4 ms·

I am going to post this here again as it is relevant. To question whether it was possible or even that tampering of electronic voting systems occurred is not an

I am going to post this here again as it is relevant. To question whether it was possible or even that tampering of electronic voting systems occurred is not an irrelevant. The author of the paper actually made that claim in 2016: https://www.npr.org/2018/05/08/599452050/the-u-s-voting-system-remains-vulnerable-6-months-before-election-day-what-now https://www.npr.org/2018/05/08/599452050/the-u-s-voting-syst... So it is obviously something that should be questioned, criticized, reviewed, etc. as it does pose a true risk. Should people storm the capital, no. Should there be dialogue around the subject? Absolutely. Even if the fringes of that dialogue are extreme, it is not time to mute the conversation.

wwweston 5y ago
> whether it was possible or even that tampering of electronic voting systems occurred an irrelevant. Electronic voting security is a topic of concern, and people have been talking about it for a while and should continue to talk about it. Personally, I've been calling out people who think digital security concerns are overblown since 2000, and every computer professional I know thinks that at a minimum every voting machine needs to produce a readable paper receipt, and a significant portion I know think paper+pencil ballots should be the way things are done. But ... unless there's places in the recent election where people who were concerned about it didn't have the opportunity for a manual recount and where there's enough combined votes to have changed the outcome and where statistical sampling looks fishy... electronic count tampering is irrelevant. And as far as I know, all the manual recounts done have verified a Biden victory. So, sure. Continue to talk about methods. At some point, there doesn't need to be more dialogue around the outcome of the last election. Especially from the actors -- fringe and media outlet alike -- who aren't actually pointing to any of the concrete concerns, who can't actually bring up a good reason, but are clearly stretching out the game of "just asking questions" or "just making dialogue" to give the illusion that there's still any kind of reasonable countercase in play.

wwweston 5y ago

> whether it was possible or even that tampering of electronic voting systems occurred an irrelevant. Electronic voting security is a topic of concern, and people have been talking about it for a while and should continue to talk about it. Personally, I've been calling out people who think digital security concerns are overblown since 2000, and every computer professional I know thinks that at a minimum every voting machine needs to produce a readable paper receipt, and a significant portion I know think paper+pencil ballots should be the way things are done. But ... unless there's places in the recent election where people who were concerned about it didn't have the opportunity for a manual recount and where there's enough combined votes to have changed the outcome and where statistical sampling looks fishy... electronic count tampering is irrelevant. And as far as I know, all the manual recounts done have verified a Biden victory. So, sure. Continue to talk about methods. At some point, there doesn't need to be more dialogue around the outcome of the last election. Especially from the actors -- fringe and media outlet alike -- who aren't actually pointing to any of the concrete concerns, who can't actually bring up a good reason, but are clearly stretching out the game of "just asking questions" or "just making dialogue" to give the illusion that there's still any kind of reasonable countercase in play.