3 ms·

> According to Verified Voting (https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEqu https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEqu...), ~

> According to Verified Voting (https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEqu https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEqu...), ~5% of votes are made with un-auditable "direct recording electronic" voting machines, where the votes are held in memory rather than printed to paper. When you actually do pentests, it turns out that these machines are sometimes connected to the internet (even though best-practices are to not do so), and they have been demonstrated to be hackable by someone with a USB drive even when air-gapped. Any such tampering is undetectable if done well. It's simply unacceptable to use such technology for voting IMO, and we should pass laws mandating paper-trails and banning DRE voting. This is quite contrary to the ~~propaganda~~ trustworthy journalism take on the matter: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/13/us-election-most-secure-history-voter-fraud-false-claims https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/13/us-election-... > One problem is that much of the worry about election fraud is motivated reasoning ("my preferred candidate didn't win therefore there must have been fraud; let me find evidence of fraud to support my theory") Another problem is that much of the lack of concern about election fraud is based on bad epistemology ("my preferred candidate won fair and square [in an epistemically sound, absolute sense] because some people said it was the most secure in history). > ...rather than actual concern based on an objective analysis starting with the facts. In my experience, this (utilizing actual objective analysis) is a good way to collect downvotes and insults. > I do wonder if we can still make some changes to the system that strictly improve security and require zero trust of the opposition party, without destroying trust in the underlying institutions. I wonder if we will ever try, as opposed to simply repeating the same claim enough times so that people believe it to be true. The latter is certainly cheaper, and certainly gets the job done (where the job is persuading the public that their election system is secure in fact, regardless of whether it is actually true). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

theptip 4y ago
> This is quite contrary to the ~~propaganda~~ trustworthy journalism take on the matter: I would note that it's possible for both to be true: A) this was the most secure election in US history, B) there are still some meaningful security issues to iron out. For example between 2016 and 2020, DRE machines were being phased out (28.9 -> 11.4%), so in that regard we do seem to be more secure than in the past. And I want to be clear -- I think the detailed content of that Guardian article is broadly fair, even if they do engage in some sloganeering. > The officials who signed the statement said they had no evidence that any voting system had deleted or lost votes, had changed votes, or was in any way compromised. > They said all the states with close results have paper records, which allows for the recounting of each ballot, if necessary, and for “the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors”. I think this is an honest evaluation of the evidence RE: specific claims of voting fraud in 2020. (Though I'm always interested to hear folks' best evidence to the contrary.) Importantly, absence of evidence _is_ evidence of absence (evidence != proof!). If there was vote tampering, it should have been detected by a recount somewhere. But we don't see that.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > I would note that it's possible for both to be true: A) this was the most secure election in US history, B) there are still some meaningful security issues to iron out. For example between 2016 and 2020, DRE machines were being phased out (28.9 -> 11.4%), so in that regard we do seem to be more secure than in the past. - > And I want to be clear -- I think the detailed content of that Guardian article is broadly fair, even if they do engage in some sloganeering. Perhaps, but these articles are misinformation (Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. It is differentiated from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive.) I think it is very interesting how when our geopolitical rivals engage in misinformation, it's a super big deal (regardless of whether there is actual evidence supporting the claim), but when our politicians and media do it it's "fair". > I think this is an honest evaluation of the evidence RE: specific claims of voting fraud in 2020. (Though I'm always interested to hear folks' best evidence to the contrary.) It may be, but this does not erase the coordinated deception that took place - and this is just one instance of deceit. And, there was a time not so long ago where the burden of proof lied with the one making the assertion, only recently has the convention changed to the burden of proof being on anyone who questions the official narrative. > If there was vote tampering, it should have been detected by a recount somewhere. But we don't see that. Similarly, I "should" quit smoking and join the gym, but I ain't seeing much of that either. If "seems about right" is the standard election officials think is applicable to their role, I'd like for them to make an explicit announcement so everyone is on the same page about what kind of a show we're running here.

theptip 4y ago

> This is quite contrary to the ~~propaganda~~ trustworthy journalism take on the matter: I would note that it's possible for both to be true: A) this was the most secure election in US history, B) there are still some meaningful security issues to iron out. For example between 2016 and 2020, DRE machines were being phased out (28.9 -> 11.4%), so in that regard we do seem to be more secure than in the past. And I want to be clear -- I think the detailed content of that Guardian article is broadly fair, even if they do engage in some sloganeering. > The officials who signed the statement said they had no evidence that any voting system had deleted or lost votes, had changed votes, or was in any way compromised. > They said all the states with close results have paper records, which allows for the recounting of each ballot, if necessary, and for “the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors”. I think this is an honest evaluation of the evidence RE: specific claims of voting fraud in 2020. (Though I'm always interested to hear folks' best evidence to the contrary.) Importantly, absence of evidence _is_ evidence of absence (evidence != proof!). If there was vote tampering, it should have been detected by a recount somewhere. But we don't see that.

mistermann 4y ago
> I would note that it's possible for both to be true: A) this was the most secure election in US history, B) there are still some meaningful security issues to iron out. For example between 2016 and 2020, DRE machines were being phased out (28.9 -> 11.4%), so in that regard we do seem to be more secure than in the past. - > And I want to be clear -- I think the detailed content of that Guardian article is broadly fair, even if they do engage in some sloganeering. Perhaps, but these articles are misinformation (Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. It is differentiated from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive.) I think it is very interesting how when our geopolitical rivals engage in misinformation, it's a super big deal (regardless of whether there is actual evidence supporting the claim), but when our politicians and media do it it's "fair". > I think this is an honest evaluation of the evidence RE: specific claims of voting fraud in 2020. (Though I'm always interested to hear folks' best evidence to the contrary.) It may be, but this does not erase the coordinated deception that took place - and this is just one instance of deceit. And, there was a time not so long ago where the burden of proof lied with the one making the assertion, only recently has the convention changed to the burden of proof being on anyone who questions the official narrative. > If there was vote tampering, it should have been detected by a recount somewhere. But we don't see that. Similarly, I "should" quit smoking and join the gym, but I ain't seeing much of that either. If "seems about right" is the standard election officials think is applicable to their role, I'd like for them to make an explicit announcement so everyone is on the same page about what kind of a show we're running here.