8 ms·

I'm not a fan of Trump, and I think most of the election claims are frivolous, but I do think the closed-source nature of the voting systems and centralized nat

I'm not a fan of Trump, and I think most of the election claims are frivolous, but I do think the closed-source nature of the voting systems and centralized nature used to collect vote counts is alarming. I think it is a case of one side that had the power to bring transparency to the voting process is crying foul, while the other side is using every opportunity to say look... this non-transparent voting process is totally secure. In either case, the people end up being fools for allowing democracy to be ran by crooks on both sides always pointing fingers in the opposite direction.

buu700 5y ago
I was with you until this somehow turned into "both sides are equally bad". We should absolutely push for greater transparency and verifiability into the internals of such critical infrastructure. The fact that one side has not prioritized this isn't similar to the other side's repeated attempts to overthrow our government.
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  Wait, which side are you talking about? Is it the same side that’s been pushing election security bills with the most basic attempts to improve security of elections? We don’t even need security – we need confidence. And this recent idea that it takes weeks to count votes, that we might not know the results for weeks – is completely unacceptable and is already doing irreparable damage to people’s faith in elections.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Is that really a recent thing though? Or has it always taken some places weeks to count votes, just not in close states?
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      It's recent because of the huge amount of write in ballots. Usually the winner is called the night of because they* just ignore the mail in numbers, even in battleground states. This year, there were too many (and they were too different a population from the in person ballots) to do that. * "They" meaning the news media. The official vote took longer and counted the mail in ballots
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        Ah yes, COVID. And then some states passed laws that the mail in ballots couldn't start being counted until after election day.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > this recent idea that it takes weeks to count votes, that we might not know the results for weeks – is completely unacceptable Why on earth would that be? The "counting period" was originally set at 5 weeks. Between laws saying that you cannot start counting mail in ballots before the close of polls on election day, laws that (rightly) limit how many hours that can be spent counting ballots, etc. I'm not sure how to square that with instant results. Maybe we just be patient counting the scores in a contest that takes 18 months to run?
    - TechBro8615 5y ago
      You have a super computer in your pocket. There is no reason counting votes should take any longer than it takes to receive them.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        You want to trust democracy to OCR? Heck, there are lawsuits where humans disagree. But, even if you ignore that two individuals (or three) representing all the candidates each count by hand a stack of ten, have to agree, sign off that they agree, etc. I think you underestimate other problems. You're focused on the counting. Just consider how long it takes to open the outer envelope, check the signature on the inner envelope (again, by multiple people who represent different campaigns), and physically remove and unfold that sheet of paper. Now multiply by several million. Add in some extra time for managing stack of ten ballots. Or, to put it another way, we don't vote with a phone app. We are willing to pay extra for security.
      - dillondoyle 5y ago
        Addition is fast. Opening ballots, verifying signatures, checking voter is legit, and then marking it all down takes time. Especially when bound by law to not open envelopes until 7pm eday.
        TechBro8615 5y ago
        On another thread here, someone was explaining to me that mail-in ballots are separated from their provenance by design. So what exactly are these election workers spending hours doing to “verify signatures” and “check voter is legit?”
  - thinkcontext 5y ago
    Is this a joke? The side that was chasing after nonsense like Italian satellites, bamboo fibers, etc and firing AGs that wouldn't play ball is the side that is seeking to instill confidence?! Its a good thing that side has now been busy changing laws to allow themselves to overrule election results, I know that instills confidence in me.
    - TechBro8615 5y ago
      I can point to examples of clowns on the blue team too. This logical fallacy of “crazy by association” seems to be an increasingly popular trend in online political discussion. I wonder how many people simply choose not to engage.
      - thinkcontext 5y ago
        Except that your Italian satellite clowns are the ones in control of your party and are purging anyone who doesn't toe the clown line from it.
        TechBro8615 5y ago
        By “purging,” do you mean that the red team is banning people they disagree with from speaking on the websites they own? And I honestly don’t even know who you’re talking about but I assume it’s the pillow/pcap guy. Have you heard about the president’s son, or the New York governor, or the speaker of the house who moonlights as a prolific stock trader? Good people are not leading us.
        thinkcontext 5y ago
        Trump is the leader of your party. He is the one that had Meadows send Italian satellites to DOJ and all the other nonsense. He is the one that axed Barr after Barr said there was no evidence to support the crazy that Trump was spewing. He's the one purging people from your party that speak out against this insanity. Your other whataboutisms are weak sauce compared with this. In particular the Cuomo one is not good for you, he's out, while your party continues to embrace the p**y grabber that has a higher harassment allegation count.
