A metaphor for the likelihood of voter fraud, for people who insist that it's a conspiracy theory, or there's no evidence of it.
(1/7)
Suppose Amazon wanted to know how many packages it had. Packages were kept in warehouses all over the country. The system was different in every warehouse.
(2/7)
Some people need to move packages around, and there's a list of who is allowed to do that in each warehouse. But if you go in and say you're that person, nobody checks. If someone else has already done that for you when you arrive, you just get another package.
(3/7)
Some packages get driven around by people in their own cars, some get moved around by the post office, some by volunteers or low paid government employees, and in each case they're largely unmonitored - there's no clear record of which ones left or arrived.
(4/7)
Packages are, by common consent, valuable for people to take. But nobody investigates closely what happens in each place, and very rarely are package thieves caught.
(5/7)
For what package system other than "votes" would this be considered a reliable and acceptable system?
For what important corporate outcome, if you proposed this setup as a manager, would you not be fired?
(6/7)
If someone told you there was no evidence of package fraud, how plausible would that claim be?
(7/7)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The reactionary economist's steelman case for tariffs. An incomplete thread.
1/
Tariffs produce tax revenue which can be used to offset other taxes. The failure to include this in comparisons greatly slants the argument towards free trade in the eyes of economists, by conflating "lower distortionary taxes" with "lower tariffs specifically".
2/
Existing taxes, especially income tax, have huge deadweight losses - compliance is a big pain, distortions from lower incentives to work are damaging. Even if free trade is good, this justifies more agnosticism about a *revenue neutral tariff* than most economists display.
3/
The essential personality trait that doctors develop is the ability to confidently give an answer on any matter and sound like a self-assured subject matter expert. Even if they've half forgotten, or don't really know. Patients hate an uncertain or unknowing doctor.
1/N
This is not just something that comes from the medical profession, but something patients themselves implicitly demand. People don't like doctors that get the wrong answer, but they tend to be even more scornful of doctors who Google things in front of them.
2/N
If we're both just googling medical ailments, why am I paying you? I can do that myself.
This attitude is terrible, and a collective norm that allows answers of "you know, I'm going to research some more obscure possibilities and get back to you" would be very helpful.
3/N
Evidence Suggesting Voter Fraud in Michigan Senate Race
5 highly suspicious late-night vote updates in Wayne, Genesee, Berrien and Muskegon counties contributed 18.5K net Democrat votes, almost the entire Dem margin of victory. They look implausible on multiple dimensions.
A 🧵
The updates boost Democrat votes at the expense of Republican votes, pushing the limits of what might be considered credible to a casual observer. However, they leave six properties that are consistent with fraud, and are collectively very hard to explain.
2/N
The suspicious properties are: 1. Very high Democrat vote share (89%+) 2. Enormous increases in Democrat vote share relative to past votes in county (26% to 52%↑) 3. Increases in Democrat share are huge outliers relative to all nationwide vote updates (above 99.6th pctile)
Evidence Suggesting Voter Fraud in Wisconsin Senate Race
In Milwaukee, a huge and improbable Dem vote dump flipped the race
In Dane and Winnebago, updates implausibly all improved Dem vote share relative to prior votes. Updates got more extreme after GOP pulled ahead.
A 🧵
In Milwaukee, a large vote update of 109K votes, 83% favoring the Democrats, arrived at 3:31am on Wed 11/6, flipping the outcome of the race.
This vote batch is improbable on several dimensions: 1. It is late at night 2. It differs from the 67% Dem vote share beforehand
2/N
3. It is 25% of all Senate votes cast in Milwaukee 4. It is a considerable fraction (3.2%) of votes in the overall race 5. The race was close beforehand (49.1% Dem vote share) 6. It flipped the outcome of the race
3/N
A 🧵 on how terrible and massively error-filled Pennsylvania voter roll data is.
This is important for understanding how much voter fraud there is. A system that cannot prevent innocent errors also cannot prevent malicious errors.
First, the highlights:
1/N
-423 PA voters are older than the oldest known person. 17 are too young. One is yet to be born.
-Almost 1m (12% of PA voters) lack a house number, making their address impossible to verify.
-252 PA voters only list a Post Office Box as an address
2/N
-Thousands of PA voters are registered at single addresses corresponding to homeless shelters and mental hospitals
-42% of likely PA college undergrads who registered to vote with an on-campus address are still registered to vote from their dorm at age 24 or older.
3/N