3 ms·
> the entire problem is that you're kept from gathering the evidence. Well, there's also the fact that the folks advancing these theories are insisting that th
by teraflop 6y ago
> the entire problem is that you're kept from gathering the evidence.
Well, there's also the fact that the folks advancing these theories are insisting that they're being "kept from gathering the evidence", when in reality much of what they're saying is contradicted by evidence.
For example, the instances cited in the lawsuit where Giuliani and others continued to insist that Dominion voting machines had changed the Georgia election outcome by flipping votes, even after the original results had been confirmed by a full hand recount.
- imperfectcats 6y ago> the fact that the folks advancing Too many arguments boil down to people, and motives, not facts. It is a bad idea to put the short term desire to see a foe vanquished over the long term cost of bad laws and policy. Laws are not perfect, and I'm not convinced we want the basis of democracy to be closed source voting machines, or that even if we do, the checks and balances as they stand are currently 100% correct.
- tunesmith 6y agoWell sure, if we're going to conflate arguments in good faith with arguments in bad faith, we won't really get anywhere... the point is that without doing manual recounts it's hard to gather evidence of possible flaws in an electronic count, and you can't always count on the recount happening. In contrast, Georgia's recount did happen, so they were able to gather evidence, and didn't find any... so yes, of course that's a different thing entirely.