6 ms·

> The system is secure and robust, at least with regards to the mechanics of individual votings. Not a single vulnerability or shortcoming? How would one know

> The system is secure and robust, at least with regards to the mechanics of individual votings. Not a single vulnerability or shortcoming? How would one know such a thing? > You just can't run a scam with senior citizen volunteers in thousands of individual precincts. Is this the only possible exploit? Is corruption of thousands of precincts even needed in a tight race? > It would be impossible for fraud to happen on any regular basis and not coming to light. How would one know such a thing? Is it possible on an irregular basis? Is it impossible that it does get noticed, but no serious followup? Have there been no examples of whistleblowers who were not listened to in the history of the USA, election related or not? > So the incidence of 0.00002% (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/26/15424270/v https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/26/15424270/v...) is somewhat informative. How might we know that that impressive looking number is accurate? Does vox have an omniscient on staff? I wonder if when the discussion is about a non-politicized topic (like standard, run of the mill security), might there be a difference in mindset when people are formulating their opinions. If the system in question was for anything other than voting, I suspect IT folks would be a little less accepting of evidence-lite assurances that a distributed, largely manually implemented (by non-experts) system of this scale and frequency of usage is 100% up to snuff. It seems rather unlikely that an inconsistent, somewhat cobbled together and non-expertly manned system of this scope is absolutely perfect. And yet, this seems to be not only the overwhelming narrative, but the fact passed down from the media - the same one that spent the last 4 years assuring us that Russia had hacked the prior election.

maxerickson 6y ago
In practice, interested parties observe the process. It's relatively party based (where parties have better access). https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/policies-for-election-observers.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/polici... It's relatively difficult to pull off hoodwink when you've got adversarial observers standing there.
- dionian 6y ago
  There are cases in court right alleging this was not allowed to happen. "The Trump campaign said it is calling for a temporary halt in the counting in Michigan and Pennsylvania until it is given “meaningful” access in numerous locations and allowed to review ballots that already have been opened and processed." - https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-seeks-voting-stop-25762f69b27dfbccc4fd8077fb5fdc91 https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-seeks-voting-stop-25...
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Michigan case was dismissed by the judge: https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/05/trump-michigan-lawsuit-ballot-counting-case-dismissed/6173871002/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/... As was the PA case: https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/07/trump-campaign-pa-lawsuit-thrown-out/ https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/07/trump-campaign-pa... Has the Trump campaign taken further action beyond what is discussed in your link? I know they had a press conference at the Four Seasons in Pennsylvania, did anything come of that?
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > Michigan case was dismissed by the judge ------------------------------------ Thor Hearne, an attorney for the Trump campaign, said he wanted an order directing Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to require "meaningful access" for campaign poll watchers to the counting of state ballots, plus access to videotaped surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed around the state after Oct. 1. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens said the ballot counting in Michigan, which shows Democrat Joe Biden receiving about 150,000 more votes than Republican Donald Trump, was completed Thursday morning. That made the access request moot, but Stephens said Benson already issued a directive for meaningful access for poll watchers at local ballot counting places. That directive arose from a separate recent lawsuit related to ensuring proper access during the coronavirus pandemic, with the associated social distancing requirements, she said. As for the videotapes, Stephens said there is no legal basis for Benson to provide — or be expected to provide — access to video surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed by local officials. A recent law passed by the Michigan Legislature requires video surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed after Oct. 1. But assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast said the law does not require Benson or her agency to track which boxes were installed after Oct. 1, let alone provide access to video. The ballot drop boxes are primarily a local function. ------------------------------------ Well that's reassuring. > As was the PA case ------------------------------------ The president’s campaign argued that his supporters weren’t being allowed to monitor the tallying of mail-in ballots, but U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond instead argued the two sides to come to an agreement. He suggested each party be allowed 60 observers inside a hall in the downtown Philadelphia convention center where the final ballots are being counted. In Georgia, a judge dismissed a lawsuit from the Trump Campaign on Wednesday. That case from the campaign claimed that a witness said that late-arriving ballots in one county had not been stored properly and may have been mixed in with timely ballots. ------------------------------------ Similarly reassuring. Yes indeed, this is rock solid proof that nothing improper occurred.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > In practice, interested parties observe the process. On paper, interested parties are supposed to observe the process. What actually happens in physical reality does not always match the guidelines laid out on paper. > It's relatively difficult to pull off hoodwink when you've got adversarial observers standing there. I read assurances about what happens in physical reality on a regular basis. Often, these assurances are not actually correct (in no small part because the person providing the assurances was not actually physically present). I am not asserting that something improper has occurred here, but when journalists are asserting unequivocally and in unison that nothing improper has happened, because the US election system is non-exploitable (while providing zero evidence of this), after having just finished telling me in unison for the last 4 years that Russia "hacked" the 2016 election, I hope you can pardon me if I'm not too keen on taking evidence-free assurances on pure faith. There was a lot going on across a huge number of voting stations that evening, the notion that not one single thing went wrong is a bit of an extraordinary claim, especially coming from a group of people who don't exactly have a pristine track record of bias or accuracy. I doubt we'll ever find the truth, or even exert any significant effort in discovering it - that's just the way it is and I can accept that. But it's frustrating that the public is so accepting of this state of affairs.
  - the1pato 6y ago
    > I am not asserting that something improper has occurred here, but when journalists are asserting unequivocally and in unison that nothing improper has happened, because the US election system is non-exploitable (while providing zero evidence of this), Yeah, this in particular has been very weird.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    There's lots of right wing media that said other shit. in unison is just not true. I think you are overstating other stuff also, but meh.
  - tempestn 6y ago
    It's an even more extraordinary claim that widespread fraud did occur—a claim Trump was making in advance, before the votes were even cast, and continued to make, as expected. What I'm seeing from most media outlets are not claims that it didn't or couldn't occur, but simply that Trump is making the accusation without any evidence. Add to that the fact that he's been claiming fraud before the election even started, and it's pretty clear this was his strategy all along to cast doubt on an election he expected to lose (just like in 2016).

