
Voting misinformation flourishes on Facebook - hhs
https://www.propublica.org/article/outright-lies-voting-misinformation-flourishes-on-facebook
======
salimmadjd
I’m becoming weary of all these Facebook scare tactics. This types of
misinformation has been on Fox and the rest of cable networks. Not to mention
radio talk shows of the past 20-30 years.

IMHO, additionally this kind of data investigation needs someone with a good
data science background. Otherwise all we're doing is using very limited
observable dataset to make bold statements, which ironically what is happening
with scaring public about voting by mail.

The author of this article is some former pentagon and possibly a military
spook and not a data scientist [https://projects.propublica.org/trump-
town/staffers/ryan-mcc...](https://projects.propublica.org/trump-
town/staffers/ryan-mccarthy)

~~~
hedora
Do you know of a news agency with a better record with data science?

Propublica is the gold standard in this space as far as I know. (538 is a
close second in my book, but they’re narrowly focused on politics and sports).

I suggest browsing their homepage to see what I mean. Well over fifty percent
of the stories are backed by datasets they gathered themselves, and a good
chunk of the remaining ones are about problems with lack of government
transparency that directly impacted them:

[https://www.propublica.org/](https://www.propublica.org/)

If you are a data scientist, you might be interested in other data sets they
curate. These are mostly useful for social scientists, journalists and policy
makers:

[https://www.propublica.org/datastore/](https://www.propublica.org/datastore/)

Disclaimer: I’ve donated to them in the past.

~~~
salimmadjd
Propublica has done some of the best reporting I've read recently. Example the
story with the USS Fitzgerald [0]. I don't remember anything as good in recent
memory.

However, that doesn't mean everything they do has the same standard nor all
their journalists approach their work with the same type of journalistic
rigor. I think we need to judge every article on its own merit and not just
based on some brand value alone.

[0] [https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-
fitzgeral...](https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-
destroyer-crash-crystal/)

------
zackees
1 in 5 Ballots Rejected as Fraud Is Charged in N.J. Mail-In Election:

[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/26/1_in_5...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/26/1_in_5_ballots_rejected_as_fraud_is_charged_in_nj_mail-
in_election_143551.html)

Many other stories like this.

What's alarming is that the democrats tried to push through a bill that
eliminated the state laws for voter integrity for all mail in ballots across
states:
[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/12/democrats-c...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/12/democrats-
coronavirus-bill-would-eliminate-states-/)

So if this has become law, what would have stopped China from printing a bunch
of ballots and sending in them?

Nothing.

The media told us that mail in ballot fraud was non existent. Then when the
cases started to reveal this was a false narrative, the media moved the goal
posts and said "oh it happens, but only happens by republicans."

It's just an ever changing set of goal posts. It's very clear for those of us
paying attention that mail in ballot fraud is the MAIN vector of voter fraud
now. Those that proclaim this doesn't exist are naive or willfully deceptive.

The idea that you can vote without an ID is really unprecedented in the whole
world. The united states is special in that it allows it at all. But this is
quickly changing.

Tick Tock.

~~~
coolgeek
So here's the thing - thousands of Republicans and conservatives have made
claims of widespread vote/voter fraud.

I'm not aware of a single claim that withstood scrutiny or that was even
attempted to prosecute, let alone done so successfully.

I'm not talking about isolated instances. That certainly has happened. I'm
talking enough fraud to actually change an election. And I'm going to restrict
you to the state or federal level, as I wouldn't be surprised that it happens
at the local/county level in some hick outposts.

So what do ya got? Show me an election that was actually affected by
widespread fraud.

~~~
manigandham
This isn’t a right-wing situation but a real valid concern given plenty of
reports between gerrymandering, polling center availability and security,
chain of custody, paper processing, electronic machine hacks, suspect company
backgrounds, etc.

