3 ms·

This isn't going to work. 1) There is an incredible amount of legitimacy and transparency in the system already. Your linux analogy simply doesn't apply. The

by jariel 6y ago

This isn't going to work. 1) There is an incredible amount of legitimacy and transparency in the system already. Your linux analogy simply doesn't apply. There are tons of 'eyes on the system', there are literally election observers. The rules are decided ahead of time etc.. With the 'Dominion' system there is literally a paper record of each ballot - there were recounts that validated the electronic counts perfectly. The 'voting and ballot' part of the election is very secure, and there's no way to systematically defeat it. 2) If there is an issue with the elections, it's related to 'who can vote'. States are in a constant war over this, the rules over 'how to purge voter roles' (look into recent Georgia rulings). Those things, are today 'grey areas' not well defined by anyone so it means conflict. 3) "And it's blatantly obvious that we don't. " Just the opposite, it's blatantly obvious that the elections are in fact secure - you've provided zero evidence to suggest otherwise. But you're missing the issue - the perception of election of integrity has nothing to do with election integrity. This has nothing to do with the facts. This has to do with whatever Trump tells people (i.e. Cargo Cult). If Trump had won the election, there would be zero concern over election integrity because it's entirely derided from his populist narrative. The elections are as secure as they were in 2016 and 2012 - and there wasn't some big uproar over 'ballot counting' then, was there? Why not? Because 'some populist figure' wasn't screaming 'Fraud' 'Fraud' 'Fraud'. And even if the election were 'mathematically secure' it still would not matter because this has nothing to do with reality, it has to do with narrative. A populist figure will say 'The Election Was Stolen' - and his Cargo Cult followers will believe him, irrespective of the facts.

pdonis 6y ago
> there are literally election observers Who are placed far enough away from what is happening that they can't usefully verify anything. What we should have are election workers from each party, paired up, with transparently verifiable means of confirming that they both agree on every action taken. > The rules are decided ahead of time And then those rules, established by the State legislatures ahead of time in accordance with the Constitution and Federal election law, are changed by State executive branch officials and judges. That is clearly unconstitutional. > With the 'Dominion' system there is literally a paper record of each ballot Printed out by a computer system with known vulnerabilities and laughable "security" precautions. > there were recounts that validated the electronic counts perfectly By counting ballots which were printed by the same machines that gave the electronic counts, so this so-called "check" is meaningless. > If there is an issue with the elections, it's related to 'who can vote'. Yep. The way to solve that is obvious: voter IDs with simple, objectively verifiable rules for eligibility and a requirement that every eligible voter must be issued one. Other countries have this. Mexico has this. Why can't we? > If Trump had won the election, there would be zero concern over election integrity because it's entirely derided from his populist narrative. Excuse me? Trump won the 2016 election and for four years we've been hearing concerns over election integrity from the side that lost that one. Sure, those concerns weren't coming from Trump supporters, because Trump won. And now, as you yourself illustrate, Trump opponents have no concerns whatever despite multiple issues at least as blatant as any of the ones Trump opponents complained about in 2016, because Trump lost. In other words, the winning side will never complain and the losing side always will, because the system is broken.
pdonis 6y ago
> A populist figure will say 'The Election Was Stolen' - and his Cargo Cult followers will believe him, irrespective of the facts. s/A populist figure/The losing candidate/. Hillary Clinton and her Cargo Cult followers still believe she won the 2016 election.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  The belief that Hillary won the popular vote overall is pretty widespread. But isn't that true and uncontroversial? Beliefs about Russian interference are also widespread, but they are also true/well documented and unconnected to the actual voting. There was no movement that I know of, like we see now, saying that the swing states that went to Trump had subverted elections. Once or twice recently I may have seen someone idly saying "hey, Republicans tend to project, I wonder if we should investigate the 2016 and 2020 elections to see if they were up to something". I ran across the claim that Republicans won in almost all of the states that don't have proper paper trails for voting, which could be suspicious. I don't know if that's accurate, and I don't know of any movement pursuing that.
  - jariel 6y ago
    There was questioning and ambiguity over Clinton's loss, particularly because of the fact that polling showed Trump was going to lose. Donald Trump himself was surprised that he won. But it's not remotely on the same scale as we see now. There was 'smoke' with Russian relationships, and given the nature of a guy like Trump, a lot of people naturally believed the Mueller investigation would find him guilty of something. I did. The press was happy to castigate Trump for two full years over it - until it just started to show that he was in fact innocent - at least of having colluded with Russians. I hate Donald Trump, he's a psychopath who tried to overthrow the Republic in the end - but - he was actually treated unfairly during the Mueller investigation by the press as they banged 'Mueller + Collusion + Russia' over his head daily. It turns out there were some shenanigans there, but definitely not Trump & Co. working with Russian. The press never really cleared him from that. In a way - Trump's mass lies about the current election is just him taking the same story but pushing it right up to the line of legality. Unfortunately, he pushed it way too far, and directing election officials to overthrow valid election results is definitely sedition, and he'd be in jail were he to note have the status and political protections he has as President. He's done much worse than Watergate.

