists who lied through their teeth about fraud are in control of the party.

Right now it seems they're advocating for sweeping changes in their favor to combat a problem that doesn't really seem to exist. That's already suspicious even without their clear anti democratic ambitions, and their horrific conduct in 2020.

If MAGA wanted to be trusted they might have tried being trustworthy rather than anti democratic radicals acting in bad faith.

 

[Agema]

Set aside the euphemism in your head where "election security" is code for disenfranchisement

Sure... except the US already has election security. Indeed, US election security is sufficiently good that there is no evidence of significant voter fraud.

When people are proposing solutions for a problem that does not appear to exist, I think it warrants some skepticism. So why do you and your party want to take extensive measures to tighten it in ways that look likely to put barriers to vote in the way of citizens mostly from demographic groups who tend to vote for the Democrats?

One could say this is answering the concerns of Republican voters, except we'd need to factor in that Republican media, think tanks and politicians have been aggressively promoting these fears, much more so than they have been reassuring their voters that all the evidence seems to suggest US elections are secure.

Estimates for voter fraud are in the region of 0.0001%. So for every million votes, there is ~1 fraudulent vote identified. For a start, that looks to me to be remarkably good. (And we also need to remember that many of these fraud cases are of types that would not be prevented by commonly suggested measures.) In an entire presidential election, assuming about 150 million Americans vote, there are 150 fraudulent votes. If election "security" measures therefore prevent more than 150 people voting, they distort democratic representation more than they improve it. And we could be generous here and even offer an order of magnitude or two (for instance in case only a fraction of fraud will be caught). So, are we confident that reforms will effectively disenfranchise less than 15,000 people nationwide?

 

[Silvanus]

I said your argument is "we treat the system as random chance." That is what you argued, "so we're back to random." I did not claim that your claim is that its actually random, but your argument is that we need to treat it as such, and any other perspective I suggest is invalid. Your rebuttal here didn't answer me at all.

It wasn't a detailed "rebuttal". It was a straightforward statement that what you described there was not my position. That's all that's needed; I don't need to explain why I didn't say what I didn't say.

The second sentence, about evidential probability, is standalone. If one can grasp evidential probability, they can grasp the principle here too. The stuff about "proxy variables" suggests you haven't.

 

[tstorm823]

It wasn't a detailed "rebuttal". It was a straightforward statement that what you described there was not my position. That's all that's needed; I don't need to explain why I didn't say what I didn't say.

You accused me of saying that you said something you didn't, but I never said that you said the thing you accused me of accusing you of saying. You still have not actually denied saying the thing I actually accused you of saying, namely that you're arguing to treat it as though it is random.

The second sentence, about evidential probability, is standalone. If one can grasp evidential probability, they can grasp the principle here too. The stuff about "proxy variables" suggests you haven't.

Evidential probability does not tie together logically independent phenomenon, no matter how many times you suggest I just need to grasp the principle. Though, to be completely honest, I have no idea why you are invoking that at all while you flatly reject all forms of evidence that don't conform to your initial assumption.

 

[thebobmaster]

Ah, our peace-loving President. Just look at how much he deserves that Nobel Peace Prize he didn't get.

Trump says he thinks he will have the 'honor' of 'taking Cuba'

The president recently launched a war in Iran after topping Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro by force.

www.cnbc.com

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/16/americas/cuba-power-grid-collapse-intl-latam

 

[tstorm823]

So, are we confident that reforms will effectively disenfranchise less than 15,000 people nationwide?

Not only am I confident of that, I believe that a policy like those proposed would likely result in both more people with their ID documents in order and more people voting.

 

[Agema]

Ah, our peace-loving President. Just look at how much he deserves that Nobel Peace Prize he didn't get.

He's eyeing up all the beachfront real estate that he could coerce the Cuban government into giving him and his allies.

Let's face it, the US animosity to Cuba is only partly the affront of it successfully throwing off US colonisation. It's also in that even with normalised relations Cuba would have resisted US capital buying the island out and taking all its profits.

Not only am I confident of that, I believe that a policy like those proposed would likely result in both more people with their ID documents in order and more people voting.

You can say that, but if it turns out not be true and it substantially suppressed voting, I think that would be very convenient for you and you wouldn't think there an issue.

Ironically it might improve documentation and voting some degree and particularly short-term, but I think this is more dependent on the effectiveness of how voter advocacy groups react to mobilise and assist voters (one might note the Republicans often seem quite hostile to them, too). But as a general rule, a barrier is a barrier, and expecting an increase is counterintuitive.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

2020 showed us their definition of fraud. Their disaster president losing power was enough for them to cry fraud without anything pointing towards it. How can anyone trust they are honest about these ''concerns'' this time? They weren't last time and the same extremists who lied through their teeth about fraud are in control of the party.

And remember how quickly they shut up about "voter fraud" the minute it became obvious that Trump was winning.

 

[tstorm823]

I think this is more dependent on the effectiveness of how voter advocacy groups react to mobilise and assist voters (one might note the Republicans often seem quite hostile to them, too).

That's a perception thing. Republicans were heavily involved in absentee voting efforts that started with soldiers and the elderly. The first state to do no-excuse absentee voting was California when it was still a Republican stronghold. The election law bill that recently opened up PA voting laws passed through a fully Republican lead legislature. You're not going to see any pushback against advocacy groups for older people voting.

