*** THREAD ***

Don't fall for the Disinformation about Voter Fraud

1/

I think we can all agree that the Trump administration has taken extraordinary steps to delay the inevitable conclusion that Trump lost the elections, period, end of story.

Attempted legal action and a whole host of other parlor tricks are great media fodder.

2/
But, ultimately, Trump will not prevail.

He just clearly didn't win.

But I want to talk to you about the ongoing Russian intelligence op to convince Americans that there's widespread voter fraud.

3/
Voter fraud in America is rare. Not just a little rare. EXCEEDINGLY rare.

Earlier this year, MIT election expert Charles Stewart III completed a 20 year study on election fraud.

Not only is it exceedingly rare, it is also HIGHLY prosecuted, because federal law

4/
enforcement AS WELL AS the intelligence community monitor elections very closely.

To quote The Hill's article, "There have been just over 1,200 cases of vote fraud of all forms, resulting in 1,100 criminal convictions, over the past 20 years.

5/
Of these, 204 involved the fraudulent use of absentee ballots; 143 resulted in criminal convictions."

"Let’s put that data in perspective.

One hundred forty-three cases of fraud using mailed ballots over the course of 20 years comes out to

6/
seven to eight cases per year, nationally. It also means that across the 50 states, there has been an average of three cases per state over the 20-year span. That is just one case per state every six or seven years."

7/
"We are talking about an occurrence that translates to about 0.00006 percent of total votes cast."

https://t.co/MJZUEDxZpx

8/
In 2016, there were concerns after hackers associated with Russian military intelligence gained access to a election systems.

A full intelligence community-wide investigation was launched and the intelligence community assessed that no actual votes were affected.

9/
Here's the report:

https://t.co/dArUQaIdRE

10/
Since 2016, both federal law enforcement and the intelligence community have published countless updates and states regarding election security.

Not only have they worked to secure election security, they have sought to educate the general public about Russia's tactics.

11/
Russia's modus operandi hasn't been to change actual votes, it has been to create chaos and distrust of our election processes.

In other words, generating fear and panic about election fraud.

12/
One of the worst agents provocateur has been an account right here on Twitter, @Greg_Palast .
Greg is and has been touting election fraud for years, all while being openly compensated by the Russian government.
Here are a couple pictures of Greg, as a guest on Russia Today.

13/
Greg has recently seized on the extremely partisan environment in Georgia's elections to capitalize on fears over election fraud. He began focusing on Georgia after Stacey Abrams lost the gubernatorial election.

14/
Disinformation is complex.

But what makes it so effective is that it is engineered around our own ideological biases.

Russia and Russia Today is particularly effective at creating fears by targeting American left-wingers who dislike Trump.

15/
Russia Today has always tended to target the Left-wing more than the Right-wing.

Prior to the 2016 elections, they were practically Bernie Sanders whole advertising campaign:

https://t.co/PETjDlL5ce

16/

More from Politics

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?