4 ms·

It is true that it is a lot easier to get away with fraud if you can time travel. You can't just look at the numbers needed to change an election after the fac

by slg 4y ago

It is true that it is a lot easier to get away with fraud if you can time travel. You can't just look at the numbers needed to change an election after the fact because whoever committed the fraud wouldn't have perfect knowledge on how much fraud to commit. The votes also can't just be dumped into a single machine, voting center, precinct, or even county because that shift in behavior would be noticed. Therefore this malicious actor would need to be able to add hundreds of thousands of votes state wide across several states in order to change things. Each state will have its own equipment and procedures and those can even vary within states. Once again, this would need to be a very widespread fraud that likely requires dozens of different attack vectors all executed in coordination. It is possible, but very difficult to pull off successfully.

somenameforme 4y ago
It's not like the results all just come instantly. They come incrementally, and over unacceptably long periods of time. All you'd need to do is to look at which of the handful of competitive states you need to give yourself a little boost. And the tech side's even easier. For instance those 3 states, making up the 45,050 vote margin from 2020, all had districts using the exact same hardware/software: Dominion.
- slg 4y ago
  >our elections are unacceptably slow That is funny considering the primary benefit of electronic voting machines is speeding up the gathering of results. I'm not sure how you expect us to manually count 150 million ballots quicker without using any hackable electronics. Otherwise, you are still falling into the same trap. You say we can just use "insider knowledge" to know where to commit the fraud, but that requires both insiders and the ability to actually execute the fraud in all those potentially close places. We are back to needing a widespread conspiracy that operates in several states and can attack in a variety of different ways.
  - ChickenNugger 4y ago
    >I'm not sure how you expect us to manually count 150 million ballots quicker without using any hackable electronics. The solution to vote counting scales right along side the problem. You use more human counters. If it takes 2% of the population to count votes, then you just...keep using the same percentage, just more people. I reiterate: There is no good faith reason to use electronic voting machines. It injects an ability to scale up election fraud, and that is all it does.
    - slg 4y ago
      >If it takes 2% of the population to count votes, then you just...keep using the same percentage, just more people. And if we build a team of 9 women, I bet they can produce a baby in a single month.
      - ChickenNugger 4y ago
        False analogy. You can split stacks of ballots to be counted and hand them to different people. I don't know why you're arguing so hard in favor of electronic voting when it's good for no one but voting machine companies and election thieves.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    You don't actually need insider knowledge. Results trickle in, and you can adjust dynamically as needed. It's not especially hard at all, which is why this is so dangerous. As for alternatives, the answer for a secure electronic system seems self evident. When you vote, you either choose or assigned a secret key. Your ballot and key are publicly posted. Suddenly you have a system where that is 100% confirmable at every single level. Observers can verify exactly the number of voters voted. Voters can verify their vote was counted and was for whom they chose. The only downside is that you could also prove to another third party that you voted some way or another. Yet this feels largely academic. Coercion/bribing schemes are already illegal and at any meaningful scale they would collapse instantly because this would actually require your "widespread conspiracy." Add in a large "finders fee" for outing said conspiracies and the entire notion of them as a threat becomes silly.

by slg 4y ago

somenameforme 4y ago

It's not like the results all just come instantly. They come incrementally, and over unacceptably long periods of time. All you'd need to do is to look at which of the handful of competitive states you need to give yourself a little boost. And the tech side's even easier. For instance those 3 states, making up the 45,050 vote margin from 2020, all had districts using the exact same hardware/software: Dominion.

slg 4y ago
>our elections are unacceptably slow That is funny considering the primary benefit of electronic voting machines is speeding up the gathering of results. I'm not sure how you expect us to manually count 150 million ballots quicker without using any hackable electronics. Otherwise, you are still falling into the same trap. You say we can just use "insider knowledge" to know where to commit the fraud, but that requires both insiders and the ability to actually execute the fraud in all those potentially close places. We are back to needing a widespread conspiracy that operates in several states and can attack in a variety of different ways.
- ChickenNugger 4y ago
  >I'm not sure how you expect us to manually count 150 million ballots quicker without using any hackable electronics. The solution to vote counting scales right along side the problem. You use more human counters. If it takes 2% of the population to count votes, then you just...keep using the same percentage, just more people. I reiterate: There is no good faith reason to use electronic voting machines. It injects an ability to scale up election fraud, and that is all it does.
  - slg 4y ago
    >If it takes 2% of the population to count votes, then you just...keep using the same percentage, just more people. And if we build a team of 9 women, I bet they can produce a baby in a single month.
    - ChickenNugger 4y ago
      False analogy. You can split stacks of ballots to be counted and hand them to different people. I don't know why you're arguing so hard in favor of electronic voting when it's good for no one but voting machine companies and election thieves.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  You don't actually need insider knowledge. Results trickle in, and you can adjust dynamically as needed. It's not especially hard at all, which is why this is so dangerous. As for alternatives, the answer for a secure electronic system seems self evident. When you vote, you either choose or assigned a secret key. Your ballot and key are publicly posted. Suddenly you have a system where that is 100% confirmable at every single level. Observers can verify exactly the number of voters voted. Voters can verify their vote was counted and was for whom they chose. The only downside is that you could also prove to another third party that you voted some way or another. Yet this feels largely academic. Coercion/bribing schemes are already illegal and at any meaningful scale they would collapse instantly because this would actually require your "widespread conspiracy." Add in a large "finders fee" for outing said conspiracies and the entire notion of them as a threat becomes silly.