33 ms·

How exactly are you going to be able to trust elections at this point? I don’t mean as some kind of conspiracy theorist but in a very practical sense that I can

by mdhb 2y ago

How exactly are you going to be able to trust elections at this point? I don’t mean as some kind of conspiracy theorist but in a very practical sense that I can’t think of any meaningful controls or external oversight mechanisms that I could point to. They were literally one of the very first things he got rid of and now all of the voting infrastructure is controlled at the state level by partisans who have shown loudly and clearly that they have no interest in playing fair. Putting all of your eggs in the free and fair elections category is genuinely not a credible plan at this point.

Aloisius 2y ago
We have election monitors and real-time tabulation of results at precincts (mostly). Some states have recounts of a random subset of ballots with election monitors to verify results. And of course, the Federal government isn't involved in the logistics of voting at all. It's run by thousands of local governments.
- mdhb 2y ago
  You are repeating back the precise problem as though it were a solution. That’s exactly what makes it extremely likely that there will be problems
  - therealpygon 2y ago
    Nothing like the belief that you would be pardoned to make you feel comfortable breaking the law for your favorite convict. I’m sure he will encourage this view with his speech, blah blah “J6 patriots” and what not, without explicitly saying he will pardon anyone.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    No. That's what makes it much more difficult to attack at scale compared to centralized voting systems. You can't stuff hundreds of ballot boxes without election monitors noting the discrepancy in number of voters. Even if you could, you can't add more ballots than people visited without the election monitors noticing or remove them for the same reason. Since voter names are crossed off and publicly recorded as voting, stuffing a ballot also box risks discovery if that person tries to vote or sees themselves on the list. Since votes are tallied and reported as counts happen at the precinct level, again, with election monitors, there's no easy place to alter votes. The sum of the precinct totals has to be the final result. Then there are the automatic recounts which have to match the originals or one risks discovery. The only real scalable attack is through electronic voting machines without a paper trail - which is why they should be banned. Well that and any ranked choice races for the areas that have them (since they have to be tallied centrally and aren't auditable in any reasonable way). Anything else has a high risk of discovery.
    - mdhb 2y ago
      This all relies on non partisan election monitors and external oversight which is the exact opposite of the new reality.
therealpygon 2y ago
At the end of the day, that is the purpose of states controlling their own voting. It is why the electoral college exists, not for the people’s votes to determine the president, but for the State’s representatives to determine the president. This is the downside of that design.

by mdhb 2y ago

Aloisius 2y ago

We have election monitors and real-time tabulation of results at precincts (mostly). Some states have recounts of a random subset of ballots with election monitors to verify results. And of course, the Federal government isn't involved in the logistics of voting at all. It's run by thousands of local governments.

mdhb 2y ago
You are repeating back the precise problem as though it were a solution. That’s exactly what makes it extremely likely that there will be problems
- therealpygon 2y ago
  Nothing like the belief that you would be pardoned to make you feel comfortable breaking the law for your favorite convict. I’m sure he will encourage this view with his speech, blah blah “J6 patriots” and what not, without explicitly saying he will pardon anyone.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  No. That's what makes it much more difficult to attack at scale compared to centralized voting systems. You can't stuff hundreds of ballot boxes without election monitors noting the discrepancy in number of voters. Even if you could, you can't add more ballots than people visited without the election monitors noticing or remove them for the same reason. Since voter names are crossed off and publicly recorded as voting, stuffing a ballot also box risks discovery if that person tries to vote or sees themselves on the list. Since votes are tallied and reported as counts happen at the precinct level, again, with election monitors, there's no easy place to alter votes. The sum of the precinct totals has to be the final result. Then there are the automatic recounts which have to match the originals or one risks discovery. The only real scalable attack is through electronic voting machines without a paper trail - which is why they should be banned. Well that and any ranked choice races for the areas that have them (since they have to be tallied centrally and aren't auditable in any reasonable way). Anything else has a high risk of discovery.
  - mdhb 2y ago
    This all relies on non partisan election monitors and external oversight which is the exact opposite of the new reality.

therealpygon 2y ago

At the end of the day, that is the purpose of states controlling their own voting. It is why the electoral college exists, not for the people’s votes to determine the president, but for the State’s representatives to determine the president. This is the downside of that design.