Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[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

[PLATO]

Isn't it Chicago where the phrase "Vote Early...Vote Often!" originated?

[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]

Yes

[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

[BeBMan]

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

[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.​

[Berzerker]

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

what a scam

[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.

[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?

[BeBMan]

No BRICS for Putin:

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

[PLATO]

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

[BeBMan]

I read now he may join per video, but of course it's not the same.

[N35t0r]

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.​

If the system is set up even half-competently, there isn't really more opportunity for fraud than the traditional in-person method.

[PLATO]

If the system is set up even half-competently, there isn't really more opportunity for fraud than the traditional in-person method.

And there is the problem. The system is not set up even half-competently for either drop box ballots or in person "no ID" voting. Many of these so called "restrictive" laws are designed to do just that...add some competence to the system. I think it is something that everyone can agree on is that every eligible voter should have a reasonable opportunity to vote. I would hope we could all agree that we also only want eligible voters to vote.

[Ming]

And many of these so called "restrictive" laws are designed to do just that, restrict eligible people from voting.

[Broken_Erika]

A universal easy-to-get ID would fix a few problems, here in Canada i just use my health card or my photo ID card.
Of course the Republicans would denounce it as the "Mark of the Beast" or something....

[PLATO]

And many of these so called "restrictive" laws are designed to do just that, restrict eligible people from voting.

How is that? By requiring them to prove who they are? Shouldn't that be a basic tenant of any voting system?

What prevents me from walking into precinct A and saying, "I am john Smith. I don't have ID and I want to vote." and then walking into precinct B and saying "I am Tom Smith. I don't have ID and I want to vote."??

ID's are free or nearly free in every state in the union. To say that requiring one is restrictive, while technically correct, is ludicrous when looked at in the light of voting integrity. How do you enforce "One person, one vote" if you don't even really know who is voting?

I am dumfounded by the effect propaganda has on our own people. This should be a simple matter. Get an ID and go vote. A non-ID voter took the time to register...they can take the time to get ID.

[PLATO]

A universal easy-to-get ID would fix a few problems, here in Canada i just use my health card or my photo ID card.
Of course the Republicans would denounce it as the "Mark of the Beast" or something....

Every state will issue a free or nearly free identification to any of its residents.