3 ms·

You are missing my point. We do not leave in an ideal world. Saying something should happen does not translate to it being done. Example, Bush vs Gore was dec

You are missing my point. We do not leave in an ideal world. Saying something should happen does not translate to it being done. Example, Bush vs Gore was decided by the courts, not by recount. So if that election was stolen, we will never know. In that case, your whole argument falls apart, there should have been a recount but that never happened. In that case, if firmware altered enough votes it worked. " Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida's counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately.[1] On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay, with Scalia citing "irreparable harm" that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over Bush's legitimacy. " Now replace Bush with Trump, have a blatant steal, work a lawsuit up to supreme court, have supreme court decide the same way.

nebula8804 2y ago
>Example, Bush vs Gore was decided by the courts, not by recount. That whole event was triggered by the "hanging chad" nonsense found in the poorly designed paper ballots that led to ambiguity. >Now replace Bush with Trump, have a blatant steal, work a lawsuit up to supreme court, have supreme court decide the same way. If you cannot trust the law then a speedy result works in your favor. If you have a quick electronic result plus have a risk limiting audit done the night of the election as standard practice it makes it harder to challenge the result. In a paper only ballot by definition will take longer and leaves the door open for every election to be challenged.
- adriancr 2y ago
  > That whole event was triggered by the "hanging chad" nonsense found in the poorly designed paper ballots that led to ambiguity. You say nonsense but wikipedia says: "a statewide recount would have shown that Gore received the most votes, according to the Florida Ballot Project." So it seems that election result was changed successfully by machines. That would not have happened with regular vote counting. > In a paper only ballot by definition will take longer and leaves the door open for every election to be challenged. Paper and counting with observers is much harder to compromise and more efficient then some machines. (see EU parliament elections) Alas, you still argue machines are better when there's precedent of them changing an election result. I don't have anything more to add here, thanks for the discussion, was interesting digging through wikipedia on this.
  - nebula8804 2y ago
    >So it seems that election result was changed successfully by machines. Did you read the right wikipedia article? The ballots were paper ballots! The poor design caused people to vote for the incorrect candidate. What machine are you talking about? Certainly not DRE. There was no DRE involved in this state. >Alas, you still argue machines are better when there's precedent of them changing an election result. I am arguing DRE with risk limiting audits solves all issues. Fast turnaround with two way auditing. Prominent election security experts are advocating the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-184ssFce4&t=1578s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-184ssFce4&t=1578s >I don't have anything more to add here, thanks for the discussion, was interesting digging through wikipedia on this. Its so funny to see how HN people tend to be so ignorant of the real world because they think they know best. After all they are hackers right? Sooner or later they always get smacked with reality.
    - adriancr 2y ago
      > Did you read the right wikipedia article? The ballots were paper ballots! The poor design caused people to vote for the incorrect candidate. What machine are you talking about? From same article: "Florida later retired the punch-card voting machines that produced the ballots disputed in the case." It looks like you haven't read the article. I'll make it short: - machines messed up, humans without machines would have not. - attempts at recount were blocked by supreme court. - bad result was used to alter election result. As such, in your situation, if the voting machines you keep arguing for will produce wrong results, we can expect the same result, lawsuits and supreme court deciding election instead of the people. Any "risk limiting audits" will be thrown in the trash if it's convenient. Same as the recount attempts in florida. If you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. > Its so funny to see how HN people tend to be so ignorant of the real world because they think they know best. After all they are hackers right? Sooner or later they always get smacked with reality. Kind if ironic, don't you think? You keep arguing for a complex unproven system that is easily compromisable and needs risk limiting audits just to exist. You are ignorant of real world risks. You dismiss a simpler, resilient, proven, similarly fast without these glaring issues in EU. You know best. If voting machines ever mess up then reality will smack us all, same as in the past.

nebula8804 2y ago

>Example, Bush vs Gore was decided by the courts, not by recount. That whole event was triggered by the "hanging chad" nonsense found in the poorly designed paper ballots that led to ambiguity. >Now replace Bush with Trump, have a blatant steal, work a lawsuit up to supreme court, have supreme court decide the same way. If you cannot trust the law then a speedy result works in your favor. If you have a quick electronic result plus have a risk limiting audit done the night of the election as standard practice it makes it harder to challenge the result. In a paper only ballot by definition will take longer and leaves the door open for every election to be challenged.

adriancr 2y ago
> That whole event was triggered by the "hanging chad" nonsense found in the poorly designed paper ballots that led to ambiguity. You say nonsense but wikipedia says: "a statewide recount would have shown that Gore received the most votes, according to the Florida Ballot Project." So it seems that election result was changed successfully by machines. That would not have happened with regular vote counting. > In a paper only ballot by definition will take longer and leaves the door open for every election to be challenged. Paper and counting with observers is much harder to compromise and more efficient then some machines. (see EU parliament elections) Alas, you still argue machines are better when there's precedent of them changing an election result. I don't have anything more to add here, thanks for the discussion, was interesting digging through wikipedia on this.
- nebula8804 2y ago
  >So it seems that election result was changed successfully by machines. Did you read the right wikipedia article? The ballots were paper ballots! The poor design caused people to vote for the incorrect candidate. What machine are you talking about? Certainly not DRE. There was no DRE involved in this state. >Alas, you still argue machines are better when there's precedent of them changing an election result. I am arguing DRE with risk limiting audits solves all issues. Fast turnaround with two way auditing. Prominent election security experts are advocating the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-184ssFce4&t=1578s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-184ssFce4&t=1578s >I don't have anything more to add here, thanks for the discussion, was interesting digging through wikipedia on this. Its so funny to see how HN people tend to be so ignorant of the real world because they think they know best. After all they are hackers right? Sooner or later they always get smacked with reality.
  - adriancr 2y ago
    > Did you read the right wikipedia article? The ballots were paper ballots! The poor design caused people to vote for the incorrect candidate. What machine are you talking about? From same article: "Florida later retired the punch-card voting machines that produced the ballots disputed in the case." It looks like you haven't read the article. I'll make it short: - machines messed up, humans without machines would have not. - attempts at recount were blocked by supreme court. - bad result was used to alter election result. As such, in your situation, if the voting machines you keep arguing for will produce wrong results, we can expect the same result, lawsuits and supreme court deciding election instead of the people. Any "risk limiting audits" will be thrown in the trash if it's convenient. Same as the recount attempts in florida. If you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. > Its so funny to see how HN people tend to be so ignorant of the real world because they think they know best. After all they are hackers right? Sooner or later they always get smacked with reality. Kind if ironic, don't you think? You keep arguing for a complex unproven system that is easily compromisable and needs risk limiting audits just to exist. You are ignorant of real world risks. You dismiss a simpler, resilient, proven, similarly fast without these glaring issues in EU. You know best. If voting machines ever mess up then reality will smack us all, same as in the past.