3 ms·

> We have absolutely no idea whether the vote counts in the US are authentic. Of course we do. Georgia did a full hand recount this election, finding no eviden

> We have absolutely no idea whether the vote counts in the US are authentic. Of course we do. Georgia did a full hand recount this election, finding no evidence of anything like what you're alleging. And many states do random-sample hand recounts every election. We didn't check every single vote, but "absolutely no idea" is way off the mark.

woofie11 6y ago
> finding no evidence of anything like what you're alleging Indeed. A recount provides absolutely no evidence in either direction on what I'm alleging. Fortunately, if you'd like evidence, you can look for the auditable source code for my local voting machines on github. Didn't find any? There's your evidence of a transparency issue. What many of these posts did provide evidence for are reading comprehension issues on web forums. But we knew that already.
- sblom 6y ago
  >A recount provides absolutely no evidence in either direction on what I'm alleging. Georgia electronic votes were all backed by voter verifiable auditable paper ballots. That's independent of whether the software is competent at arithmetic. A hand recount does, in fact, protect against fake totals. Unfortunately, there are a handful of states that don't mandate paper backups. The solution for machines of that sort isn't open source—it's adding auditable paper.
  - simonh 6y ago
    It's really a waste of time. These people don't care if the election was fair, don't care that Republican appointed officials responsible for implementing the voting systems in Republican run states verified everything. They don't care how audit-able the votes were. They don't even care that Trump and the Republican leadership have no interest in vote reform despite repudiating the results of the vote. It's simply a flat out repudiation of democracy.
    - woofie11 6y ago
      I kind of do care that the election is fair, and I've kind of cared for decades that we've undermined that. I care about that a lot more than Georgie. Discounting me as "these people" is distinctly how we get to corruption. "These people" also couldn't allege fraud in Georgia if we had fraud-proof systems. It's not rocket science. I wish we could point them to proof. We can't. We can point "these people" to pretty good evidence, but we wouldn't have this particular problem if we could point to hard proof. We'd probably have a different problem, but it is what it is.
      - jtgeibel 6y ago
        > "These people" also couldn't allege fraud in Georgia if we had fraud-proof systems. It's not rocket science. What evidence do you have that they couldn't? Plenty of people would make claims of fraud, even in a "fraud-proof" election systems. What would that even look like, in theory, let alone in practice? What specifically out our current system leaves it open to the widespread, multi-state fraud that is being claimed by the president and others?
        woofie11 6y ago
        ... That we have touchscreen voting machines, without auditable source code, auditable hardware, or corporate transparency? That we have no real way to know they're at all running honest algorithms? I mean, seriously. Look under the hood for five minutes. https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/ This stuff wasn't even controversial among most liberals pre-Trump.
        jtgeibel 6y ago
        How does any of that apply to the situation in Georgia? Sure, the things you mention would be nice incremental improvements to Georgia's system and states that do not have an auditable paper ballot trail are very problematic, we don't disagree there. You imply that liberals have changed their position on this post-Trump, but I don't think you'll find these suggested improvements controversial to most liberals. But what do you mean by we can't point the people of Georgia to hard proof? I fail to see how addressing even all of the points you raise would suddenly convince the president and his supporters. The existing measures don't appear to have swayed them at all. So I don't think it's productive to pretend like this wouldn't be a problem if only we had some mythical "fraud-proof" system. https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/historic_first_statewide_audit_of_paper_ballots_upholds_result_of_presidential_race https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/historic_first_statew... > Today, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced the results of the Risk Limiting Audit of Georgia’s presidential contest, which upheld and reaffirmed the original outcome produced by the machine tally of votes cast. Due to the tight margin of the race and the principles of risk-limiting audits, this audit was a full manual tally of all votes cast. The audit confirmed that the original machine count accurately portrayed the winner of the election. > By law, Georgia was required to conduct a Risk Limiting Audit of a statewide race following the November elections. > The differential of the audit results from the original machine counted results is well within the expected margin of human error that occurs when hand-counting ballots. A 2012 study by Rice University and Clemson University found that “hand counting of votes in postelection audit or recount procedures can result in error rates of up to 2 percent.” In Georgia’s recount, the highest error rate in any county recount was .73%. Most counties found no change in their finally tally. The majority of the remaining counties had changes of fewer than ten ballots.

