https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/24/business/tucker-carlson-fox-news

Following the settlement with Dominion Voting Systems last week, Tucker Carlson is out at Fox News.

Fox settles Dominion defamation lawsuit for $787.5 million, avoiding trial

Will there be an apology?

This news has broken in the last two hours and many outlets are reporting it. It doesn't appear on the Fox News homepage.

https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-game-plan

I annotated the hell out of my 2022 midterm ballot!

I wonder if others use the sense making features of a note card system to think through their voting decisions? This seems an interesting and useful exercise which Paxson has done.

protocol complian attacks that can be mitigated through mechanism design

!- in other words : This would be true individual DIRECT governance agency, rather than INDIRECT and ineffective representational agency.

Here's a link to the penultimate draft (not for citation): https://www.academia.edu/46814693/The_Signaling_Function_of_Sharing_Fake_Stories

This broad thesis sounds to me like something I've read before, perhaps in George Lakoff about people signaling group membership or perhaps people with respect to their voting tendencies. The question isn't who should I vote for specifically, but who would someone like me (ie. who would my group, my tribe) vote for?

This sort of phenomena is likely easier to see/show in sports fans who will tell blatant untruths or delude themselves about the teams of which they are fans.The team winning at all costs will cause them to put on blinders.

A particular recent example of something like this with relation to what might otherwise be a logical business decision is seen in incoming Amazon CEO Andy Jassy nixing the idea of building in Philadelphia due to his own NFL fandom https://www.phillyvoice.com/amazon-hq2-philly-eagles-giants-rivalry-andy-jassy-jeff-bezos-amazon-unbound/

Why would someone make a potential multi-million dollar decision over their sports preference?

Philip Cowley. (2021, July 25). Bump for this, from 2012. Https://t.co/HrJwtnl5P3 [Tweet]. @philipjcowley. https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1419182098171170816

Vega-Oliveros, D. A., Grande, H. L. C., Iannelli, F., & Vazquez, F. (2021). Bi-layer voter model: Modeling intolerant/tolerant positions and bots in opinion dynamics. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 230(14–15), 2875–2886. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00151-8

It seems as if 80% raised their hands, believing that Capitalism if the best economic system, and very few raised hands, later, believing that a new economic system is needed. A bit reasonable, since it would cost thousands to enter the room, no?

On Questions of COVID Mitigation Methods, South Dakotans are Sharply Polarized. (n.d.). South Dakota State University. Retrieved 8 October 2021, from https://www.sdstate.edu/news/2021/09/questions-covid-mitigation-methods-south-dakotans-are-sharply-polarized

Garimella, K., Smith, T., Weiss, R., & West, R. (2021). Political Polarization in Online News Consumption. ArXiv:2104.06481 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.06481

Ingram, G., Chuquichambi, E. G., Jimenez-Leal, W., & Olivera-LaRosa, A. (2021). In Masks we Trust: Explicit and Implicit Reactions to Masked Faces Vary by Voting Intention. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9d4eu

Gligorić, Vukašin, Allard Feddes, and Bertjan Doosje. ‘Political Bullshit Receptivity and Its Correlates: A Cross-Cultural Validation of the Concept’. PsyArXiv, 27 October 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u9pe3.

Perhaps a way to do some community discussion to sway voters who might be purchasing these items?

Face Masks, Voting, and Social Media | Human Resources | The University of Texas at Austin. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2020, from https://hr.utexas.edu/learning-development/programs/face-masks-voting-and-social-media

Daley, J. (2020). How to Avoid COVID while Voting. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-avoid-covid-while-voting/

COVID-19 and the Law Colloquium Series | Elections. (2020, September 30). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKInisfa60o

r/BehSciAsk - Issue Radar: Covid-19 and threats to democracy. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved June 18, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciAsk/comments/hbf4g9/issue_radar_covid19_and_threats_to_democracy/

Blockchain can only solve some of the problems that need to be solved in a voting system. Where it falls short:

• It doesn't help count secret ballots in a publicly verifiable way
• It doesn't provide individual verifiability that a ballot was recorded and counted
• It doesn't help with voting eligibility, since that's about human authentication (and a centrally maintained voter list)

The list of eligible voters is, in the modern nation state, inherently centralized. There's nothing distributed about it.

