4 ms·
That would only makes sense to me if rigging only one state was near useless. It's very much not. If you rig say, Florida, there's a fairly high chance of decid
by kadoban 7y ago
That would only makes sense to me if rigging only one state was near useless. It's very much not. If you rig say, Florida, there's a fairly high chance of deciding the election.
- parvenu74 7y agoI don't think the machines matter as long as the vote can be replayed/recounted without ambiguity. An idea: https://medium.com/@dotnetmike/touch-screen-voting-should-be-illegal-59295dbabc27 https://medium.com/@dotnetmike/touch-screen-voting-should-be...
- swader999 7y agoIt needs a paper record, this needs to be the source of truth.
- daveguy 7y agoNot just a paper record. A hand marked paper record. If it doesn't go through a computer first it can't be altered. There are several states that do it this way. It's a "Scantron" style ballot. Fill in the vote, run it through a tally machine and save the ballot. The tally machines could be messed with, but if there is evidence of tampering with the tally there is always the authentic original ballot.
- swader999 7y agoYes!
- pmoriarty 7y agoIf you've got a paper record, just use that instead of the machines. Machines just add more opportunities for fraud.
- bediger4000 7y agoThat's traditionally been the problem with voting machines: a "recount" just re-read some tally. Combine this with voting machine companies being opaque, not recognizing obvious flaws and their executives promising to deliver states to particular candidates (https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm), and you begin to feel that all the suspicion is justified.
- ska 7y ago> as long as the vote can be replayed/recounted without ambiguity. Isn't this the core problem with most electronic voting as currently implemented in the US? I mean, that no such guarantee exists?