- getlawgdon 5y ago
  Thank you SO much for this. The false equivalency fallacy is part of the problem. The misdeeds on the sides are absolutely asymmetrical.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  > the other side's repeated attempts to overthrow our government. Are you talking about Russia or the Federalist Society SCOTUS picks or the rioters who were let in by the few security guards remaining after the Capitol security was lowered or the Big Tech services that should be declared as political donations but aren't?
  - buu700 5y ago
    To be more specific, I was referring to: * USPS sabotage and state-level voter suppression measures in urban areas leading up to the 2020 election * Post-election soft coup attempt via the courts (including having broken precedent to rush a SCOTUS appointment during the election, which could have changed the outcome of the coup attempt in a different timeline) * 1/6 * Ongoing propagation of the "big lie" and scheming to overturn the election (https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-142526805.html https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14...), alongside continuing implementation of state-level voter suppression measures and gerrymandering
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      > * USPS sabotage and state-level voter suppression measures in urban areas leading up to the 2020 election This is implying that default mail-in voting was a way to get Democrats elected in the first place. (which it was given how mail-in voting was the source of the Democrats advance when they arrived) > Post-election soft coup attempt via the courts Challenging elections integrity in the courts are what insure the process is transparent and followed in the first place. This makes no sense by definition. Just because a SCOTUS nominee was nominated just before doesn't change anything and is still entirely within the Constitution. Because Democrats got unlucky on the retirement / death draw during this presidency doesn't mean a "coup". And by the way, it happened before. > 1/6 Not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (no weapons) and barely a riot given the lack of destruction and violence. Also why leave out how security was reduced, that the FBI had informants and that Trump even proposed to increase security? > Ongoing propagation of the "big lie" I get it that you are not familiar with Bush v. Gore and how it was the big rig for years? > and scheming to overturn the election (https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14 https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14...) It's easy to pick a random clown in a camp and then zoom 1000x to paint a bad picture: "The cards, featuring a seven-point plan, appear to have been made by a group called Patriots Soar, which is not connected to the organisers of CPAC" > alongside continuing implementation of state-level voter suppression measures and gerrymandering Gerrymandering happens in blue districts too by the way, can can only do so much (elections results still mostly 50/50 percentage wise). And the "voter suppression" are a joke when you read the details of them since the measures being implemented are the same that are found in Canada (showing ID with proof of your address, registering to vote, having a reason to vote by mail, which used to be a Democrat talking point during the Bush/Obama years by the way).
- lettergram 5y ago
  You do realize, both sides are claiming the other is trying to overthrow the government, right? Both have, in my view, reasonable arguments on why they feel that way. Try to zoom out and look at your comment from the 3rd person view. The right believes the left stole an election (coup), they believe they have evidence to prove it. The left saw Jan 6 on the corporate news and believes they have the evidence to prove Trump attempted to seize government. Note, none of the people charged for Jan 6 was for sedition. So the evidence really isn't there either. If you take a step back and try to see both perspectives, perhaps it's possible to relate again.
  - buu700 5y ago
    Sure both sides are claiming it, but only one side is correct. On the right, we have: * USPS sabotage and state-level voter suppression measures in urban areas leading up to the 2020 election * Post-election soft coup attempt via the courts (including having broken precedent to rush a SCOTUS appointment during the election, which could have changed the outcome of the coup attempt in a different timeline) * 1/6 * Ongoing propagation of the "big lie" and scheming to overturn the election (https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-142526805.html https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14...), alongside continuing implementation of state-level voter suppression measures and gerrymandering And the left has: * Failed to advocate for open source voting systems (which isn't a widely known or politically relevant issue on either side at present) * Pushed for stronger voting rights and increased voter participation — both uncontroversially positive properties of a democracy, but also happen to benefit the Democratic Party at the current moment * Proposed measures in the For the People Act that were arguably overly ambitious or aggressive in the current political environment, such as stricter campaign finance regulations, which were promptly renegotiated within their own party ranks To frame these as comparable is borderline gaslighting.
    - lettergram 5y ago