The hostility you see against voter advocacy groups is because many of those advocacy groups are blatantly partisan for the Democrats. It's not a matter of voter advocacy or vote encouragement being bad things, it's its exactly the natural resentment you would expect against groups that declare their own altruism for campaigning for one side. A lot of voter advocacy groups do two things: they target only Democratic leaning demographics (women, racial minorities, college students) to encourage to vote, and they file lawsuits against Republicans. That's everything they do. They'll claim to be non-partisan, and then put out ad campaigns about "anti-voter politicians, wink wink".

There's a group called the Fair Elections Center, it calls itself a non-partisan non-profit, but it signs itself onto all the lawsuits against Republicans and does very targeted projects to help voters in "underrepresented minorities" and college campuses. It is registered as its own nonprofit, but its largely left wing funded. Like, of course the Open Society Foundation writes them a check every year. But before it was registered as its own organization, it was Fair Elections Legal Network, a project operating under the umbrella of the New Venture Fund, a Democratic dark money group.

Of course there are Republican equivalents that are doing the same thing, just for different demographics. You've got groups like Faith and Freedom doing reach out and registration efforts specifically with Evangelicals.

I hope you can at least see why someone like me may find it irritating that dark money funded Democratic campaign groups get treated as some inherent good while participating in targeted work to help Democrats and using lawfare against Republicans (and sometimes violating ballot collection laws), and then anyone who might suggest they aren't just altruistically encouraging turnout is branded as anti-voter.

 

[Silvanus]

You accused me of saying that you said something you didn't, but I never said that you said the thing you accused me of accusing you of saying.

My message was, "thats not remotely what i argued" following a direct quote of your post. I "accused you" of saying the exact content of your post and nothing else.

You still have not actually denied saying the thing I actually accused you of saying, namely that you're arguing to treat it as though it is random.

The pull from the sample, yes, i am doing at random, because we have no meaningful information on how that pull has been influenced in either direction.

Evidential probability does not tie together logically independent phenomenon, no matter how many times you suggest I just need to grasp the principle. Though, to be completely honest, I have no idea why you are invoking that at all while you flatly reject all forms of evidence that don't conform to your initial assumption.

You have not presented any form of evidence with a demonstrated, known impact. You've merely said a bunch of things could affect it in unknown ways. Well, duh.

The two questions ("do more nonvoters support D" and "does higher turnout benefit D") are logically independent. That is not the same thing as the phenomena being unrelated. Even your own source is clear, in its mapping, that higher bias in the absense of all other factors brings the D total up.

And yes I'm aware that "making the D go up" is funny.

 

[Schadrach]

The goal the GOP wants to achieve is to win elections.

Hurdles to voting reduce turnout, and reduced turnout broadly benefits Republicans as most measures that reduce turnout impact demographics likely to vote Dem more than demographics likely to vote GOP.

Instead, consider why a party would take the 20% side, because that requires explanation. If we assume the Democrats are also trying to win, they must think it a winning argument to oppose voter ID, which they call racist, which may be worth it to them.

Higher turnout, especially among the demographics most likely to be impacted by something like SAVE, benefits Dems.

Imagine tomorrow an amendment was proposed for SAVE that added a full federally subsidized national photo ID card that verifies citizenship, with the option for states to fold their existing IDs into endorsements on this national ID if they so choose (which would be a cost savings for the states that choose to do so), mandatory office hours for the office that supplies these IDs meant to ensure absolutely every citizen has the opportunity to get one, and the entire system designed to be as frictionless as possible. How do you think that the vote for that amendment would look?

 

[Agema]

The first state to do no-excuse absentee voting was California when it was still a Republican stronghold. The election law bill that recently opened up PA voting laws passed through a fully Republican lead legislature.

Cherry picking information, some of it ancient history, is not very interesting. Is that really representative of where the Republicans are now (for instance, context of the current attempt to undo some of the PA laws they put in place just a few years ago)?

The hostility you see against voter advocacy groups is because many of those advocacy groups are blatantly partisan for the Democrats.

It's not a problem that there are pro-Democrat or pro-Republican voter advocacy groups as well as neutral ones.

But a lot of the Republican attacks out there are connected to a narrative of fraud. It's all the same interlinked web from Republicans, their media and allies, where the Democrat advocacy groups appear to be implied or even directly accused as the boots on the ground helping manage fraud - all the way to the more extreme claims that Democrats ship in immigrants to vote in US elections.

And then wider context again where Trump wants to personally take control of voting in 15 states, with a VP who is scion of a billionaire tech mogul whose company has fingers deep in the state's IT infrastructure, who openly disdains democracy. Another pro-Trump tech mogul who recently ripped through the government and uses his ownership of a major global tech network to promote even the most outlandish claims of voter fraud, the pro-Trump network that got sued for $$$ for lying about fraud, and other media being shuffled into the hands of Trump's favoured cronies, whilst his FCC chair openly threatens media entities who criticise the president and his bad decisions. That's where the Republicans are on democracy.

 

[tstorm823]

My message was, "thats not remotely what i argued" following a direct quote of your post. I "accused you" of saying the exact content of your post and nothing else.

"No, that's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing.

Judgements of evidential probability does not require that the phenomenon under observation be literally random."

You have not presented any form of evidence with a demonstrated, known impact.

Neither have you, that's the point.