maxerickson 6y ago

In practice, interested parties observe the process. It's relatively party based (where parties have better access). https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/policies-for-election-observers.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/polici... It's relatively difficult to pull off hoodwink when you've got adversarial observers standing there.

dionian 6y ago
There are cases in court right alleging this was not allowed to happen. "The Trump campaign said it is calling for a temporary halt in the counting in Michigan and Pennsylvania until it is given “meaningful” access in numerous locations and allowed to review ballots that already have been opened and processed." - https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-seeks-voting-stop-25762f69b27dfbccc4fd8077fb5fdc91 https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-seeks-voting-stop-25...
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Michigan case was dismissed by the judge: https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/05/trump-michigan-lawsuit-ballot-counting-case-dismissed/6173871002/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/... As was the PA case: https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/07/trump-campaign-pa-lawsuit-thrown-out/ https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/07/trump-campaign-pa... Has the Trump campaign taken further action beyond what is discussed in your link? I know they had a press conference at the Four Seasons in Pennsylvania, did anything come of that?
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > Michigan case was dismissed by the judge ------------------------------------ Thor Hearne, an attorney for the Trump campaign, said he wanted an order directing Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to require "meaningful access" for campaign poll watchers to the counting of state ballots, plus access to videotaped surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed around the state after Oct. 1. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens said the ballot counting in Michigan, which shows Democrat Joe Biden receiving about 150,000 more votes than Republican Donald Trump, was completed Thursday morning. That made the access request moot, but Stephens said Benson already issued a directive for meaningful access for poll watchers at local ballot counting places. That directive arose from a separate recent lawsuit related to ensuring proper access during the coronavirus pandemic, with the associated social distancing requirements, she said. As for the videotapes, Stephens said there is no legal basis for Benson to provide — or be expected to provide — access to video surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed by local officials. A recent law passed by the Michigan Legislature requires video surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed after Oct. 1. But assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast said the law does not require Benson or her agency to track which boxes were installed after Oct. 1, let alone provide access to video. The ballot drop boxes are primarily a local function. ------------------------------------ Well that's reassuring. > As was the PA case ------------------------------------ The president’s campaign argued that his supporters weren’t being allowed to monitor the tallying of mail-in ballots, but U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond instead argued the two sides to come to an agreement. He suggested each party be allowed 60 observers inside a hall in the downtown Philadelphia convention center where the final ballots are being counted. In Georgia, a judge dismissed a lawsuit from the Trump Campaign on Wednesday. That case from the campaign claimed that a witness said that late-arriving ballots in one county had not been stored properly and may have been mixed in with timely ballots. ------------------------------------ Similarly reassuring. Yes indeed, this is rock solid proof that nothing improper occurred.
mistermann 6y ago
> In practice, interested parties observe the process. On paper, interested parties are supposed to observe the process. What actually happens in physical reality does not always match the guidelines laid out on paper. > It's relatively difficult to pull off hoodwink when you've got adversarial observers standing there. I read assurances about what happens in physical reality on a regular basis. Often, these assurances are not actually correct (in no small part because the person providing the assurances was not actually physically present). I am not asserting that something improper has occurred here, but when journalists are asserting unequivocally and in unison that nothing improper has happened, because the US election system is non-exploitable (while providing zero evidence of this), after having just finished telling me in unison for the last 4 years that Russia "hacked" the 2016 election, I hope you can pardon me if I'm not too keen on taking evidence-free assurances on pure faith. There was a lot going on across a huge number of voting stations that evening, the notion that not one single thing went wrong is a bit of an extraordinary claim, especially coming from a group of people who don't exactly have a pristine track record of bias or accuracy. I doubt we'll ever find the truth, or even exert any significant effort in discovering it - that's just the way it is and I can accept that. But it's frustrating that the public is so accepting of this state of affairs.
- the1pato 6y ago
  > I am not asserting that something improper has occurred here, but when journalists are asserting unequivocally and in unison that nothing improper has happened, because the US election system is non-exploitable (while providing zero evidence of this), Yeah, this in particular has been very weird.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  There's lots of right wing media that said other shit. in unison is just not true. I think you are overstating other stuff also, but meh.
- tempestn 6y ago
  It's an even more extraordinary claim that widespread fraud did occur—a claim Trump was making in advance, before the votes were even cast, and continued to make, as expected. What I'm seeing from most media outlets are not claims that it didn't or couldn't occur, but simply that Trump is making the accusation without any evidence. Add to that the fact that he's been claiming fraud before the election even started, and it's pretty clear this was his strategy all along to cast doubt on an election he expected to lose (just like in 2016).