      It’s frankly exhausting to have discussions when both sides live in their own worlds. You sound arrogant, “only one side is correct and it’s my side” Every day I switch between msnbc, nbc, warroom.org, breaking points, Ben Shapiro and Tim pool. Probably ~6-8hrs a day I listen to content at double speed (while doing other stuff). Every single one has their own take, but just to get you up-to-date with what the right believes: * BLM and Antifa caused billions in damages. Harassing or attacking everyone who disagreed with ideology (they were coming to senators homes) * in some places this is leading to the reintroduction of segregation https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/08/10/it-was-just-disbelief-parent-files-complaint-against-atlanta-elementary-school-after-learning-the-principal-segregated-students-based-on-race/ https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/08/10/it-was-just-disbelie... * FBI spied on trump on Clinton and Obama’s behalf. Utilizing a known fabricated document (fabricated to keep business with the Clinton foundation - see uranium one): https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/first-declassified-russia-document-steeles-confessional https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-sc... * election laws were changed last minute, broken among other things to effect a coup and they brag about it: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ * more people voted in 2020 than were registered in 2016 or 2018. With a 93% then out rate. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273743/number-of-registered-voters-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273743/number-of-registe... * here’s a couple video explaining some of their concerns about the election https://rumble.com/vkyxju-retired-u.s.-army-colonel-phil-waldron-your-wake-up-call.html https://rumble.com/vkyxju-retired-u.s.-army-colonel-phil-wal... https://rumble.com/vkyzgb-mike-lindell-cyber-symposium-dr.-douglas-g-frank.html https://rumble.com/vkyzgb-mike-lindell-cyber-symposium-dr.-d... The list goes on and on...
Overton-Window 5y ago
The party that insists voter IDs are racist, is the same party championing mandatory ID to shop, work, and participate in society.
- shigawire 5y ago
  False equivalence.
  - gruez 5y ago
    How so? Is it just because "pandemic"?
    - zarzavat 5y ago
      The pandemic is an exercise in trading rights for lives. More rights leads to more deaths and vice versa. You can make a case that society should choose any particular point on that spectrum but the spectrum exists regardless.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    How so? This is actually a really interesting take—either be the “papers please” people or don’t be.
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      You have to register to vote and link your vote to your registration. The vaccine-card equivalent of Republican Voter ID requirements would be mandating that everyone present a vaccine card before being allowed to vote with the intent of discouraging eligible Republican voters. The equivalent of present-day pollbooth security in vaccine-card form would be requiring people to associate themselves with an official vaccine record before shopping / working / etc. You wouldn't have to present an ID on the spot, but the records would be checked to look for two people claiming the same vaccination record, someone trying to claim a record that didn't exist, etc. Discrepancies would be investigated and if you were found to have fraudulently represented your vaccination status you'd be in trouble.
shigawire 5y ago
Machines have paper audits no?
- Miner49er 5y ago
  Not in some states.
  - adrr 5y ago
    None of the big lie states have paperless voting machines. Eg: Georgia prints out an actual ballot for the voter.
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  What good is a paper audit when the ballots can be mixed with boxes of “mail-in votes” that ultimately get separated from their envelopes, breaking their chain of provenance? You can keep counting them, and the count will match each time, but can you verify that each ballot you’re counting originated from exactly one registered voter? If you think this is evidence of a secure election, I have an unpickable lock to sell you. Anyone repeating the talking point that this was “the most secure election ever” sounds like a partisan hypocrite, especially when you can find videos of Democratic Congress members warning about the security of elections as recently as in 2017. Or, maybe it’s a coincidence that polls asking questions about election security – an objectively non-partisan topic – find a distribution of opinions weirdly aligned with support for the red or blue team.
  - jcrawfordor 5y ago
    Mail-in ballots must be separated from their envelopes. This is the only accepted way to achieve a secret ballot, which is required by constitution or law in most US elections. That is, losing the provenance of the ballot is the point of the voting process.
    - TechBro8615 5y ago
      If only there were some sort of academic discipline... a science of sorts... that spent time solving problems like this. Alas, anonymous verifiable signatures must be impossible.
SteveNuts 5y ago
Aren't the ballots all counted by hand and then cross checked with the machines anyways? That's what I don't get about all this
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > Aren't the ballots all counted by hand and then cross checked with the machines anyways? I believe some states completely hand recounted the entire millions of receipts from the machines this year (in response to the allegations of voter fraud). However, it shouldn't be necessary to exhaustively recount the entire race. We should be able to use random sampling to statistically verify that the race is not fixed.
  - patrickthebold 5y ago
    probably not fixed.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Sure. I mean, a clever enough fix is unavoidable. Like, suppose I swapped out all the machinery with duplicates that had different vote counts but matching ballots. If a back room was cranking them out in parallel, the total votes cast and even timestamps (if there are any) would match. But we can set the confidence we want and test enough ballots to get there. In this past election, some states decided it was "100% sure to this kind of detectable attack" and they hand counted every ballot.

