3 ms·

>Results trickle in, and you can adjust dynamically as needed. But you are still missing the point. You can't just act immediately. You need to lay the groun

by slg 4y ago

>Results trickle in, and you can adjust dynamically as needed. But you are still missing the point. You can't just act immediately. You need to lay the groundwork for acting. This group needs the ability to act in numerous states before they know which states to actually attack. That means even if they don't end up needing to change any votes in a given state, they still need the capability to change the votes. They can't just start the attack on election day. These systems have to already be compromised or at least have a confirmed way to compromise them. The hard work needs to be done before election day and any results are known. >Coercion/bribing schemes are already illegal And so is hacking a voting machine so I guess we don't have to worry about that either. > at any meaningful scale they would collapse instantly because this would actually require your "widespread conspiracy." But we aren't just worried about centralized conspiracies. A third party knowing how you vote creates new problems that we want to avoid. For example, now you have abusive partners demanding their significant other votes a certain way or an unethical boss demanding their employees vote for a specific candidate. The importance of individual ballots being secret goes beyond who wins the election. >Add in a large "finders fee" for outing said conspiracies and the entire notion of them as a threat becomes silly. Always smart to incentivize people to make stuff up for money. If this actually worked, why not just institute it for any election manipulation?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>But you are still missing the point. You can't just act immediately. You need to lay the groundwork for acting. This group needs the ability to act in numerous states before they know which states to actually attack. You are the one missing the point. This is exactly why people find allegations of 2am ballet dumps and the like highly suspect and worthy of looking into. On some level it doesn't matter whether there's the possibility of fraud or not because the appearance of that possibility delegitimatizes the system and the system only works because people think it's legitimate.
- slg 4y ago
  How is this comment related to anything I have said? Saying it is difficult to get away with a crime is not the same thing as saying that accusations of that crime should not be investigated.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    My point is that if the crime is difficult to get away with for the reasons you say it is then stuff like dragging the process out and injecting false ballets where and when you need them so you don't do "more" than you need to and risk blowing the cover of the system you've set up is the obvious way to go about it and people rightfully want it looked into when they see stuff that matches that patterns. And it needs to actually be looked into even when frivolous because failing to do that has very bad optics
    - slg 4y ago
      I don't think the 2-4 hours or whatever difference you think makes those 2am dumps not suspicious really has any impact on the difficulty of this task. Those 2am dumps still have to meet all the other criteria I outlined before like matching close enough to expected turnout and result numbers for those precincts.
      - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        Are you familiar with the phrase "even the appearance of impropriety"? Societies run on faith. Anything that causes people to question the legitimacy of the system we use to transfer power gives others an opportunity to seize it (incrementally of course). Points where one could game the voting system are dangerous to us the same way having a bunch of bastard children is bad for a king.
      - somenameforme 4y ago
        To expand upon a peer comment, there are 4 broad outcomes in a democratic election: 1) fair, and the people think its fair 2) fair, but the people think its rigged 3) rigged, but the people think its fair 4) rigged, and the people think its rigged In most people's minds, it's 1/2 and 3/4 are, more or less, the same. After all, all that really matters is what really happened. But in terms of a democracy, it's 1/3 and 2/4. The reason is that the whole point of a democracy is to help create a peaceful and stable system because people believe they can change their political future with a ballot instead of a pitchfork and torch. But when that belief fades it doesn't really matter if faded because of reality or just perception. And when this happens, you lose the benefits of a democracy and the peace starts to disappear. There is literally nothing more important for the stability and security of a democracy than perception of its integrity. Elections that linger on for days with odd looking events abounds destroy this perception, regardless of whether or not everything is actually completely on the up and up.
somenameforme 4y ago
You are being actively disingenuous. In the case of the 2020 election all you would have needed is one single exploit against Dominion machines, which by nature of being the one conducting an election means you'll have near limited time/access to - including local access, and you're done. Before 2020 even outlets such as the NYTimes were raising warning flags about the extreme insecurity of these voting systems, including Dominion. [1] The point about voter coercion being illegal is not that it will stop it, but that things like e.g. "an unethical boss demanding employees vote for a specific candidate [and then prove it]" is not just unethical, it's illegal. And a finder's fee means you not only get to give your boss the finger, and send him on to meet Bubba, but also get a nice 'golden parachute' on your way out. This isn't the type of scenario where a government is paying money for guns, incentivizing people to print guns. This requires another individual committing a crime. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/magazine/the-myth-of-the-hacker-proof-voting-machine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/magazine/the-myth-of-the-...

