Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[PLATO]

Smart move by Putin. Even if they didn't arrest him, he would have put them in a terrible diplomatic position.

[BeBMan]

No BRICS for Putin:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66247067

[Berzerker]

there's video from Georgia showing individuals dropping many ballots in the box being monitored

what a scam

[Dauphin]

I Think Ming is confusing restrictions to people being able to vote with restrictions that only allow eligible voters to vote. Restrictions that prevent ineligible votes should be good for democracy, right?

The problem is that the media has purposefully tried to portray these laws as restrictive to voting instead of installing accountability to the voting system. A good example for me is having to prove your identity to vote. All states will give a free identification card. You cannot convince me it is any harder to get to a place where these are issued than it is to get to the polls. Systems can (and should) be put in place for the incapacitated but not (and should not) for the inconvenienced.

When absentee ballots can be dropped off at an unmonitored box (as was the case in the last Presidential election) there can be zero doubt that at least the opportunity for fraud exists. That is the FACT.

I don't know the US system (and they are multiple by state and county) so what I say here may not be applicable, but I am familiar with the UK voting system. If you go in person, you give your name and address to the clerk who gives you a numbered ballot and strikes your name from the list provided from the electoral register. Similar, if you vote by post or proxy, your name and address are struck from the list when 'cast'. Postal votes are double enveloped - one to record name and address and the second inside is then passed to the bins for the clerks to open and count.

In that system, the ability to commit impersonation fraud that ID is meant to prevent is limited and measurable, even if not open to prosecution. If person A's name is submitted twice, then there is evidence of fraud. With a vote turn out of 50% you would expect a 50% random chance of a single vote fraud being uncovered by this method. Let's say you know the population of people who likely won't vote in an election with 90% accuracy, then any widespread attempt to abuse that knowledge will still show up as double attendees in 10% of cases - enough to be measurable of significant fraud. In that system, I see no value in voter ID requirements at point of vote. It doesn't eliminate other frauds to get fake names on the register, which I think is more exposed. But point of voting ID requirements, not so much in my view.

Unless I am misunderstanding where you are saying the fraud exposure is?

[PLATO]

Back to the war...On the Lyman front it looks like Russia is massing 100,000 troops and beginning its out offensive. ISW seems to think these are disorganized units (probably conscripts??) that will be able to obtain only limited tactical gains. Supposedly they have around 900 tanks to take part in this. The reason for this seems to be fairly obvious. They want to draw Ukrainian reserves out and have them move north. Clearly the Russians are worried about being cutoff in the south and are willing to create another meat grinder to take the pressure off there.

This seems to indicate to me that Ukraine is having more strategic success in the south than the tactical situation would indicate. If they can hold the north with limited reserves being added to that front then I think we are drawing closer to a major push in the south.

Partisan warfare is being reported in Tokmak which could be an indicator of the battlefield being prepared in that direction. The Russian defenses there are as strong as anywhere in the south and that would be a tough nut to crack. The reward for Tokmak is controlling nearly all the east-west movement in southern Ukraine. The sea of Azov highway would be the only remaining viable east-west route Russia controlled.

There are so many pieces moving on this enormous front that it is really hard to get a sense of what are legitimate pushes and goals or what is probing and feint. I continue to believe that Tokmak is the strategic goal of the first major phase of the counteroffensive though. By looking at the defenses, the Russians clearly agree.

[PLATO]

The problem is that my proposal would render everyone's votes worthless and destroy democracy. There would be no way to detect voter fraud, let alone catch the fraudsters rendering the prohibition on multiple votes moot. Not everything that makes voting easier protects it and conversely not everything that makes voting more difficult is an attack on it

I Think Ming is confusing restrictions to people being able to vote with restrictions that only allow eligible voters to vote. Restrictions that prevent ineligible votes should be good for democracy, right?

The problem is that the media has purposefully tried to portray these laws as restrictive to voting instead of installing accountability to the voting system. A good example for me is having to prove your identity to vote. All states will give a free identification card. You cannot convince me it is any harder to get to a place where these are issued than it is to get to the polls. Systems can (and should) be put in place for the incapacitated but not (and should not) for the inconvenienced.

When absentee ballots can be dropped off at an unmonitored box (as was the case in the last Presidential election) there can be zero doubt that at least the opportunity for fraud exists. That is the FACT.

