5 ms·
I don't think you HAVE to demonstrate that the current system is problematic. You have to demonstrate the current system is potentially problematic. You are de
by lkschubert8 8y ago
I don't think you HAVE to demonstrate that the current system is problematic. You have to demonstrate the current system is potentially problematic. You are describing a reactionary approach to something that definitely should be thought about proactively.
- rectang 8y agoSo, to remedy a problem that you have no evidence exists, you would disenfranchise millions of people.
- specialist 8y agoVoter fraud has been exhaustively researched. The occurrences are negligible. Certainly much lower than most other forms of errors in voting systems. The entire issue is manufactured outrage.
- sgc 8y agoI think there is too much hubris in that opinion. Before the recent election there was very little evidence of the vote being gamed by foreign powers. But if there had been proactive safeguards in place, the attempt could have been nipped in the bud.
- cbsmith 8y agoIf the foreign powers had actually manipulated actual votes (and if you think this is the first time...), their manipulation would have been nearly impossible to hide. That's not what they did.
- sgc 8y agoNor did I say so. But the point was it is ridiculous to fail to plan for something that has never happened if it could happen and there is a reasonable motive for someone to attempt to do it.
- cbsmith 8y agoYes, but being mindful of the negative consequences of employing mitigation strategies has to be kept in mind.
- specialist 8y agoWhat kind of safe guards would prevent a third party from influencing our elections?
- sgc 8y agoThere are myriad legal, diplomatic, and technological solutions to reduce their impact. You can never stop them from trying.