The major problem is you can’t measure it in the first place because there is
no truth set. Unless you can follow up with every single individual and
confirm their vote, you dont have the data.

~~~
coolgeek
> gerrymandering, polling center availability and security, chain of custody,
> paper processing, electronic machine hacks, suspect company backgrounds

These are all important concerns, but they have absolutely nothing to do with
vote fraud. The first two are voter suppression activities. The last four are
election fraud, which is a very different thing than voter fraud.

The notion that you have to follow up with every single voter is absurd. You
can statistically sample anywhere you suspect (imagine) that fraud transpired
and dig deeper in areas where you get hits.

OP's first article even cites Rick Hasen who notes that there were only 491
prosecutions for absentee ballot fraud between 2000-2012.

There is no widespread vote fraud problem. There hasn't been for decades

~~~
manigandham
> _" There is no widespread vote fraud problem. There hasn't been for
> decades"_

This is absolutely unproven. And absentee ballots are not the only way people
vote, with prosecutions are only those who are caught and convicted. Here's a
list of 1071 proven instances (more than twice) from the very first search on
the subject:
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-
voterfraudcases.pdf)

There is no way to know what the real votes are supposed to be unless you
confirm with the person who voted.

Whether you want to call it election fraud or voting fraud, it's the same
problem because you don't know it occurred unless you have the ground truth to
check against. There is no mass confirmation stage for votes to be able to
gather this data and thus it's completely unknown.

~~~
coolgeek
So, 1,071 proven instances over what period of time? Over what overall count
of cast ballots?

Here are some other reviews:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-
investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-
billion-ballots-cast/)

[https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-
fraud...](https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth)

[https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/ohio-illegal-
voting-...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/ohio-illegal-
voting-2018-election/index.html)

~~~
manigandham
The first article you link is only looking into 1 specific type of fraud of
voter impersonation, and even mentions many other instances of other kinds.
Again, without confirming the votes independently, you have no truth set to
compare for finding the real results easily. There is still no answer to this.

Also 99.9% of people already have IDs and need them for living in society so
it's strange to say that voting is the only thing that should be defended from
requiring it. I find this outright dismissal of no fraud existing to be
worrisome. It's the same as antivax and other conspiracy theories and more
aligned with a narrative than any discovery of truth.

~~~
coolgeek
My second link cited 20 studies, 4 court cases and 8 state-wide or federal
investigations.

> Also 99.9% of people already have IDs

Citation needed.

[https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-
fact-...](https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-
a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-
elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html)

I find it odd that you accuse me of conspiracy theory as you're the one
alleging a conspiracy without being able to provide any evidence that one
exists. Before you re-cite your 1,071 instances in reply, note that in every
one of my comments I said widespread fraud. I never argued that incidental
fraud does not occur

~~~
manigandham
I'm saying fraud is _unknown_. Your claim is that there is none, but there is
no way to prove a negative and there has been no serious confirmation at scale
to conclude otherwise.

Your links are limited to voter ID but there are more types of fraud and, as I
explained before, they're all the same as far as needing confirmation to be
able to measure. Instant dismissal without study is the problem, and just as
conspiratorial as saying it's rampant. I simply want the truth through
evidence.

As far as IDs, they're necessary for: opening a bank account, cashing a check,
driving a car, buying a car, buying a house, signing a lease, having
employment, buying any insurance, using any form of credit, going to school,
paying for utilities, receiving welfare, food stamps or any public benefits.
Please explain the overlap of people who have never done any of these things,
don't have any ID, don't have any legal documentation, and are eligible to
vote.

Your 2nd link describes someone who has 2 IDs already, and has failed to get a
new one after it expired. There will always be anecdotes of such paperwork
mishaps but this doesn't show that there's a structural problem (he refuses to
go to court to fix records even though fees can be waived easily). The idea
that a certain race or group of people are incapable of attaining IDs like
everyone else is a prime example of the bigotry of soft expectations.

~~~
coolgeek
We agree that the degree of fraud is unknown.

Where we disagree is on your insistence that the possibility that it may
happen is worth suppressing the vote of the "11% of U.S. citizens – or more
than 21 million Americans – [who] do not have government-issued photo
identification."

You have presented no evidence - at all - that it is a widespread problem,
that it is a pervasive problem.

I, on the other hand, have cited dozens of studies and government
investigations - many of which were conducted by supporters of voter ID
requirements - that showed vanishingly small amounts of fraud.

You have also cited made-up statistics (99.9%) and numbers (1,071 fraudulent
votes) that sound scary, but end up being insignificant in terms of actually
impacting elections.

Unless you can provide evidence of widespread fraud changing a state-level or
federal election - which I've asked for since my very first comment - I'm no
longer willing to discuss this with you.

