5 ms·

1. If all the machine does is mark who you voted on paper than what is the point of the machine over a pencil? 2. If it does more (for example count your vote)

1. If all the machine does is mark who you voted on paper than what is the point of the machine over a pencil? 2. If it does more (for example count your vote) then how did you know that it actually did that? Either way it smells extremely fishy to me.

mulmen 2y ago
It avoids dangling chads and improperly filled bubbles which were both used to steal the 2000 presidential election. I have never used such a machine but the UX could be a lot clearer than the analog filp-and-punch machines used in Florida in 2000. I don’t love software in the voting process but printing the choices is verifiable and reduces ambiguity in the voting process.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  It seems like quite a stretch to say the 2000 election was stolen. There were definitely ballot issues, but Gore challenged it and ultimately decided of his own accord to concede. He could have continued the challenge and drawn the process out, throwing in throwing in the towel to allow the process to end was his choice, it wasn't stolen.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    It's a bit more complicated than that. Gore lost the initial vote count in Florida. He wanted to recount. That was fine. He lost the recount, but it was closer. Then he wanted specific recounts - to recount the precincts where he thought he would gain the most votes in another recount, and to not recount the ones where Bush would gain votes. Also there were calendar issues - the December date where they have to cast their Electoral College votes was coming up. It went to the Supreme Court. The SC made two rulings. First, in a 7-2 vote, they ruled that Gore couldn't recount just in specific spots - if they were going to recount, they had to recount everywhere. Second, in a 5-4 ruling, they ruled that they couldn't keep recounting - they had to meet the December deadline with what they had. That second ruling is what people are talking about when they say the election was "stolen". Personally, I think the SC was right. Recounting only where you'll gain is cheating - you're trying to win, not trying to have an honest count. And if Florida had missed the deadline, and Gore had won because none of Florida's votes counted toward the Electoral College? That would have been stealing the election. It also would have been a violation of the Voting Rights Act and a bunch of other things.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Thanks for the added detail, that's roughly what I remembered as well but definitely a better timeline. I don't actually remember hearing people describe the election as stolen at the time. I know people weren't happy about it, but either I just lost that memory over time or "stolen" is a newer description of 2000 now that its become so commonplace today. Either way, I have a hard time seeing an election that was recounted and challenge GED all the way to the Supreme Court as stolen. Contentious for sure, but that sounds like the system working as intended rather than theft.
      - themaninthedark 2y ago
        I was in High school at the time, I definitely remember a feeling that the election was stolen and that Bush was not rightfully elected. I don't remember the general feeling going away until after 2001. There was a large partisan divide at that time.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        The difference between then and now was that Gore put the country before himself and conceded. You can be unhappy with a result, and maybe even see a path towards changing it, but at some point politicians owe it to their country to support its core democratic institutions. Clearly and publicly accepting well-audited voting results should be first requirement for presidential candidates. (Said as someone who has thoughts about the 2000 election, but respects what Gore did as a patriotic choice)
        _heimdall 2y ago
        Interesting, I was a year out from high school and remember it being really contentious. I just don't remember the phrase "stolen" being thrown around, but that would have been very easy for me to not notice at the time or forget since then.
        themaninthedark 2y ago
        The earliest that I can find using "stolen" is from 2004, it refers to both the 2004 and 2000 elections as stolen: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-11-05/electronic-voting-stolen-election-2004/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-11-05/electronic-vot... Bonus points for also casting doubt on electronic voting machines :) A further reference from 2012 has the "stolen" language: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-...
  - mulmen 2y ago
    He didn’t “decide of his own accord to concede”. The US Supreme Court decided for him by ending any further path to count votes in Florida so Gore conceded when be had no other options.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Probably a technicality, but he did still decide to concede. The Supreme Court only ended his specific bid for a recount, they didn't call the election winner or end his campaign.
      - mulmen 2y ago
        Definitely a technicality, and interesting only because he chose country over personal ambition. The Supreme Court slammed the door in his face. He could have kept fighting but every available path was even more ugly than what he and the country already endured.
        thejazzman 2y ago
        Only since 2020 has it become acceptable/normal/typical/strategy to take your battle against democracy itself. At least so blatantly visibly explicitly and shamelessly.
  - thejazzman 2y ago
    When the Supreme Court rules the outcome instead of the voters, and even goes so far as to stress that their actions can't ever be used as precedent in any other matter, it's a uh.. yeah. Idk I think something was stolen from over half the voters.

mulmen 2y ago

It avoids dangling chads and improperly filled bubbles which were both used to steal the 2000 presidential election. I have never used such a machine but the UX could be a lot clearer than the analog filp-and-punch machines used in Florida in 2000. I don’t love software in the voting process but printing the choices is verifiable and reduces ambiguity in the voting process.

