3 ms·

> There's widespread evidence of systematic fraud with those machines in swing districts, going back to a least 2004. Uhh, citation please?

• cudgy 4y ago
  Given that countless companies, websites, social media networks, governmental organizations, hospitals, school systems, and individuals including consumer credit companies are hacked every year, do you really need more evidence that an electronic voting machine could be compromised?
  • toofy 4y ago
    generally we need to see evidence, yes. particularly with the claim of “widespread” and “systemic abuse” casually tossed in. do we doubt machines have been hacked? of course not, you’re on hackernews, we all attended defcon voting machine village, but yes, “widespread” and “systemic abuse” needs to be backed up with something more than, “it happened to joe and jim two streets over so obviously it happened to jill next door.”
  • llbeansandrice 4y ago
    Yes. What kind of bullshit question is that? The claim is “widespread evidence of fraud”. I’d like to see any of the widespread evidence and not hand wavey back tracking to “could be compromised”.
    • cudgy 4y ago
      It doesn’t have to be widespread in order to have a widespread impact. Some national elections are extremely close and essentially decided in one county of a single swing state. Most local elections are by definition “local” and close local elections can be decided by the votes from a single voting precinct. Requiring the evidence to be widespread in order to acknowledge the risk is real and impactful is shortsighted and “hand wavy”.