TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A Report on the Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries

212 点作者 DamienSF将近 9 年前

22 条评论

dang将近 9 年前
This story was flagged by users, no doubt because politics are mostly off-topic here and flamewars, which inflammatory topics predictably produce, are the worst.<p>However, more than one user emailed to plead the case for the article, arguing that it is substantive and pointing out that the discussion has so far mostly remained civil (a small miracle in relative terms), so we&#x27;ll try turning the flags off on this one.<p>If the thread gets nasty we&#x27;ll have to turn them back on, so if you add a comment here, please ensure that it is extra civil and substantive.
vannevar将近 9 年前
I think the most interesting (and perhaps hopeful) aspect here is that people now have an <i>expectation</i> of fairness in the selection of party candidates. That&#x27;s a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, I think people widely assumed that the party was biased towards individual candidates. Even now, that&#x27;s clearly the case when the sitting President is a candidate. I personally think that expecting an unbiased party structure is unrealistic, given the very nature of the organization. The party doesn&#x27;t have a product, other than its opinion. The idea that an organization of partisans only arrives at that collective opinion through primaries and caucuses seems quite naive to me.
评论 #12175036 未加载
评论 #12175973 未加载
评论 #12175417 未加载
评论 #12174770 未加载
评论 #12175412 未加载
评论 #12174618 未加载
评论 #12174773 未加载
wjnc将近 9 年前
I think this story does not need to be flagged, but could benefit from a very constrained discussion (&#x27;self-censoring&#x27;) to not let personal political opinions take over the discussion. I&#x27;ll try.<p>Is this a direction more modern, western democracies seem to be heading? I feel a loss of democratic appeal and subsequent machinations of all kinds by apparatuses of state to keep in power. Democratic in name, but the number of options available to the public limited to what is in line with what public officials think of as good sense.<p>Examples:<p>-DNC machinating to get Clinton elected as candidate. The public needed Russia (!) for a fresh dosis of unpopular truths about those machinations. This documents more evidence on machinations.<p>-The unpopular and undemocratic European Union. Examples abound. The best being the EU-constitution: struck down in popular referendums, flown in as a treaty.<p>-In my country, the Netherlands, a referendum in which the public voted against an EU-agreement with Ukraine (wholy within law, with very obvious machinations by state and political parties), on which both the government and EU reneged<p>Counter example:<p>-Brexit<p>Disclaimers<p>-Please, don&#x27;t hit on the &#x27;red herrings&#x27; (if any), like &#x27;undemocratic EU&#x27;. I see it as both a fact (imho, populus does not recognize European parliament) and an opinion (mostly in the more populist parties over Europe). Not center to my view of democracies limiting decision power of the populus. -The &#x27;public officials&#x27; need not be those paid by the state. But more broadly: those aspiring to have their organisations have a say over public policy.
评论 #12171089 未加载
评论 #12173782 未加载
评论 #12174280 未加载
评论 #12173921 未加载
评论 #12171063 未加载
评论 #12171174 未加载
评论 #12174136 未加载
评论 #12171090 未加载
评论 #12171096 未加载
tunesmith将近 9 年前
Is there convincing evidence in this document that the amount of irregularities were actually sufficient to change the result?<p>I haven&#x27;t read the entire document yet but have sampled a couple of parts. The exit polls section, by the way, is irresponsibly flawed.<p>It&#x27;s <i>well-known</i> that the primary purpose of exit polls in the US is not to audit elections. It&#x27;s not even to project winners. It&#x27;s to update demographic models. It&#x27;s well-known that using the vote count to update an exit poll&#x27;s model is normal and expected practice, and not evidence of conspiracy. Yes, there have been cases where exit poll divergence has been used as evidence to point out likely fraud. But that only happens when the divergence reaches a certain level, and - this is more key - this determination is made by the exit poll organizations themselves.<p>Here, in order to believe that exit polling shows evidence of fraud, you&#x27;d have to not only believe that the exit poll divergence does not have simpler, alternative explanations, and that the level of divergence goes beyond a reasonable range, but that our exit poll organization - a non-partisan coalition of several different independent news organizations - was aware of it and unanimously chose to suppress the information. This is tinfoil hat territory.<p>I call it irresponsible because the point of view advanced in this report is willfully ignorant of how exit polls even work.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-fix&#x2F;wp&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;22&#x2F;how-exit-polls-work-explained&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-fix&#x2F;wp&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;22&#x2F;ho...</a>
评论 #12175816 未加载
评论 #12175476 未加载
forbes将近 9 年前
Does any other country have a &#x27;primary&#x27; system like the US? In Australia there is no pretending to elect candidates for each party. In our recent election we had two choices for PM from the major parties, chosen by the parties themselves.<p>In the US you spent a year choosing your candidates, but behind closed doors one of those parties spent all their time trying to push one candidate whilst the other party spent all their time trying to stop another.<p>The Australian system seems a little more honest, even though the roles of PM and President are quite different. We can elect a PM and the party can then choose to throw them out the week after. This happens frequently.