~~~
manigandham
We don't agree. I'm saying it's unknown - which means I don't know whether
it's zero or widespread. That's the point. Again, it's impossible to measure
without mass confirmation and that has never been done. Where else do you
expect the evidence to come from?

You however claim that there is none. A lack of evidence from a lack of
measurement does not mean your narrative must be true. I'm asking questions
seeking the truth. You are blindly following a political narrative while
dismissing any questioning.

You cited a few articles that only focus on voter ID which isn't the only type
of fraud (remember the 4 year investigation into Russian interference?). Also
that 11% stat is unsourced and just a quote in an article which discusses
people who already had IDs and failed to keep them updated. It's not voter
suppression if everyone has to do it. Do you think that having an ID for work
or to drive is suppressing rights as well?

Can you answer the question I posed earlier about the overlap of people
participating in society and but don't have ID? If it's such a problem then
the answer should be easy.

------
50ckpuppet
So what. This isn't a Facebook problem. It's an education and gullibility
problem. There should be a class in the every high schools history department
the explains propaganda and gossip.

~~~
HumblyTossed
> There should be a class in the every high schools history department the
> explains propaganda and gossip.

It wouldn't help. Facebook and other social media outlets are geared to giving
you more of what you click. Happen to click a few far Z-Wing posts? You'll get
more. Once a pattern develops they feed you what you click most so that you'll
stay engaged. No amount of high schooling will prepare people for that. The
_only_ way to fight it is to actively disengage.

~~~
goatinaboat
The insidious thing is: if you post a rebuttal to some assertion, all Facebook
sees is that you engaged with that content. So it will show you more and more.
You will become exhausted with the arguments and when your guard is down: ads

------
endtime
These are all predictions about the future, so of course they don't have
concrete evidence. Holding them to that standard so they can be declared
"false" or "misinformation" is a rhetorical trick.

It's pretty hard for anyone to be objective about any political issue, but for
what it's worth I vote third party, so my opinion about this is as non-
partisan as I think it can be. That disclaimer made, from a purely engineering
perspective, mail-in voting doesn't seem very secure. The 2016 election was
pretty close; it wouldn't take that many mistakes or deliberate malicious acts
to sway the outcome, especially with no clear chain of custody over people's
ballots.

~~~
ipnon
>A recent Washington Post analysis analyzed three states with all-mail
elections — Colorado, Oregon and Washington — and found just 372 potential
irregularities among 14.6 million votes, or 0.0025%.[0]

They seem insecure, but they are not insecure. That is the problem. The
perception that public elections are vulnerable to massive voter fraud is what
drives these conspiracy theories, not the reality.

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-
of-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-
potentially-fraudulent-ballots-in-states-with-universal-mail-voting-undercuts-
trump-claims-about-election-risks/2020/06/08/1e78aa26-a5c5-11ea-
bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html)

~~~
mtgp1000
Wait, so an outlet which is openly at odds with the current administration
performed an investigation into claims made by the current administration,
found the claims to be false, and we're just going to take the conclusion at
face value? Nevermind the fact that this was conducted by journalists (i.e.
non specialists who have a propensity for misreporting technical information).

Conspiracy theory...what a convenient dismissal of a potentially genuine
problem. All of our institutions are rife with abuse but we're supposed to
believe voter fraud doesn't exist because WAPO says it doesn't and, more
importantly, because Trump said it does...

Edit: and they apparently looked at 3 states. Unqualified journalists should
stay away from statistics or "fact checking" \- at this point they are
actively harming society with their piss poor, agenda driven "analyses".

~~~
tzs
> Edit: and they apparently looked at 3 states. Unqualified journalists should
> stay away from statistics or "fact checking" \- at this point they are
> actively harming society with their piss poor, agenda driven "analyses"

Those are the 3 biggest states of the 5 that use primarily vote by mail. They
contain ~80% of the vote by mail population.

~~~
mtgp1000
>The figure reflects cases referred to law enforcement agencies in five
elections held in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, where all voters
proactively receive ballots in the mail for every election.

Oh I see, well, clearly, if officials aren't reporting on it then it's not
happening. Wapo and blue check marks make it official.

This logic isn't sound but people are happy to swallow hole anything anti-
trump.