buu700 5y ago

I was with you until this somehow turned into "both sides are equally bad". We should absolutely push for greater transparency and verifiability into the internals of such critical infrastructure. The fact that one side has not prioritized this isn't similar to the other side's repeated attempts to overthrow our government.

TechBro8615 5y ago
Wait, which side are you talking about? Is it the same side that’s been pushing election security bills with the most basic attempts to improve security of elections? We don’t even need security – we need confidence. And this recent idea that it takes weeks to count votes, that we might not know the results for weeks – is completely unacceptable and is already doing irreparable damage to people’s faith in elections.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Is that really a recent thing though? Or has it always taken some places weeks to count votes, just not in close states?
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    It's recent because of the huge amount of write in ballots. Usually the winner is called the night of because they* just ignore the mail in numbers, even in battleground states. This year, there were too many (and they were too different a population from the in person ballots) to do that. * "They" meaning the news media. The official vote took longer and counted the mail in ballots
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Ah yes, COVID. And then some states passed laws that the mail in ballots couldn't start being counted until after election day.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > this recent idea that it takes weeks to count votes, that we might not know the results for weeks – is completely unacceptable Why on earth would that be? The "counting period" was originally set at 5 weeks. Between laws saying that you cannot start counting mail in ballots before the close of polls on election day, laws that (rightly) limit how many hours that can be spent counting ballots, etc. I'm not sure how to square that with instant results. Maybe we just be patient counting the scores in a contest that takes 18 months to run?
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    You have a super computer in your pocket. There is no reason counting votes should take any longer than it takes to receive them.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      You want to trust democracy to OCR? Heck, there are lawsuits where humans disagree. But, even if you ignore that two individuals (or three) representing all the candidates each count by hand a stack of ten, have to agree, sign off that they agree, etc. I think you underestimate other problems. You're focused on the counting. Just consider how long it takes to open the outer envelope, check the signature on the inner envelope (again, by multiple people who represent different campaigns), and physically remove and unfold that sheet of paper. Now multiply by several million. Add in some extra time for managing stack of ten ballots. Or, to put it another way, we don't vote with a phone app. We are willing to pay extra for security.
    - dillondoyle 5y ago
      Addition is fast. Opening ballots, verifying signatures, checking voter is legit, and then marking it all down takes time. Especially when bound by law to not open envelopes until 7pm eday.
      - TechBro8615 5y ago
        On another thread here, someone was explaining to me that mail-in ballots are separated from their provenance by design. So what exactly are these election workers spending hours doing to “verify signatures” and “check voter is legit?”
- thinkcontext 5y ago
  Is this a joke? The side that was chasing after nonsense like Italian satellites, bamboo fibers, etc and firing AGs that wouldn't play ball is the side that is seeking to instill confidence?! Its a good thing that side has now been busy changing laws to allow themselves to overrule election results, I know that instills confidence in me.
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    I can point to examples of clowns on the blue team too. This logical fallacy of “crazy by association” seems to be an increasingly popular trend in online political discussion. I wonder how many people simply choose not to engage.
    - thinkcontext 5y ago
      Except that your Italian satellite clowns are the ones in control of your party and are purging anyone who doesn't toe the clown line from it.
      - TechBro8615 5y ago
        By “purging,” do you mean that the red team is banning people they disagree with from speaking on the websites they own? And I honestly don’t even know who you’re talking about but I assume it’s the pillow/pcap guy. Have you heard about the president’s son, or the New York governor, or the speaker of the house who moonlights as a prolific stock trader? Good people are not leading us.
        thinkcontext 5y ago
        Trump is the leader of your party. He is the one that had Meadows send Italian satellites to DOJ and all the other nonsense. He is the one that axed Barr after Barr said there was no evidence to support the crazy that Trump was spewing. He's the one purging people from your party that speak out against this insanity. Your other whataboutisms are weak sauce compared with this. In particular the Cuomo one is not good for you, he's out, while your party continues to embrace the p**y grabber that has a higher harassment allegation count.
getlawgdon 5y ago
Thank you SO much for this. The false equivalency fallacy is part of the problem. The misdeeds on the sides are absolutely asymmetrical.
TeeMassive 5y ago
> the other side's repeated attempts to overthrow our government. Are you talking about Russia or the Federalist Society SCOTUS picks or the rioters who were let in by the few security guards remaining after the Capitol security was lowered or the Big Tech services that should be declared as political donations but aren't?
- buu700 5y ago
  To be more specific, I was referring to: * USPS sabotage and state-level voter suppression measures in urban areas leading up to the 2020 election * Post-election soft coup attempt via the courts (including having broken precedent to rush a SCOTUS appointment during the election, which could have changed the outcome of the coup attempt in a different timeline) * 1/6 * Ongoing propagation of the "big lie" and scheming to overturn the election (https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-142526805.html https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14...), alongside continuing implementation of state-level voter suppression measures and gerrymandering