评论 #12175748 未加载
评论 #12171462 未加载
评论 #12171152 未加载
评论 #12171170 未加载
评论 #12173969 未加载
评论 #12171304 未加载
评论 #12171679 未加载
评论 #12171202 未加载
alexandercrohde将近 9 年前
I think this report is excellent. Even for those who don&#x27;t believe the statistical evidence it provides is conclusive in this case, I think no reasonable person could disagree with the improvements it suggests:<p>Quoting from page 8:<p>1) Exclusive use of hand-counted paper ballots in all future US elections.<p>2) Automatic voter registration with same-day party affiliation switching as a mandatory condition for all elections that are publicly funded.<p>3) Restoration of voting rights legislation which would ensure adequate access to polling sites.
评论 #12176263 未加载
评论 #12175746 未加载
aorth将近 9 年前
Damning. Another report from April, 2016 about fraud in the Democratic primaries favoring Hillary Clinton.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@spencergundert&#x2F;hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-992ad9e080f6#.51i8q11bq" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@spencergundert&#x2F;hillary-clinton-and-elect...</a>
unabst将近 9 年前
The only question we should be asking is this. Why do some votes count more than others? The fact that there are delegates, let alone super delegates, is damning. You should always question someone claiming they will &quot;represent&quot; you.<p>Democracy at its best does not need any systems or hierarchies or even parties. It needs people, all equal, to all vote, and to all be counted. That&#x27;s it.<p>I for one am all for mandatory voting, and a mandatory voting national holiday. Those who don&#x27;t want to vote can vote &quot;null&quot; in protest. And they will feel their voice was heard because it will be. That would be a true democracy and a holiday America would be proud of.
评论 #12176182 未加载
selectron将近 9 年前
Hand counting of votes seems like a no-brainer, regardless of whether there was a conspiracy this election.
评论 #12171094 未加载
20tibbygt06将近 9 年前
Election Justice USA reporting their site is under attack since reporting their findings. [0]<p>[0]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Elect_Justice&#x2F;status&#x2F;758376021674561536" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Elect_Justice&#x2F;status&#x2F;758376021674561536</a><p>At this time, I&#x27;m still unable to reach their site.
protomyth将近 9 年前
I found this election cycle interesting from the point of view of a true outsider versus the party ruling clique. It seemed to me the big difference in outcomes was the amount of work done at the grassroots level in previous elections. The party who has had their ruling clique challenged for multiple election cycles had an outsider nominated, as opposed to where the party leadership was much more able to deal with insurgents.
archgoon将近 9 年前
So why didn&#x27;t any of this conspiracy to rig Diebold machines get referenced in the 20,000 leaked emails?
评论 #12176011 未加载
评论 #12174852 未加载
评论 #12171142 未加载
rubberstamp将近 9 年前
Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig Makes 15-Minute Case That U.S. Is Nowhere Near A True Democracy.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;collegetimes.co&#x2F;larry-lessig-american-democracy&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;collegetimes.co&#x2F;larry-lessig-american-democracy&#x2F;</a>
nkurz将近 9 年前
Since I haven&#x27;t written it elsewhere, I&#x27;ll write up my recent voting experience here. I&#x27;m registered as a &quot;No Party Preference&quot; (NPP) vote-by-mail voter living in Contra Costa County, California. As an non-partisan ballot, (logically) that ballot did not include the ability to vote in any presidential primary. But the rules of some parties in California (Democratic, Green, and Libertarian) allow you to vote in their primary as an NPP voter if you exchange your NPP ballot for a &quot;crossover&quot; ballot.<p>Shortly before the primary election, the California Secretary of State issued a clarifying statement about how the process worked for NPP voters. It included these options for NPP voters who wanted to vote in a primary:<p><pre><code> Contact your county elections office no later than May 31 to request a [party specific] vote-by-mail ballot... OR Bring your vote-by-mail ballot to an early voting location or the polls on Election Day and exchange it for a ballot with presidential candidates NOTE: If you have lost your original vote-by-mail ballot, you will have to vote a provisional ballot at the polls—your vote will still be counted. </code></pre> <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sos.ca.gov&#x2F;administration&#x2F;news-releases-and-advisories&#x2F;2016-news-releases-and-advisories&#x2F;tips-no-party-preference-voters1&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sos.ca.gov&#x2F;administration&#x2F;news-releases-and-advis...</a><p>Since I was planning to vote in person anyway, and since I wanted to vote in the Democratic primary, I decided to bring my valid vote-by-mail ballot with me to exchange for a standard non-provisional Democratic party ballot at my assigned polling place.<p>When I got there (the lobby of the local Catholic church), I waited (briefly) in line, presented my mail-in ballot, and was told that exchanges for Democratic ballots were not being allowed. I mentioned the Secretary of States memo, and was (politely) told by the volunteer at the desk that they they knew nothing of this, and had been instructed that only provisional ballots were to be given.<p>Not wanting to hold other people up, and not wanting to accept a provisional ballot that would not show up in the end-of-day count, I left my place in line, went outside, and researched my options on my cell phone.