3 ms·

You can't compare the difficulty of faking a real human entering a ballot into an observed sealed container, during a short period of a day, versus just faking

You can't compare the difficulty of faking a real human entering a ballot into an observed sealed container, during a short period of a day, versus just faking an output of a machine and then faking unobserved stacks of paper which have all be gathered into a centralized location and then left for months, and then when irregularities are found they are simply ignored. The first requires a high number of conspirators per votes faked. You will at best get a ratio of hundreds of votes per conspirator. The second only requires a handful of conspirators with good access to essentially overturn entire elections with leads of hundreds of thousands of votes. And it's not even the electronic part that is the most crucial. The fact that a single election worker is officially in charge of the integrity of tens of thousands votes, only made possible with the assistance of the machine, is the real issue here. That machine could've been 100% OK but it's not designed to protect against the election worker - on the contrary, it's designed to give him oversized power. All you need to realize the farce is just watch a video where a single person counts tens of thousands of votes, and see the officials response to the video is to admit that indeed that is what happened, but "the votes were legitimate". A single person isn't responsible for thousands of votes in a real democracy.

legitster 4y ago
> versus just faking an output of a machine and then faking unobserved stacks of paper If you bothered to follow the link, you would see that most states require voters to review and sign their ballots. Again, even if you tried to sneak a small amount of fraud into the system, would no one catch it?
- specialist 4y ago
  Yes and: I just reread that (excellent) ncsl.org link from 2019. Some tidbits: Ballots are not signed. In my jurisdiction, if a voter signs their ballot it spoils the ballot. NCSL links to (also excellent) Verified Voting, which is kept current. (D'oh. That would have saved me some research effort.) https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEquip/mapType/normal/year/2022 https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEqu... Note that Arizona does not use DREs and so does not have (or need) VVPAT. Instead, Arizona went with the much superior ballot marking device (BMD) for enfranchising disabled voters.
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  When only a single person alone is responsible for thousands of ballots, who do you expect to catch it? Come to Israel, watch our elections. You'll understand how real democratic elections look like, where from the process itself you can dismiss most fraud allegations. It would take hundreds of independent fraud instances to change a single seat. These security guaranties do not exist in the US. It's like the difference between encrypted and unencrypted communications, where the American gaslighting is the equivalent of saying man in the middle is a conspiracy theory.
  - legitster 4y ago
    > When only a single person alone is responsible for thousands of ballots, who do you expect to catch it? We catch voter fraud all the time in the US. Part of the reason we know it's not a big issue is that we catch so many people in a given year. If you read up on the multiple rounds of recounts and audits Arizona or Pennsylvania did this last federal election, I think you would have a lot of respect for the people who designed these systems to withstand the scrutiny of endless lawsuits. > It would take hundreds of independent fraud instances to change a single seat. These security guaranties do not exist in the US. It sounds like you are getting bad information about US elections from second hand sources. Anyone who actually takes the time to analyze their local election would probably come to the same conclusion you do about yours. They are remarkably transparent and well audited. That does not stop bad actors from using endless speculation to try to undermine people's faith in elections. But I can attest that I would trust our local elections as much as anywhere else's in the world.

legitster 4y ago

> versus just faking an output of a machine and then faking unobserved stacks of paper If you bothered to follow the link, you would see that most states require voters to review and sign their ballots. Again, even if you tried to sneak a small amount of fraud into the system, would no one catch it?

specialist 4y ago
Yes and: I just reread that (excellent) ncsl.org link from 2019. Some tidbits: Ballots are not signed. In my jurisdiction, if a voter signs their ballot it spoils the ballot. NCSL links to (also excellent) Verified Voting, which is kept current. (D'oh. That would have saved me some research effort.) https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEquip/mapType/normal/year/2022 https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEqu... Note that Arizona does not use DREs and so does not have (or need) VVPAT. Instead, Arizona went with the much superior ballot marking device (BMD) for enfranchising disabled voters.
machina_ex_deus 4y ago
When only a single person alone is responsible for thousands of ballots, who do you expect to catch it? Come to Israel, watch our elections. You'll understand how real democratic elections look like, where from the process itself you can dismiss most fraud allegations. It would take hundreds of independent fraud instances to change a single seat. These security guaranties do not exist in the US. It's like the difference between encrypted and unencrypted communications, where the American gaslighting is the equivalent of saying man in the middle is a conspiracy theory.
- legitster 4y ago
  > When only a single person alone is responsible for thousands of ballots, who do you expect to catch it? We catch voter fraud all the time in the US. Part of the reason we know it's not a big issue is that we catch so many people in a given year. If you read up on the multiple rounds of recounts and audits Arizona or Pennsylvania did this last federal election, I think you would have a lot of respect for the people who designed these systems to withstand the scrutiny of endless lawsuits. > It would take hundreds of independent fraud instances to change a single seat. These security guaranties do not exist in the US. It sounds like you are getting bad information about US elections from second hand sources. Anyone who actually takes the time to analyze their local election would probably come to the same conclusion you do about yours. They are remarkably transparent and well audited. That does not stop bad actors from using endless speculation to try to undermine people's faith in elections. But I can attest that I would trust our local elections as much as anywhere else's in the world.