4 ms·

No chance in hell. Frankly I don't believe anyone who says otherwise, and I question if the insecurity of our elections isn't at least partly by someone's desig

No chance in hell. Frankly I don't believe anyone who says otherwise, and I question if the insecurity of our elections isn't at least partly by someone's design.

slowmovintarget 8y ago
My response to the headline would have been a version of President Obama's campaign posters: "Nope!" You can trace the money behind these vendors back to both parties, too.
unclebucknasty 8y ago
>I question if the insecurity of our elections isn't at least partly by someone's design Yeah, with some of the process, policy, and technical decisions that have been made, it's really the only logical conclusion.
zdragnar 8y ago
> at least partly by someone's design By design, yes, by intent, probably not. For eample, the federal government is, like many very large organizations, absolutely awful at writing contracts for things outside of their area of expertise. See the ACA marketplace website fiasco, for example; while I haven't personally read the contracts, the word on the street is they were written in such a way that there wasn't a responsible party for making sure that the thing actually worked- i.e. that different vendors systems interoperated well (then again, maybe that's just urban legend, I'm not a bureaucrat in DC). Add on top of that the extensive layers of red tape to even become a vendor for the government, and add on top of THAT the fact that elections in the US are heavily decentralized, so you've got many different governments with many different systems with many different requirements, all of whom have substantial roadblocks set up and lack the expertise to properly audit vendors, and it's practically guaranteed to not be pulled off well.
maxxxxx 8y ago
" if the insecurity of our elections isn't at least partly by someone's design." For a lot of hyperpartisans it's only about winning. They don't care about fair elections.

No chance in hell. Frankly I don't believe anyone who says otherwise, and I question if the insecurity of our elections isn't at least partly by someone's design.

slowmovintarget 8y ago

My response to the headline would have been a version of President Obama's campaign posters: "Nope!" You can trace the money behind these vendors back to both parties, too.

unclebucknasty 8y ago

>I question if the insecurity of our elections isn't at least partly by someone's design Yeah, with some of the process, policy, and technical decisions that have been made, it's really the only logical conclusion.

zdragnar 8y ago

> at least partly by someone's design By design, yes, by intent, probably not. For eample, the federal government is, like many very large organizations, absolutely awful at writing contracts for things outside of their area of expertise. See the ACA marketplace website fiasco, for example; while I haven't personally read the contracts, the word on the street is they were written in such a way that there wasn't a responsible party for making sure that the thing actually worked- i.e. that different vendors systems interoperated well (then again, maybe that's just urban legend, I'm not a bureaucrat in DC). Add on top of that the extensive layers of red tape to even become a vendor for the government, and add on top of THAT the fact that elections in the US are heavily decentralized, so you've got many different governments with many different systems with many different requirements, all of whom have substantial roadblocks set up and lack the expertise to properly audit vendors, and it's practically guaranteed to not be pulled off well.

maxxxxx 8y ago

" if the insecurity of our elections isn't at least partly by someone's design." For a lot of hyperpartisans it's only about winning. They don't care about fair elections.