<p>I discovered that indeed, Contra Costa County historically has had a policy of not exchanging mail in NPP ballots for &quot;real&quot; partisan ballots, that the Secretary of State&#x27;s memo was part of the attempt to make clear that this was against state law, and that the day before the election the County had begrudgingly agreed to temporarily change its policy:<p><pre><code> After hearing reports of Contra Costa County’s practice, the Secretary of State’s Office contacted local elections officials. On Monday, they announced they would change their practice and offer these voters replacement ballots. </code></pre> <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ww2.kqed.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;06&#x2F;07&#x2F;contra-costa-county-at-odds-with-state-over-mail-in-ballot-exchange&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ww2.kqed.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;06&#x2F;07&#x2F;contra-costa-county-at-o...</a><p>But apparently no one had told the volunteers working at the polls!<p>So seeing no way to solve this on my own, I went though the line again, and accepted a Democratic &quot;provisional&quot; ballot. I was told that I needed to take the &quot;provisional voting class&quot;, and directed to a table with 4 or 5 confused people already seated at it. A few minutes later, another volunteer (elderly, bewildered, apparently having a very hard day) tried unsuccessfully to give us instructions on how to fill out the form on which we were to affirm our identity, electoral status, and reason for requesting a provisional ballot.<p>Then the volunteer left, and we filled out the forms as best we could. The process was sufficiently confusing that one of the voters gave up and left. After 5 minutes, the volunteer returned, and then mentioned that I wasn&#x27;t supposed to have filled out the line that said &quot;Reason for requesting provisional ballot&quot;, crossed out my complicated answer.<p>He then went to fetch the actual ballots for us. Most of us filled them out at the table, although I think one person went to a voting booth to do so. A second person gave up at this time. Or maybe they hadn&#x27;t understood that they were supposed to sign and seal the envelope and drop it in the box on the way out? Or maybe they had to go to the bathroom and planned to return.<p>Eventually, the volunteer returned and I was told I was told to tear off the &quot;receipt&quot; from the provisional ballot and drop the ballot itself in an official looking bag next to the exit. The instructions on the receipt said that after 30 days, I could check online or by phone to see whether my ballot was accepted.<p>I came home, and immediately filled out and faxed a Voter Complaint form, which I hoped the State would be sympathetic too as the County was directly disobeying their directives and failing to uphold their agreement: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sos.ca.gov&#x2F;elections&#x2F;additional-elections-information&#x2F;voter-complaint&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sos.ca.gov&#x2F;elections&#x2F;additional-elections-informa...</a><p>I never heard back any followup from the complaint. I&#x27;ve checked online several times, but 45 days later it still shows up as &quot;No ballot found&quot;. That&#x27;s right, so far as I can tell my vote was neither counted nor rejected, just lost. I might try phoning or going in person to see if I can learn more, but at this point I feel it&#x27;s a lost cause.<p>Edit: I should point out that I don&#x27;t blame the volunteers --- they were poorly trained, and doing as they are told. But why are we relying on poorly trained volunteers for our elections? I do blame the County, since they failed to follow through on their pledge to the State and the press, but assume this is mostly poor communication rather than any specific ill-intent.
评论 #12176317 未加载
评论 #12171249 未加载
评论 #12174463 未加载
natelaporte将近 9 年前
This is unacceptable. How can you be proud of cheating to win?
评论 #12175336 未加载
评论 #12171098 未加载
评论 #12171209 未加载
评论 #12171040 未加载
boneheadmed将近 9 年前
Perhaps the Russians were involved.LOL! <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blogosqarteam.typepad.com&#x2F;.a&#x2F;6a0148c7b55aa3970c019b028bfea0970d-pi" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blogosqarteam.typepad.com&#x2F;.a&#x2F;6a0148c7b55aa3970c019b02...</a>
isuckatcoding将近 9 年前
Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but this just reinforces the idea of a corrupt (if not idiotic) US voting&#x2F;election system.
评论 #12175869 未加载
评论 #12171057 未加载
评论 #12171070 未加载
Kinnard将近 9 年前
How exactly does the flagging work?
评论 #12173836 未加载
DamienSF将近 9 年前
The link suddenly disappeared from the homepage while trending...
fleitz将近 9 年前
It&#x27;s a rigged system that&#x27;s the way it&#x27;s supposed to work.<p>Either you overcome the rigging, or you STFU and unify with the corruption. As Sarah Silverman would say, stop being ridiculous.<p>Besides, what are you going to do about it? Vote for Trump?
评论 #12171072 未加载
fncndhdhc将近 9 年前
Quite typical for the mods to delete this. After all, wouldn&#x27;t want word to get out that YC&#x27;s political friends are crooks.
评论 #12173804 未加载
评论 #12173186 未加载
SixSigma将近 9 年前
The irony of hosting this all on Clinton financing Google.<p>in for nearly $1m<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;media&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;media&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;clinton-foundati...</a>