by jariel 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> there are literally election observers Who are placed far enough away from what is happening that they can't usefully verify anything. What we should have are election workers from each party, paired up, with transparently verifiable means of confirming that they both agree on every action taken. > The rules are decided ahead of time And then those rules, established by the State legislatures ahead of time in accordance with the Constitution and Federal election law, are changed by State executive branch officials and judges. That is clearly unconstitutional. > With the 'Dominion' system there is literally a paper record of each ballot Printed out by a computer system with known vulnerabilities and laughable "security" precautions. > there were recounts that validated the electronic counts perfectly By counting ballots which were printed by the same machines that gave the electronic counts, so this so-called "check" is meaningless. > If there is an issue with the elections, it's related to 'who can vote'. Yep. The way to solve that is obvious: voter IDs with simple, objectively verifiable rules for eligibility and a requirement that every eligible voter must be issued one. Other countries have this. Mexico has this. Why can't we? > If Trump had won the election, there would be zero concern over election integrity because it's entirely derided from his populist narrative. Excuse me? Trump won the 2016 election and for four years we've been hearing concerns over election integrity from the side that lost that one. Sure, those concerns weren't coming from Trump supporters, because Trump won. And now, as you yourself illustrate, Trump opponents have no concerns whatever despite multiple issues at least as blatant as any of the ones Trump opponents complained about in 2016, because Trump lost. In other words, the winning side will never complain and the losing side always will, because the system is broken.

pdonis 6y ago

> A populist figure will say 'The Election Was Stolen' - and his Cargo Cult followers will believe him, irrespective of the facts. s/A populist figure/The losing candidate/. Hillary Clinton and her Cargo Cult followers still believe she won the 2016 election.

perl4ever 6y ago
The belief that Hillary won the popular vote overall is pretty widespread. But isn't that true and uncontroversial? Beliefs about Russian interference are also widespread, but they are also true/well documented and unconnected to the actual voting. There was no movement that I know of, like we see now, saying that the swing states that went to Trump had subverted elections. Once or twice recently I may have seen someone idly saying "hey, Republicans tend to project, I wonder if we should investigate the 2016 and 2020 elections to see if they were up to something". I ran across the claim that Republicans won in almost all of the states that don't have proper paper trails for voting, which could be suspicious. I don't know if that's accurate, and I don't know of any movement pursuing that.
- jariel 6y ago
  There was questioning and ambiguity over Clinton's loss, particularly because of the fact that polling showed Trump was going to lose. Donald Trump himself was surprised that he won. But it's not remotely on the same scale as we see now. There was 'smoke' with Russian relationships, and given the nature of a guy like Trump, a lot of people naturally believed the Mueller investigation would find him guilty of something. I did. The press was happy to castigate Trump for two full years over it - until it just started to show that he was in fact innocent - at least of having colluded with Russians. I hate Donald Trump, he's a psychopath who tried to overthrow the Republic in the end - but - he was actually treated unfairly during the Mueller investigation by the press as they banged 'Mueller + Collusion + Russia' over his head daily. It turns out there were some shenanigans there, but definitely not Trump & Co. working with Russian. The press never really cleared him from that. In a way - Trump's mass lies about the current election is just him taking the same story but pushing it right up to the line of legality. Unfortunately, he pushed it way too far, and directing election officials to overthrow valid election results is definitely sedition, and he'd be in jail were he to note have the status and political protections he has as President. He's done much worse than Watergate.