The requirements of the ideal voting system are:

1. Enforced secrecy — Each voter can be sure their vote cannot be tied to their identity.
2. Individual verifiability — Each voter can verify their vote was cast and counted.
3. Global verifiability — Everyone can verify that all votes were correctly counted and that only eligible voters cast ballots

Barnett ’15, L., August 4, & 2020. (n.d.). When Voting Is a Risky Choice. Harvard Law Today. Retrieved 6 August 2020, from https://today.law.harvard.edu/feature/when-voting-is-a-risky-choice/

Cotti, C. D., Engelhardt, B., Foster, J., Nesson, E. T., & Niekamp, P. S. (2020). The Relationship between In-Person Voting and COVID-19: Evidence from the Wisconsin Primary (Working Paper No. 27187; Working Paper Series). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27187

Leininger, A., & Schaub, M. (2020). Voting at the dawn of a global pandemic [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/a32r7

Motta, M., & Jansa, J. (2020). Concern About COVID-19 & Support for Universal Vote by Mail. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/yatjc

FSI Stanford. (2020, June 1). The Executive Order on Platforms and Online Speech: Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center Responds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKeWGXT8qp4

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S. A., Kotcher, J., Ballew, M. T., Bergquist, P., Gustafson, A., Goldberg, M. H., & Wang, X. (2020). Politics and global warming, April 2020 [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d7vbq

Stefani, S., Ricci, E., Prati, G., TZANKOVA, I., Albanesi, C., & Cicognani, E. (2020, April 24). Gender Differences in Political Engagement and Participation among Italian Young People. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ps9ea

Voting should not be rewarded. Apathy should be penalized.

This isn't due to any bug. Merrill's study uses normalized utilities, so in the 2-candidate case, the majority vote always goes to the utilitarian winner.

Utter nonsense. To paraphrase:

Any election system that favors unrepresentative candidates [like IRV] would be considered unreasonable; the same rationale must be applied to one that favors representative candidates.

Uh, no. That doesn't follow.

FairVote starts from the conclusion that IRV is the best voting method, and then works backwards to try to justify it, in this case arguing that a flaw of IRV is actually a feature, by making a false equivalent between a voting system that favors unrepresentative candidates and one that favors representative candidates.

The whole point of an election is to find the most-representative candidate.

Yes, candidates who are moderate relative to the voters should always win.

The goal of an election is to find the candidate who best represents the electorate. If the electorate is left-wing on average, the winner should be too. If the electorate is "strong on both personal freedoms and economic freedoms", then the winner should be too.

Anything else is undemocratic.

This isn't true. It's possible for a Condorcet candidate to be extremist relative to the other candidates or the electorate, since weak preferences are given equal weight to strong preferences. Simple example here:

This is true, but IRV doesn't choose the candidate who is most-liked (the "utilitarian winner"), either.

Under range/score, the best strategy to promote the election of a preferred candidate is always to give that candidate the maximum score and then give every other competitor the minimum score.

Yeah, this is false.

If you have perfect knowledge of how everyone else is voting (and you usually don't), then the best strategy is to give a maximum score to the frontrunner that you prefer, and also to everyone you like more than them, and to likewise give a minimum score to the other frontrunner, and to everyone you dislike more.

This is not bullet voting; it's equivalent to Approval Voting, and leads to more moderate winners who are good representatives of the electorate.

Real-world Score elections don't show this behavior, anyway, because polls are imprecise and the consequences of voting honestly under Score aren't as dire as they are under FPTP or IRV.

Rebuttal to [the original version of] this page at https://www.equal.vote/fv

This is nonsense. All voting systems are subject to tactical voting.

"Failing the majority criterion" is actually a good thing, because these systems find the candidate who is most acceptable to the entire population, rather than the candidate who is most acceptable to half of the population.

Majoritarianism that ignores the desires of half of the population leads to adversarial politics, polarization, and eventually even to violence and civil war.

...which is why it subsequently gets repealed?

Each vote counts and our votes determine our future. If we all vote for what we want we can have a better future and not complain about why our community is bad.

It's as if Snapchat is popularizing being politically involved, it is helping young people to want to vote by making it "cool" and a part of their profile. It also has a community aspect to it, like snapchat is building a network of young voters

This reminds me of some studies in psychology about why people vote and for whom they vote. It's not always who they would vote for individually, but who would a group of people like them vote? This makes the "community" portion far more complex than it would appear.

I should track down the original references, but I think I remember reading about them via either George Lakoff or possibly Malcolm Gladwell.

Consensus building tool used by Wikidata and others.

DEFCON, the world’s largest hacker conference, will release its findings on Tuesday, months after hosting a July demonstration in which hackers quickly broke into 25 different types of voting machines.

...

Though the report offers no proof of an attack last year, experts involved with it say they’re sure it is possible—and probable—and that the chances of a bigger attack in the future are high.

“From a technological point of view, this is something that is clearly doable,” said Sherri Ramsay, the former director of the federal Central Security Service Threat Operations Center, which handles cyber threats for the military and the National Security Agency. “For us to turn a blind eye to this, I think that would be very irresponsible on our part.”

The GOP intends nation-wide voter suppression.

• The House Appropriations Committee voted to defund the Election Assistance Commission, which helps states protect voting machines from hacking.
• The DOJ sent a letter to all 50 states, essentially instructing them to purge voter rolls.
• The White House commission on election integrity sent a letter to all 50 states, asking for detailed voter data including political party.