[BeBMan]

Looks like Russia needs a Pontifex again (lame latin joke).

[Geronimo]

Yes

The problem is that my proposal would render everyone's votes worthless and destroy democracy. There would be no way to detect voter fraud, let alone catch the fraudsters rendering the prohibition on multiple votes moot. Not everything that makes voting easier protects it and conversely not everything that makes voting more difficult is an attack on it

[Ming]

Yes

[Geronimo]

Any system that allows all Americans to vote is good for democracy.
Safeguards can be put in place, but not ones that limits availability to voting.
Just one comment on your system... it requires somebody to have a phone, or easy free access to one

So if it supplemented rather than replaced existing voting systems you'd support it?

[Ming]

Any system that allows all Americans to vote is good for democracy.
Safeguards can be put in place, but not ones that limits availability to voting.
Just one comment on your system... it requires somebody to have a phone, or easy free access to one

[Geronimo]

Things that limit Americans right to vote are bad.
If all the ways to vote that had a potential for fraud were closed, there would be no votes since every form of voting is subject to fraud.
I don't know how limiting access to voting is a benefit to the voters.

I could propose a system where voters could dial an automated phone system and the system would tally their votes. I could make the system continually available and update the ballot choices as campaigns evolve. Voters would be forbidden to vote more than once but voting would be anonymous and recorded for any recounts. No system currently in use could possibly be easier.

Would that be a good change? Would that system and it's ease of use be good for democracy Ming?

[Ming]

Things that limit Americans right to vote are bad.
If all the ways to vote that had a potential for fraud were closed, there would be no votes since every form of voting is subject to fraud.
I don't know how limiting access to voting is a benefit to the voters.

[Geronimo]

They are making it more difficult to vote by limiting mail in ballots, eliminating drop boxes, limiting the number of polling stations,
All these things help make it easier to vote for working and poor Americans.
In a perfect world, EVERY AMERICAN would vote.
Unfortunately, the US has terrible voting participation. And they just want to make it worse.
And it's minorities and poor people that the Repubs are trying to stop from voting.
They keep claiming election security as the reason, but that's all BS.
They have yet to prove (and they have tried repeatedly) that these forms of voting are more prone to voter fraud.
There was No wide spread fraud in the last election... but they keep claiming there was with NO PROOF, so they can make it harder for people (mostly Democrats) to vote.
Paper ballots are just as easy to cheat with as any other form of voting.

There has always been opportunity for nearly undetectable voter fraud and the ease of discreetly coordinating such fraud using encrypted communication continuously increases.

Trump was aware of this but only paid it any notice when he wasn't getting enough electoral college votes to win. The fact is a lot of this opportunity existed in 2016 as well and never seemed interested in combatting opportunity for fraud that may have occurred in *that* election let alone ever openly speculated on the implications such undetected 2016 voter fraud would have had for the legitimacy of his election.

The problem is obviously that republicans and democrats seem ok with fraud when they think it will help them but want to stamp it out and close the door to fraud if they think it will help their opposition.

undetectable scalable election fraud loopholes such as Harry Wait demonstrated are extremely dangerous. I get frustrated as hell when people respond that because nobody was caught committing such scalable undetectable voter fraud except for the guy that published his success at doing so that this serves as some kind of evidence that the elections are largely safe from fraud.

When republicans cynically propose only fraud remedies that they statistically expect to help them win I certainly share your contempt for that cynicism. However, that does not mean voters won't benefit to the extent that *any* viable fraud loopholes are closed.

I just wish efforts would apply at least a little Failure Modes and Effects Analysis from the point of view of the electorate as the consumer instead of pure partisan game theory.

[Ming]

They are making it more difficult to vote by limiting mail in ballots, eliminating drop boxes, limiting the number of polling stations,
All these things help make it easier to vote for working and poor Americans.
In a perfect world, EVERY AMERICAN would vote.
Unfortunately, the US has terrible voting participation. And they just want to make it worse.
And it's minorities and poor people that the Repubs are trying to stop from voting.
They keep claiming election security as the reason, but that's all BS.
They have yet to prove (and they have tried repeatedly) that these forms of voting are more prone to voter fraud.
There was No wide spread fraud in the last election... but they keep claiming there was with NO PROOF, so they can make it harder for people (mostly Democrats) to vote.
Paper ballots are just as easy to cheat with as any other form of voting.