by slg 4y ago

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

>But you are still missing the point. You can't just act immediately. You need to lay the groundwork for acting. This group needs the ability to act in numerous states before they know which states to actually attack. You are the one missing the point. This is exactly why people find allegations of 2am ballet dumps and the like highly suspect and worthy of looking into. On some level it doesn't matter whether there's the possibility of fraud or not because the appearance of that possibility delegitimatizes the system and the system only works because people think it's legitimate.

slg 4y ago
How is this comment related to anything I have said? Saying it is difficult to get away with a crime is not the same thing as saying that accusations of that crime should not be investigated.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  My point is that if the crime is difficult to get away with for the reasons you say it is then stuff like dragging the process out and injecting false ballets where and when you need them so you don't do "more" than you need to and risk blowing the cover of the system you've set up is the obvious way to go about it and people rightfully want it looked into when they see stuff that matches that patterns. And it needs to actually be looked into even when frivolous because failing to do that has very bad optics
  - slg 4y ago
    I don't think the 2-4 hours or whatever difference you think makes those 2am dumps not suspicious really has any impact on the difficulty of this task. Those 2am dumps still have to meet all the other criteria I outlined before like matching close enough to expected turnout and result numbers for those precincts.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      Are you familiar with the phrase "even the appearance of impropriety"? Societies run on faith. Anything that causes people to question the legitimacy of the system we use to transfer power gives others an opportunity to seize it (incrementally of course). Points where one could game the voting system are dangerous to us the same way having a bunch of bastard children is bad for a king.
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      To expand upon a peer comment, there are 4 broad outcomes in a democratic election: 1) fair, and the people think its fair 2) fair, but the people think its rigged 3) rigged, but the people think its fair 4) rigged, and the people think its rigged In most people's minds, it's 1/2 and 3/4 are, more or less, the same. After all, all that really matters is what really happened. But in terms of a democracy, it's 1/3 and 2/4. The reason is that the whole point of a democracy is to help create a peaceful and stable system because people believe they can change their political future with a ballot instead of a pitchfork and torch. But when that belief fades it doesn't really matter if faded because of reality or just perception. And when this happens, you lose the benefits of a democracy and the peace starts to disappear. There is literally nothing more important for the stability and security of a democracy than perception of its integrity. Elections that linger on for days with odd looking events abounds destroy this perception, regardless of whether or not everything is actually completely on the up and up.

somenameforme 4y ago

You are being actively disingenuous. In the case of the 2020 election all you would have needed is one single exploit against Dominion machines, which by nature of being the one conducting an election means you'll have near limited time/access to - including local access, and you're done. Before 2020 even outlets such as the NYTimes were raising warning flags about the extreme insecurity of these voting systems, including Dominion. [1] The point about voter coercion being illegal is not that it will stop it, but that things like e.g. "an unethical boss demanding employees vote for a specific candidate [and then prove it]" is not just unethical, it's illegal. And a finder's fee means you not only get to give your boss the finger, and send him on to meet Bubba, but also get a nice 'golden parachute' on your way out. This isn't the type of scenario where a government is paying money for guns, incentivizing people to print guns. This requires another individual committing a crime. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/magazine/the-myth-of-the-hacker-proof-voting-machine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/magazine/the-myth-of-the-...