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    > * USPS sabotage and state-level voter suppression measures in urban areas leading up to the 2020 election This is implying that default mail-in voting was a way to get Democrats elected in the first place. (which it was given how mail-in voting was the source of the Democrats advance when they arrived) > Post-election soft coup attempt via the courts Challenging elections integrity in the courts are what insure the process is transparent and followed in the first place. This makes no sense by definition. Just because a SCOTUS nominee was nominated just before doesn't change anything and is still entirely within the Constitution. Because Democrats got unlucky on the retirement / death draw during this presidency doesn't mean a "coup". And by the way, it happened before. > 1/6 Not a coup by any stretch of the imagination (no weapons) and barely a riot given the lack of destruction and violence. Also why leave out how security was reduced, that the FBI had informants and that Trump even proposed to increase security? > Ongoing propagation of the "big lie" I get it that you are not familiar with Bush v. Gore and how it was the big rig for years? > and scheming to overturn the election (https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14 https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14...) It's easy to pick a random clown in a camp and then zoom 1000x to paint a bad picture: "The cards, featuring a seven-point plan, appear to have been made by a group called Patriots Soar, which is not connected to the organisers of CPAC" > alongside continuing implementation of state-level voter suppression measures and gerrymandering Gerrymandering happens in blue districts too by the way, can can only do so much (elections results still mostly 50/50 percentage wise). And the "voter suppression" are a joke when you read the details of them since the measures being implemented are the same that are found in Canada (showing ID with proof of your address, registering to vote, having a reason to vote by mail, which used to be a Democrat talking point during the Bush/Obama years by the way).
lettergram 5y ago
You do realize, both sides are claiming the other is trying to overthrow the government, right? Both have, in my view, reasonable arguments on why they feel that way. Try to zoom out and look at your comment from the 3rd person view. The right believes the left stole an election (coup), they believe they have evidence to prove it. The left saw Jan 6 on the corporate news and believes they have the evidence to prove Trump attempted to seize government. Note, none of the people charged for Jan 6 was for sedition. So the evidence really isn't there either. If you take a step back and try to see both perspectives, perhaps it's possible to relate again.
- buu700 5y ago
  Sure both sides are claiming it, but only one side is correct. On the right, we have: * USPS sabotage and state-level voter suppression measures in urban areas leading up to the 2020 election * Post-election soft coup attempt via the courts (including having broken precedent to rush a SCOTUS appointment during the election, which could have changed the outcome of the coup attempt in a different timeline) * 1/6 * Ongoing propagation of the "big lie" and scheming to overturn the election (https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-142526805.html https://news.yahoo.com/bizarre-seven-point-plan-reinstate-14...), alongside continuing implementation of state-level voter suppression measures and gerrymandering And the left has: * Failed to advocate for open source voting systems (which isn't a widely known or politically relevant issue on either side at present) * Pushed for stronger voting rights and increased voter participation — both uncontroversially positive properties of a democracy, but also happen to benefit the Democratic Party at the current moment * Proposed measures in the For the People Act that were arguably overly ambitious or aggressive in the current political environment, such as stricter campaign finance regulations, which were promptly renegotiated within their own party ranks To frame these as comparable is borderline gaslighting.
  - lettergram 5y ago
    It’s frankly exhausting to have discussions when both sides live in their own worlds. You sound arrogant, “only one side is correct and it’s my side” Every day I switch between msnbc, nbc, warroom.org, breaking points, Ben Shapiro and Tim pool. Probably ~6-8hrs a day I listen to content at double speed (while doing other stuff). Every single one has their own take, but just to get you up-to-date with what the right believes: * BLM and Antifa caused billions in damages. Harassing or attacking everyone who disagreed with ideology (they were coming to senators homes) * in some places this is leading to the reintroduction of segregation https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/08/10/it-was-just-disbelief-parent-files-complaint-against-atlanta-elementary-school-after-learning-the-principal-segregated-students-based-on-race/ https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/08/10/it-was-just-disbelie... * FBI spied on trump on Clinton and Obama’s behalf. Utilizing a known fabricated document (fabricated to keep business with the Clinton foundation - see uranium one): https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/first-declassified-russia-document-steeles-confessional https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-sc... * election laws were changed last minute, broken among other things to effect a coup and they brag about it: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ * more people voted in 2020 than were registered in 2016 or 2018. With a 93% then out rate. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273743/number-of-registered-voters-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273743/number-of-registe... * here’s a couple video explaining some of their concerns about the election https://rumble.com/vkyxju-retired-u.s.-army-colonel-phil-waldron-your-wake-up-call.html https://rumble.com/vkyxju-retired-u.s.-army-colonel-phil-wal... https://rumble.com/vkyzgb-mike-lindell-cyber-symposium-dr.-douglas-g-frank.html https://rumble.com/vkyzgb-mike-lindell-cyber-symposium-dr.-d... The list goes on and on...

