4 ms·

>A recount provides absolutely no evidence in either direction on what I'm alleging. Georgia electronic votes were all backed by voter verifiable auditable pap

by 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.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Simply alleging something doesn't make it true, or likely or even plausible. It's just saying stuff, especially when you have no evidence and hence no reason for the stuff being said.
    - woofie11 6y ago
      Well, I'd argue in all the places voter fraud is likely, we can't have evidence since we don't have transparency or records. That's not the same places as the Trump crowd is talking about right now, but touch screen voting with unauditable proprietary software? Come on. There's one private company which controls the election outcomes in several states. We have no way to know whether they're doing anything illicit and no way to know.
      - simonh 6y ago
        So I say again, why aren’t Trump and Republican law makers and state leaders doing anything about it? Why have they sat on their hands on this issue for four years, including a period when the Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency? I think we all know the reason why.

by sblom 6y ago

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.
- simonh 6y ago
  Simply alleging something doesn't make it true, or likely or even plausible. It's just saying stuff, especially when you have no evidence and hence no reason for the stuff being said.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Well, I'd argue in all the places voter fraud is likely, we can't have evidence since we don't have transparency or records. That's not the same places as the Trump crowd is talking about right now, but touch screen voting with unauditable proprietary software? Come on. There's one private company which controls the election outcomes in several states. We have no way to know whether they're doing anything illicit and no way to know.
    - simonh 6y ago
      So I say again, why aren’t Trump and Republican law makers and state leaders doing anything about it? Why have they sat on their hands on this issue for four years, including a period when the Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency? I think we all know the reason why.