woofie11 6y ago

> finding no evidence of anything like what you're alleging Indeed. A recount provides absolutely no evidence in either direction on what I'm alleging. Fortunately, if you'd like evidence, you can look for the auditable source code for my local voting machines on github. Didn't find any? There's your evidence of a transparency issue. What many of these posts did provide evidence for are reading comprehension issues on web forums. But we knew that already.

sblom 6y ago
>A recount provides absolutely no evidence in either direction on what I'm alleging. Georgia electronic votes were all backed by voter verifiable auditable paper ballots. That's independent of whether the software is competent at arithmetic. A hand recount does, in fact, protect against fake totals. Unfortunately, there are a handful of states that don't mandate paper backups. The solution for machines of that sort isn't open source—it's adding auditable paper.
- simonh 6y ago
  It's really a waste of time. These people don't care if the election was fair, don't care that Republican appointed officials responsible for implementing the voting systems in Republican run states verified everything. They don't care how audit-able the votes were. They don't even care that Trump and the Republican leadership have no interest in vote reform despite repudiating the results of the vote. It's simply a flat out repudiation of democracy.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    I kind of do care that the election is fair, and I've kind of cared for decades that we've undermined that. I care about that a lot more than Georgie. Discounting me as "these people" is distinctly how we get to corruption. "These people" also couldn't allege fraud in Georgia if we had fraud-proof systems. It's not rocket science. I wish we could point them to proof. We can't. We can point "these people" to pretty good evidence, but we wouldn't have this particular problem if we could point to hard proof. We'd probably have a different problem, but it is what it is.
    - jtgeibel 6y ago
      > "These people" also couldn't allege fraud in Georgia if we had fraud-proof systems. It's not rocket science. What evidence do you have that they couldn't? Plenty of people would make claims of fraud, even in a "fraud-proof" election systems. What would that even look like, in theory, let alone in practice? What specifically out our current system leaves it open to the widespread, multi-state fraud that is being claimed by the president and others?
      - woofie11 6y ago
        ... That we have touchscreen voting machines, without auditable source code, auditable hardware, or corporate transparency? That we have no real way to know they're at all running honest algorithms? I mean, seriously. Look under the hood for five minutes. https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/ This stuff wasn't even controversial among most liberals pre-Trump.
        jtgeibel 6y ago
        How does any of that apply to the situation in Georgia? Sure, the things you mention would be nice incremental improvements to Georgia's system and states that do not have an auditable paper ballot trail are very problematic, we don't disagree there. You imply that liberals have changed their position on this post-Trump, but I don't think you'll find these suggested improvements controversial to most liberals. But what do you mean by we can't point the people of Georgia to hard proof? I fail to see how addressing even all of the points you raise would suddenly convince the president and his supporters. The existing measures don't appear to have swayed them at all. So I don't think it's productive to pretend like this wouldn't be a problem if only we had some mythical "fraud-proof" system. https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/historic_first_statewide_audit_of_paper_ballots_upholds_result_of_presidential_race https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/historic_first_statew... > Today, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced the results of the Risk Limiting Audit of Georgia’s presidential contest, which upheld and reaffirmed the original outcome produced by the machine tally of votes cast. Due to the tight margin of the race and the principles of risk-limiting audits, this audit was a full manual tally of all votes cast. The audit confirmed that the original machine count accurately portrayed the winner of the election. > By law, Georgia was required to conduct a Risk Limiting Audit of a statewide race following the November elections. > The differential of the audit results from the original machine counted results is well within the expected margin of human error that occurs when hand-counting ballots. A 2012 study by Rice University and Clemson University found that “hand counting of votes in postelection audit or recount procedures can result in error rates of up to 2 percent.” In Georgia’s recount, the highest error rate in any county recount was .73%. Most counties found no change in their finally tally. The majority of the remaining counties had changes of fewer than ten ballots.