Edit: not to mention Colorado, Washington, and Oregon probably don't harbor
anywhere near the same number of illegal immigrants as do states like
California and Texas where this would be more of a concern.

In fact this whole debate is framed illegitimately. States like California
automatically register voters when they receive IDs, they allow noncitizens of
any legal status to obtain IDs, and we're supposed to pretend this isn't an
avenue for illegal voting? Who's going to report these votes if they
ostensibly conform to the California rules? But don't worry, Wapo and Huffpo
will run their "analyses" and everything will come back squeaky clean.

We all need to hold all of our sources accountable and examine them
critically, even when they tell us what we want to hear.

~~~
triceratops
> States like California automatically register voters when they receive IDs,
> they allow noncitizens of any legal status to obtain IDs, and we're supposed
> to pretend this isn't an avenue for illegal voting?

Citation required. The California DMV's own website utterly contradicts what
you say:

"The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is permitted to issue a driver license
(DL) or identification card (ID) to an applicant who submits satisfactory
proof that the applicant’s presence in the United States (U.S.) is authorized
under federal law...DMV will not let you start a DL/ID card application unless
you present your social security number (SSN) and your valid BD (birthdate)/LP
(legal presence) document...DMV will mail your photo DL/ID card after all
tests and requirements have been met and USCIS has verified your legal
presence status. "[1]

On a personal level, I know friends who suddenly couldn't drive because their
visa expired, _even though they were still in legal status_ while they awaited
renewal. Because their license was set to expire the same day as the visa/I94.
That's how hard-assed they are about it. (Btw, that's an additional non-
citizen "tax" \- having to renew your driver's license every 2-3 years,
instead of 5 years like a citizen or permanent resident).

So definitely people without legal status can't register to vote this way. How
many people with _legal status_ do you think are going to try doing this? Like
they went to all this trouble to come to the US legally, and now they'll
commit a crime that has very little payoff for them personally and very high
risk if they're caught? Remember these are people with a legal presence: they
have jobs, USCIS knows where they live, they've been fingerprinted when
applying for a visa, _they 're in the system_. Are there FB/WhatsApp groups of
non-citizens in legal status coordinating this stuff? Has anyone been arrested
for this? Surely if it's going on for so long and at such a scale _someone_
should have been caught right?

Where are your sources?

1\. [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-
safety/ed...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-
safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/limited-term-for-legal-presence-
ffdl-32/)

~~~
mtgp1000
From Snopes, which generously labels this as "mixture" (because it is also
dominated by partisan ideologues)

>Some 605,000 undocumented immigrants who live in California were granted
driver’s licenses in 2015...took effect on January 2, 2015...(DMV) expects a
total of about 1.4 million people will get their license under the law by late
2017.

And here's the fun part

>That announcement renewed interest in another California law, the “New Motor
Voter Act,” which was passed in October 2015. The combination of these two
acts, one allowing undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses, the
other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining driver’s
licenses, sparked fears (which have been periodically resurrected for more
than a decade) that California was allowing undocumented residents to vote.

Oh, but don't worry, because as you also indirectly point out:

>The law requires that applicants under the Motor Voter Act attest that they
meet all voter registration requirements, but critics maintain that the law
“lacks the necessary safeguards to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls.”

Which is a winded way of saying these illegal immigrants are bound by their
honor to opt out of voter registration and/or not go out and use their IDs
[and default registration] to vote.

So despite the downvotes, I'm not the one who has fallen victim to propaganda
here. And the same incentive responsible for this kind of blatantly incorrect
citogenesis gives cause to people to risk illegally voting against a man who
has been painted by this same media as a literal far right white supremacist.
And what risk is there, when media and fact check outlets create citations
which allow politicians to claim that this isn't a problem, while potentially
benefiting from it?

Also I don't appreciate that you've conflated legal and illegal immigration,
though in both cases there is clearly potential for abuse. Under Cuomo a
similar motor voter law was passed by the way. The Wapo "study" is
intentionally myopic.

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-motor-voter-
act...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-motor-voter-act/)

~~~
triceratops
Again, it's not a document-free free-for-all. From your own Snopes link:

"Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time
people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects
citizenship. That’s arguably more secure than someone checking a box under
penalty of perjury."

Even people without legal status applying for a license or ID have to provide
_something_ to identify themselves. If that's not a US birth certificate or
passport, it's pretty obvious they aren't citizens and they can't be
registered. Stop debating in hypotheticals. Show actual proof of fraud
happening at a meaningful scale.

