3 ms·
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
by 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 agoNothing 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 agoNo. 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 agoThis all relies on non partisan election monitors and external oversight which is the exact opposite of the new reality.