3 ms·

> What does "verify the count's accuracy" actually mean? It means that, when you manually count up the votes on the paper ballots, the count matches the origina

> What does "verify the count's accuracy" actually mean? It means that, when you manually count up the votes on the paper ballots, the count matches the original count that the machines gave. That does appear to be the claim they made. And it matters. Notably, some "anti-consensus" material out there forwards the idea that electronic tallies were modified, or that secret watermarks or hidden paper composition tricks caused machinery to intentionally miscount ballots. So, manual paper counts are one way of refuting those claims, and the problem of what to do about it when those counts don't seem to make those claims go away because there are parties that push the claims regardless of evidnce is one of public information. > What it does not mean is that it has been verified that every single paper ballot corresponds to an actual eligible voter and accurately reflects that voter's intent. Voter registration systems constitute a control that should produce more confidence than skepticism here while maintaining effective privacy. If you try and walk into a polling place where you're not registered, your best case scenario is that you get a provisional ballot which will require review to be counted and likely faces extra challenges, especially in a close or contested election. If you try to walk into a polling place where you are registered and vote multiple times, you're going to have to convince poll workers that they shouldn't have marked you as having already received a ballot. Similar controls exist for mail-in ballots. What's your plan for influencing an election at scale by acquisition & submission of ballots that don't correspond to an eligible voter? I agree that some of your suggestions could provide extra security. Perhaps some should be adopted. But given that most voices that don't accept Biden's victory don't seem to go as far as pointing out any plausible (let alone proven) mechanics for how the existing system was compromised, I don't think proposed but as yet missing extra layers of are the reason why people don't have confidence in the outcome, and that's reason to think that enhanced security wouldn't solve the real problem, which is one of discourse and disinformation.

kokanator 5y ago
The author made those claims in 2016. Posted the article to the comment above this one.
pdonis 5y ago
> Voter registration systems constitute a control Yes, for in person voting. I said so in my post. > Similar controls exist for mail-in ballots. No, they don't. Nobody checks to make sure that the actual person who fills out the mail-in ballot is the registered voter attached to that name. The process currently used for mail-in ballots before they get into the chain of custody system is nothing like what I described in my post. That's a big reason why so many people distrust mail-in ballots, particularly in such large quantities. > What's your plan for influencing an election at scale by acquisition & submission of ballots that don't correspond to an eligible voter? First, you don't have to influence an election "at scale" for the US presidency. A close election can easily come down to just a few key precincts in a few key states, as it did in 2020. Second, the US already has a long history of various forms of skulduggery with voting. So anyone's Bayesian prior should be that, if there is any way of doing it, someone will try it, particularly in a close election where both sides have strong beliefs about how much is at stake. It should definitely not be that, well, as long as all the officials say it's okay, it must be okay. > I don't think proposed but as yet missing extra layers of are the reason why people don't have confidence in the outcome If there are obvious ways to make a system more secure, and every time they get proposed they are violently resisted, you have to wonder why. (And note that this is a problem on both sides: Democrats are violently allergic to things like voter IDs, but Republicans are just as violently allergic to things like early voting and expanding the hours that polling places are open.) I agree that the widespread lack of confidence in, for example, the 2020 results is not due to anyone having a detailed picture of how things could have been manipulated; it's a more general feeling that the system as a whole is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. And when measures to make the system act more in everyone's interest are violently resisted, that feeling grows stronger. > the real problem, which is one of discourse and disinformation. I don't think that's the real problem. I think the real problem is what I said above: the system in fact is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. The feelings that many people have along those lines are justified. Yes, fixing the voting system won't entirely fix that problem; but it would be a nice step in the right direction.

kokanator 5y ago

The author made those claims in 2016. Posted the article to the comment above this one.

pdonis 5y ago

> Voter registration systems constitute a control Yes, for in person voting. I said so in my post. > Similar controls exist for mail-in ballots. No, they don't. Nobody checks to make sure that the actual person who fills out the mail-in ballot is the registered voter attached to that name. The process currently used for mail-in ballots before they get into the chain of custody system is nothing like what I described in my post. That's a big reason why so many people distrust mail-in ballots, particularly in such large quantities. > What's your plan for influencing an election at scale by acquisition & submission of ballots that don't correspond to an eligible voter? First, you don't have to influence an election "at scale" for the US presidency. A close election can easily come down to just a few key precincts in a few key states, as it did in 2020. Second, the US already has a long history of various forms of skulduggery with voting. So anyone's Bayesian prior should be that, if there is any way of doing it, someone will try it, particularly in a close election where both sides have strong beliefs about how much is at stake. It should definitely not be that, well, as long as all the officials say it's okay, it must be okay. > I don't think proposed but as yet missing extra layers of are the reason why people don't have confidence in the outcome If there are obvious ways to make a system more secure, and every time they get proposed they are violently resisted, you have to wonder why. (And note that this is a problem on both sides: Democrats are violently allergic to things like voter IDs, but Republicans are just as violently allergic to things like early voting and expanding the hours that polling places are open.) I agree that the widespread lack of confidence in, for example, the 2020 results is not due to anyone having a detailed picture of how things could have been manipulated; it's a more general feeling that the system as a whole is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. And when measures to make the system act more in everyone's interest are violently resisted, that feeling grows stronger. > the real problem, which is one of discourse and disinformation. I don't think that's the real problem. I think the real problem is what I said above: the system in fact is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. The feelings that many people have along those lines are justified. Yes, fixing the voting system won't entirely fix that problem; but it would be a nice step in the right direction.