"Qualified voters" meant almost exclusively white men. As the former colonies began the process of writing state constitutions, debates over who should be included as a "qualified voter" often divided conventions. Vermont and Pennsylvania had two of the most liberal constitutions. Vermont permitted all men, regardless of color, to vote, while Pennsylvania permitted all white men to vote regardless of income. Other states, like Maryland, had much more restrictive qualifications for voting and required that free white men also hold property.

The ACLU of Iowa reports that 11 percent of eligible Iowa voters--260,000 people--don’t have a driver’s license or non-operator ID, according to the US Census and the Iowa Department of Transportation, and could be disenfranchised by the bill.

...

 So far in 2017, 87 bills have been introduced in 29 states to restrict access to the ballot, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. (And that’s on top of the 21 states that already passed new voting restrictions since 2010.)

There is evidence, although far from certain, that there were hundreds of thousands of votes cast illegally for Hillary, Plus there is Podesta's statement that if a person has a photo ID and claims to be a citizen they should be able to vote, a standard that would allow millions of illegals to vote illegally, and Obama's statement to Gena Rodriqez that there would be no punishment of illegal's voting.

This is presumably the research which was posted and trashed by WaPost linked to by me on Hypothes.is previously

For most of my friends on the Left, the argument against Trump is about fitness: Trump, they say, is not fit to be President. I agree with this claim.

But that claim has been rendered democratically irrelevant. 62 million Americans heard that argument, and disagreed with it. That doesn’t make the claim “Donald Trump is unfit” false. But it does render it unusable by an elector as a reason not to vote for Trump. Whatever they were meant to be originally, we cannot now see electors as democratic guardians of our Republic. They cannot be entitled to second guess the judgment of the people with respect to an issue the people can reasonably be said to have considered.

I disagree with this. The very purpose of the Electoral College is to judge the candidate. That can mean telling the majority that their choice was stupid. (And depending on how many Electors think so, the House is still likely to consider the issue yet again.)

More evidence that the mainstream media's claims there is no illegal voting are nothing but "fake news".

Ironically, dismissal of Trump's ties to Putin strikes me as an instance of gaslighting -- while demonstrating that it's not always intentional. ("Oh, that's just a conspiracy theory." "There's no evidence of that at all." "What do you think this is, a James Bond novel?")

There are very close ties between Trump and Putin.<br> They need to be thoroughly investigated.

Another instance of gaslighting is the suggestion that those who want the election audited are merely sore losers, or paranoid. Never mind the probing of voter registration databases. Never mind the vulnerable voting machines. Never mind the mismatch between exit polls and counts. Never mind that Republicans brazenly conspire to disenfranchise minorities.

Chris Sautter and Jake Schlachter say we need a federal lawsuit to require a hand recount of all paper ballots.

http://www.electorstrust.com/<br> Electors Trust is providing free, confidential legal support to Electors who are considering voting their conscience.

Concerns about election integrity. Quite a few links.

This is a classic case of dishonest factchecking.

I have read multiple articles from multiple different types of news sources that cite occasions instances of votes being cast for dead people. And these are only the cases that are caught -- there is very little checking for such abuse, and Democrats generally oppose efforts to remove dead people (or non-citizens, for that matter) from voter rolls. So the total number of fraudulent votes could be much larger.

So dead people voting is more than" virtually existent".

Donald Trump's "lies about voter fraud are a prelude to massive voter suppression." This has become typical of the Republican party. But Trump and his staff are sure to make it worse, and they're already showing it.

Widespread voter suppression targeting minorities, and suspicious "errors" in Wisconsin vote counts.

A statement from Marc Elias, general counsel to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. They've been watching the vote counts closely, and will continue to do so. They "had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter voting technology."

J. Alex Halderman, Professor of Computer Science at U. Michigan, says yes, it's possible that the election was hacked. We should audit the results. And paper ballots should always be used in future elections.

Jill Stein filing for vote recounts in MI, PA, and WI. Needs to raise $2.5 million by Friday afternoon.

2016 election irregularities, including a claim by Richard Hayes Phillips that some small towns in Wisconsin had more cast ballots than registered voters. (!!!)

National Election Defense Coalition - a nonprofit that fights for fair elections and voting rights.

A “well-informed citizenry” require journalistic assistance. Which is why US elections are such a neat context to discuss literacy, public opinion, agency, representativeness, and populism.

Post, comment, annotation… All different, but can all have the same predicate.

A good editorial from NJ.com outlining why the Democracy Act was needed for NJ voting.

Unlike some other approaches to development, this acknowledgment that usage can push innovation could help expand Hypothesis beyond a core base of “annotation geeks”. Document-level annotations can serve to classify or evaluate, like social bookmarking. What’s wrong with that?

Wow. Hadn't heard it put so bluntly before.