> that voting is secure and accurate. So, they are the ones claiming the voters to be reptiloids. No, they are not. They are claiming the normal state of affai

> that voting is secure and accurate. So, they are the ones claiming the voters to be reptiloids. No, they are not. They are claiming the normal state of affairs - that the vote is what it appears to be, and the voters that appear humans are indeed humans. The challenger makes extraordinary claim - that some of them are instead not what they appear, but reptiloids wearing human skin as a costume. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Claim that humans are humans do not require proof. Claiming that voting process is not fraudulent is not extraordinary, since this is indeed a common case in vast majority of the situations. > She's asserting statistical anomalies that can be clarified with additional information Which anomalities? So far nobody named even one. > the state's assertion of security without sufficient proof. It's not a proof, just as I have no proof you are not a reptioloid from Nibiru trying to undermine human race by casting doubt on electoral processes. I just accept the normal case that you are human wanting honest elections, even with slightly misguided logic - because this is the common case. That's what you have to do to be sane - in fact, there's specific form of insanity where person suspects all surrounding him is an elaborated setup to trick them and demands extensive proofs of most mundane things like that drinking tap water won't instantly kill them and that their relatives are not secretly plotting to murder them - and it is almost always an extremely severe and debilitating condition. > A simple one would be paper-receipts with anonymous identifiers that tie votes to tallies published on-line. What prevents one from faking 10000 anonymous IDs voting for $ones_favorite_candidate? All anonymous IDs look alike, how do you verify they are true? In fact, sine you have no idea which of the IDs is yours, how you even know your vote has been recorded properly? How do you know the hardware just doesn't print one vote for $favorite_candidate after each vote against, with fake (or just unused - e.g. dead person's) ID? > Speaking of hashes, there's also block-chain. Oh of course. How could I forget, every problem in the world has one simple solution - use blockchain. > but start by at least closing known vulnerabilities Sure, that is sensible. But for that they should be known - and so far, the statistician in question didn't make them known, but only implied and hinted at. That's exactly my complain. When I say "there's RCE vulnerability in current version of Linux", you say "ok, show me the exploit", not "well, now it's on Linus Torvalds to prove there's no RCE in current version on Linux, and he must spend as much time as that guy wants to prove it to him". I would like to see the same approach in this case, that's all.