3 ms·
> And a voting machine company sued a politician for a Billion Dollars for disparaging its black box results. That's one way to phrase it. Another would be th
by RHSeeger 6y ago
> And a voting machine company sued a politician for a Billion Dollars for disparaging its black box results.
That's one way to phrase it. Another would be that a highly visible, influential politician used that influence to attempt to destroy a multi-billion dollar company; specifically by using what may well be lies and slander, presenting it as truth.
- dukeofdoom 6y agoMay or many not be, until we have discovery and actual third party audit. If corporations can decide which politicians to platform, count the votes, and can sue into bankruptcy politicians that question the results, than clearly power rests with the corporations and the oligarchs. Politicians are just for show. As a cynical citizen, I'm going to assume that if it wasn't possible to adjust the vote totals, their machines wouldn't have been picked. Responsibility for transparency is on them. Full third party audit, random vote sample statical analysis, and so on. Would be much more preferable to instil confidence in their corporation than suing a disgruntled politician.