massive voter fraud uncovered in Minnesota, and person uncovering gets arrested

They were arrested because they committed a crime. Shocker.

Also, this isnt 'widespread voter fraud'. They didnt vote! If they did, it would literally be one person (pretending to be someone they're not) vouching for another person (pretending to be someone they're not) for a fraudulent vote. That is low impact at a local level. GTFOH with that silliness.

poll workers allowed him to

Allowed him to what exactly...act a fool and not vote? Yes, they did that. There's no corruption in that, though.

Are you saying because it happened at a local level that it means those policies aren't a serious concern for the national votes these people place?

Even if this were real, it isn't scalable to 'widespread voter fraud', and it's silly to suggest otherwise.

So you're saying that anyone can commit voter fraud.

Such as Democrats and Republicans.

There is no corruption in having completely insecure elections?

The poll workers confirmed to these idiots that the identities they were using (which were real) could be used to vouch for other real identities. What is conveniently being glossed over is that one identity cant vote twice. If the person whose identities they co-opted votes, then the vote(s) is going to get kicked out by the system. If they've vouched for more than one person, then all of those votes are called into question. This is about the most-doomed-to-fail high-effort low-impact schemes one could come up with.

This isnt evidence of corruption or widespread voter fraud. This is evidence these would-be journalists dont understand how the larger machine works.

What do you mean?

I mean, even if successful (which is unlikely), it takes a lot of manpower to yield low output. This strategy takes 2 people to get up to 8 votes. Assuming, for the sake of argument, this were employed in 2020, you would need something like 1.5 million people to achieve the ~6 million votes Biden won the popular vote by. That's laughably absurd. Between the extremely likely scenario where one failed vote brings the entire house of cards down and needing a shit-ton of manpower, this scheme is simply not capable of affecting an election with such large margins.

wylted wrote:

A lot of my work involves an element of cyber security. If I found a vulnerability and then said that because the crime is undetectable, it means we definitely have not gotten a breach or that nobody ever will breach us, so it's best to leave ourselves unprotected, I would be fired.

Wouldn't you also be fired for claiming a catastrophic breach occurred without evidence for the catastrophe?

In my entire life, I've only ever heard of one candidate that asked their supporters to cheat in an election.

WATCH: Trump leads RNC in pledge to 'cheat like hell' in November elections

Very true, It would be better to have free and fair elections...One person one vote and no electoral college.

Notwithstanding that any unbiased outsider sees a corrupt self serving tyrant in charge of what was a close ally, but is now a somewhat reviling bully nation... That said your as biased as the next democrat is, whereas I am a Brit who just sees a corrupt system of Presidential voting...We wait for Trump to die, be outvoted or be assassinated, sadly options 1 and 3 are currently preferrable.

If anything is found it's assumed one occurred but we don't have to report it if we found no evidence. But we know it did and act accordingly

No evidence, but you *know* a catastrophic breach occurred? You're not seriously thinking the question through or you're just not serious.

Trump is looking for any voter fraud to justify his election intervention.

This is about the most-doomed-to-fail high-effort low-impact schemes one could come up with.

I agree, but are we fine with a system that allows someone to submit a few fraudulent votes with enough effort? Most elections aren't won by single-digit vote counts, but some of them are if we look beyond just presidential elections.

This strategy takes 2 people to get up to 8 votes.

So, 6 more votes than they should be allowed to get?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, this were employed in 2020, you would need something like 1.5 million people to achieve the ~6 million votes Biden won the popular vote by.

Al Gore lost Florida by 537 votes. Henry Clay won Maryland by 4 votes. Grover Cleveland's victory was decided by 1,149 individual votes in New York.

Listen, if someone wants to have a serious conversation about how to make elections more secure, I'm all for that. I think it requires a balance between accessibility and security. However, if the argument points to minor vulnerabilities—which will always be present—as evidence of 'massive voter fraud' (sufficient to pile up 6 million surplus votes), then we are talking absurdity. That bears the hallmark of starting with the conclusion, not the evidence.

Fair.

Voter fraud most be proven not just alleged.