3 ms·
I don’t buy the “voting isn’t trustworthy” narrative. I buy the “I claim voting isn’t trustworthy when my tribe loses an election” angle.
by willis936 6y ago
I don’t buy the “voting isn’t trustworthy” narrative. I buy the “I claim voting isn’t trustworthy when my tribe loses an election” angle.
- m463 6y agoIt's not a narrative. Voting isn't trustworthy.
- willis936 6y agoHow is that not a narrative? It certainly is not a fact.
- godelski 6y agoDo you have evidence to this? No one ever expects to have perfect trust in voting (or anything). There are 155 million votes that had to be counted. If we're talking about a few thousand errors, that doesn't change anything unless they are highly concentrated in specific areas. The question is if it is good enough the trust the results. But if you expect perfection that this is a game that can never be won. Never.
- m463 6y agosearch "defcon voting village"
- godelski 6y agoThat's not an answer. I am well aware of defcon's voting village. I'm well aware of many of the issues with voting machines and actively advocate for better security (and voting methods). But I think you'd taking the results too far. You'd have to hack into hundreds or thousands of machines within a single state to change its votes. Worse, you have to do this in a way that looks plausible. You're talking about a major conspiracy that would have to take place. And if Russia is going to change votes why wouldn't China, Israel, or others? So they would have to all organize together so they don't undo one another's work. And that would have to happen without us (NSA, FBI, CIA) finding out. You're talking about a conspiracy that would be very difficult to pull off and require high amounts of organization. Hacking a computer is easy. Hacking a thousand computers in a room full of people that are worried about their computers being hacked? Different story.
- craftinator 6y agoPlus, earth is flat!