←back to thread

Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

(passingtime.substack.com)
386 points paulpauper | 2 comments | 06 Nov 24 17:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.416s | source
Show context
FigurativeVoid ◴[06 Nov 24 20:22 UTC] No.42068747[source]▶
When the pandemic started, I really enjoyed the podcast. They seemed to have some good insights, and I found them funny. It was a vibe that I sorely missed being home alone.

If one them sees this, I hope they take it kindly. The podcast has gone downhill drastically. The level of discourse has dropped considerably. They make all sorts of claims with very little evidence.

Recently they have all agreed that voter ID laws "just make sense." But they don't even bring up any of the unpleasant history around IDs.

When DeSantis was running, they didn't ever talk about him flying immigrant around as a horrible political stunt.

They've been leaning closer and closer to anti vax stances.

I still listen.. but I'll probably stop soon. It's becoming a bro podcast.

David Friedberg has the best mind for evidence, and he speaks less and less.

replies(8): >>42069032 #>>42069093 #>>42069179 #>>42069909 #>>42069963 #>>42070012 #>>42072499 #>>42073771 #
WillPostForFood ◴[06 Nov 24 20:46 UTC] No.42069093[source]▶
Recently they have all agreed that voter ID laws "just make sense." But they don't even bring up any of the unpleasant history around IDs.

This year is the 80th anniversary of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, do they really need to go through the history of IDs? We need to rebuild confidence in the integrity of elections, Voter ID, which most democratic countries require, seems like an incredibly modest step.

The states that historically had the worst race issues all have voter id anyway, it is the Northeast and West coast that are refusing.

replies(4): >>42069355 #>>42069410 #>>42069749 #>>42070091 #
troyvit ◴[06 Nov 24 21:03 UTC] No.42069355[source]▶
> We need to rebuild confidence in the integrity of elections, Voter ID, which most democratic countries require, seems like an incredibly modest step.

People didn't lose confidence in the integrity of elections because our elections lack integrity, they lost confidence because they were told in a way that resonates with them that our elections lack integrity.

Voter ID would just be security theater in that it's an onerous rule that does nothing to help any actual problem aside from making things look better to some people.

replies(2): >>42069572 #>>42069742 #
the_optimist ◴[06 Nov 24 21:31 UTC] No.42069742[source]▶
There is no magic here. Ballots have no identifiers attached to them. Fraudulent ballots are indistinguishable from real ballots. Envelopes do have identifiers attached to them but are separated from ballots. It is not always necessary to submit envelopes with ballots, and batch integrity is not necessarily maintained or useful based on batch size. False registration and/or false voting can produce fake ballots. Ballot-level fraud resolution diminishes to zero, by design, in the existing system in order to preserve a degree of voter anonymity. Without registration or voting resolution, there is a very limited check on fraud, including high likelihood of surplus of in-circulation empty ballots. please explain your position in this context.
replies(2): >>42071762 #>>42072392 #
lmm ◴[07 Nov 24 01:47 UTC] No.42072392[source]▶
So what's the scenario where a voter ID check makes a difference - specifically, where an ID check eliminates more fake votes than it disenfranchises genuine voters?

The ID check is presumably still attached to the envelope rather than the ballot, right? (Otherwise you have massive deanonymity problems). If there is fake voter registration happening, presumably obtaining fake IDs by the same methods is just as easy.

I'm sure a certain amount of e.g. individuals submitting their dead relatives' ballots happens - but anyone doing that can probably grab their relative's ID too, and go to two polling stations. I doubt any large-scale partisan fraud via in-person submission at polling stations is going on, because it's impractical to make that happen while keeping it secret - the only way it could happen would be with widespread official collusion, and again in that case an ID check wouldn't move the needle.

replies(1): >>42073436 #
1. the_optimist ◴[07 Nov 24 04:34 UTC] No.42073436[source]▶
The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The match will inherently enumerate voters. Your outside assumptions that a) id requirements disenfranchise voters and b) official collusion is the “only way” are structurally and by evidence unfounded. In your argument they provide only hand-wavy service for an otherwise unsupported conclusion.
replies(1): >>42073499 #
2. lmm ◴[07 Nov 24 04:46 UTC] No.42073499[source]▶
> The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique.

How does checking an ID ensure eligibility better than what's already done? And similarly for ballot casting - how would IDs make a better uniqueness/registration check than what we have?

> a) id requirements disenfranchise voters and b) official collusion is the “only way” are structurally and by evidence unfounded

It's well documented that many legitimate voters do not have IDs. And it's widely accepted that large-scale in-person voter fraud is not happening and there's no real plausible way for it to happen; if you want to claim that it is or it can, the onus is on you.

> In your argument they provide only hand-wavy service for an otherwise unsupported conclusion.

Please grow up. The over-the-top rhetoric doesn't make you more convincing, quite the opposite.