_heimdall 2y ago
It seems like quite a stretch to say the 2000 election was stolen. There were definitely ballot issues, but Gore challenged it and ultimately decided of his own accord to concede. He could have continued the challenge and drawn the process out, throwing in throwing in the towel to allow the process to end was his choice, it wasn't stolen.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. Gore lost the initial vote count in Florida. He wanted to recount. That was fine. He lost the recount, but it was closer. Then he wanted specific recounts - to recount the precincts where he thought he would gain the most votes in another recount, and to not recount the ones where Bush would gain votes. Also there were calendar issues - the December date where they have to cast their Electoral College votes was coming up. It went to the Supreme Court. The SC made two rulings. First, in a 7-2 vote, they ruled that Gore couldn't recount just in specific spots - if they were going to recount, they had to recount everywhere. Second, in a 5-4 ruling, they ruled that they couldn't keep recounting - they had to meet the December deadline with what they had. That second ruling is what people are talking about when they say the election was "stolen". Personally, I think the SC was right. Recounting only where you'll gain is cheating - you're trying to win, not trying to have an honest count. And if Florida had missed the deadline, and Gore had won because none of Florida's votes counted toward the Electoral College? That would have been stealing the election. It also would have been a violation of the Voting Rights Act and a bunch of other things.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Thanks for the added detail, that's roughly what I remembered as well but definitely a better timeline. I don't actually remember hearing people describe the election as stolen at the time. I know people weren't happy about it, but either I just lost that memory over time or "stolen" is a newer description of 2000 now that its become so commonplace today. Either way, I have a hard time seeing an election that was recounted and challenge GED all the way to the Supreme Court as stolen. Contentious for sure, but that sounds like the system working as intended rather than theft.
    - themaninthedark 2y ago
      I was in High school at the time, I definitely remember a feeling that the election was stolen and that Bush was not rightfully elected. I don't remember the general feeling going away until after 2001. There was a large partisan divide at that time.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        The difference between then and now was that Gore put the country before himself and conceded. You can be unhappy with a result, and maybe even see a path towards changing it, but at some point politicians owe it to their country to support its core democratic institutions. Clearly and publicly accepting well-audited voting results should be first requirement for presidential candidates. (Said as someone who has thoughts about the 2000 election, but respects what Gore did as a patriotic choice)
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Interesting, I was a year out from high school and remember it being really contentious. I just don't remember the phrase "stolen" being thrown around, but that would have been very easy for me to not notice at the time or forget since then.
        themaninthedark 2y ago
        The earliest that I can find using "stolen" is from 2004, it refers to both the 2004 and 2000 elections as stolen: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-11-05/electronic-voting-stolen-election-2004/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-11-05/electronic-vot... Bonus points for also casting doubt on electronic voting machines :) A further reference from 2012 has the "stolen" language: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-...
- mulmen 2y ago
  He didn’t “decide of his own accord to concede”. The US Supreme Court decided for him by ending any further path to count votes in Florida so Gore conceded when be had no other options.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Probably a technicality, but he did still decide to concede. The Supreme Court only ended his specific bid for a recount, they didn't call the election winner or end his campaign.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      Definitely a technicality, and interesting only because he chose country over personal ambition. The Supreme Court slammed the door in his face. He could have kept fighting but every available path was even more ugly than what he and the country already endured.
      - thejazzman 2y ago
        Only since 2020 has it become acceptable/normal/typical/strategy to take your battle against democracy itself. At least so blatantly visibly explicitly and shamelessly.
- thejazzman 2y ago
  When the Supreme Court rules the outcome instead of the voters, and even goes so far as to stress that their actions can't ever be used as precedent in any other matter, it's a uh.. yeah. Idk I think something was stolen from over half the voters.