Overton-Window 5y ago

The party that insists voter IDs are racist, is the same party championing mandatory ID to shop, work, and participate in society.

shigawire 5y ago
False equivalence.
- gruez 5y ago
  How so? Is it just because "pandemic"?
  - zarzavat 5y ago
    The pandemic is an exercise in trading rights for lives. More rights leads to more deaths and vice versa. You can make a case that society should choose any particular point on that spectrum but the spectrum exists regardless.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  How so? This is actually a really interesting take—either be the “papers please” people or don’t be.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    You have to register to vote and link your vote to your registration. The vaccine-card equivalent of Republican Voter ID requirements would be mandating that everyone present a vaccine card before being allowed to vote with the intent of discouraging eligible Republican voters. The equivalent of present-day pollbooth security in vaccine-card form would be requiring people to associate themselves with an official vaccine record before shopping / working / etc. You wouldn't have to present an ID on the spot, but the records would be checked to look for two people claiming the same vaccination record, someone trying to claim a record that didn't exist, etc. Discrepancies would be investigated and if you were found to have fraudulently represented your vaccination status you'd be in trouble.

shigawire 5y ago

Machines have paper audits no?

Miner49er 5y ago
Not in some states.
- adrr 5y ago
  None of the big lie states have paperless voting machines. Eg: Georgia prints out an actual ballot for the voter.
TechBro8615 5y ago
What good is a paper audit when the ballots can be mixed with boxes of “mail-in votes” that ultimately get separated from their envelopes, breaking their chain of provenance? You can keep counting them, and the count will match each time, but can you verify that each ballot you’re counting originated from exactly one registered voter? If you think this is evidence of a secure election, I have an unpickable lock to sell you. Anyone repeating the talking point that this was “the most secure election ever” sounds like a partisan hypocrite, especially when you can find videos of Democratic Congress members warning about the security of elections as recently as in 2017. Or, maybe it’s a coincidence that polls asking questions about election security – an objectively non-partisan topic – find a distribution of opinions weirdly aligned with support for the red or blue team.
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  Mail-in ballots must be separated from their envelopes. This is the only accepted way to achieve a secret ballot, which is required by constitution or law in most US elections. That is, losing the provenance of the ballot is the point of the voting process.
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    If only there were some sort of academic discipline... a science of sorts... that spent time solving problems like this. Alas, anonymous verifiable signatures must be impossible.

SteveNuts 5y ago

Aren't the ballots all counted by hand and then cross checked with the machines anyways? That's what I don't get about all this

HWR_14 5y ago
> Aren't the ballots all counted by hand and then cross checked with the machines anyways? I believe some states completely hand recounted the entire millions of receipts from the machines this year (in response to the allegations of voter fraud). However, it shouldn't be necessary to exhaustively recount the entire race. We should be able to use random sampling to statistically verify that the race is not fixed.
- patrickthebold 5y ago
  probably not fixed.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Sure. I mean, a clever enough fix is unavoidable. Like, suppose I swapped out all the machinery with duplicates that had different vote counts but matching ballots. If a back room was cranking them out in parallel, the total votes cast and even timestamps (if there are any) would match. But we can set the confidence we want and test enough ballots to get there. In this past election, some states decided it was "100% sure to this kind of detectable attack" and they hand counted every ballot.