~~~
mtgp1000
>Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age

But if we are registering people who should not be voting, that's one less
safeguard, and now we are relying solely on the good faith of the people at
the booths and the illegal/ineligible immigrants who shouldn't be voting.

At what point are you willing to admit that this is a glaring loophole and an
opportunity for massive scale abuse? Are we really just going to blanket
dismiss any attempt at securing this system as "voter disenfranchisement"?

Illegal immigrants should not be registered to vote. Period. That's halfway to
voter fraud - not to mention that there are other types of voter fraud which
are being deliberately conflated.

~~~
triceratops
> Illegal immigrants should not be registered to vote.

They're not. Period.

~~~
mtgp1000
That point is not under contention; let me reiterate

>the “New Motor Voter Act,” which was passed in October 2015. The combination
of these two acts, one allowing undocumented residents to obtain driver’s
licenses, the other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining
driver’s licenses, sparked fears (which have been periodically resurrected for
more than a decade) that California was allowing undocumented residents to
vote.

So there is no question that they are registered to vote. The remaining
argument is whether they are sufficiently prevent from voting after being
automatically registered (failing to opt out by accident or choice.)

~~~
triceratops
False.

"How will the DMV system ensure only U.S. Citizens are registered to vote?

 _State law prohibits DMV from sending information for AB 60 applicants
(undocumented driver license applicants) to the Secretary of State_. For other
applicants, state law requires each person to declare, under penalty of
perjury, that they meet all voter eligibility requirements, including
citizenship."[1]

If you're undocumented, the DMV _already knows this fact_ and they're
forbidden from sending your info to the Secretary of State. So undocumented
people _can 't_ be registered to vote via the DMV, even if they don't tick the
"Opt-out" box on the form (whether through negligence or malice).

If you're documented, it's perjury and voter fraud - very serious crimes for
someone trying to stay legal and very easy to uncover with a simple query on
the DMV database, joined with voter rolls to see who voted.

Again, do you have any proof of any of what you're alleging actually happening
in the real world? I've already shown you your hypothetical scenario is nearly
impossible and easy to investigate, yet you're trying to convince yourself and
everyone else that "illegals vote in large numbers". Facts don't care about
your feelings.

1\. [https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/motor-voter/general-
info.pd...](https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/motor-voter/general-info.pdf)

~~~
mtgp1000
>yet you're trying to convince yourself and everyone else that "illegals vote
in large numbers"

Not once have I said anything like this. I've been trying to show that it's a
valid concern.

>tate law prohibits DMV from sending information for AB 60 applicants
(undocumented driver license applicants) to the Secretary of State. For other
applicants, state law requires each person to declare, under penalty of
perjury, that they meet all voter eligibility requirements, including
citizenship.

It took some 15 comments and multiple sources before this safeguard was posted
- it's not even on the Snopes page. Don't presume I'm arguing in bad faith or
dismiss my arguments as "feelings" just because I disagree with you. This is
the only snippet in your entire argument that actually prevents illegals from
being registered to vote, which was my entire point of contention. Penalties
don't matter if no one is enforcing them.

And finally, once again, I'm not suggesting that proof of fraud exists, or is
easy to find - what I am saying is that Wapo's laughable absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.

~~~
triceratops
> Don't presume I'm arguing in bad faith or dismiss my arguments as "feelings"
> just because I disagree with you

You're right, and I apologize. It's a long and heated comment thread :-)

> I've been trying to show that it's a valid concern.

Are you at least somewhat more convinced now that these "concerns" are really
more about casting doubts on the validity of California's elections? And on
automatic registration in general? Because the facts are that undocumented
people aren't registered to vote when they get a license or ID, even if they
try to.

> It took some 15 comments and multiple sources before this safeguard was
> posted - it's not even on the Snopes page.

Agreed. It took me some digging to find the exact source too, and I'm
surprised Snopes didn't have it. It should have been right at the top of the
article.

> Penalties don't matter if no one is enforcing them.

If there was something to find, there would be enforcement. I've already shown
that it isn't hard to find evidence of wrongdoing. Why aren't state or federal
prosecutors going after them?

