3 ms·

I think it's sloppy wording and rhetoric by the article author. AFAIU most jurisdictions do purchase and own their machines, as opposed to leasing.

by wahern 1y ago

consumer451 1y ago
But we live in the age where it's normal to buy something, and yet not really own it. The most egregious example has to be the F-35. Does the local gov "buying" a voting machine give them total visibility into the software? I am genuinely curious.
- wahern 1y ago
  > Does the local gov "buying" a voting machine give them total visibility into the software? I am genuinely curious. No, it doesn't. But there's a wide variety of machines, from comparatively simple, tested-and-true Scantrons to the fancy touch screen Dominion machines with conceptually easier-to-hack software and processes, and plenty of nuance across the board. But I think the author's language is still sloppy, if not downright misleading. Also, IIRC the purchaser of Dominion has publicly committed to ensuring paper trails for everything, which at least 8 or so years ago was a popular criticism of Dominion machines--what paper receipts it did (or could optionally) produce didn't necessarily provide robust accounting of the overall tabulation system. Beyond being a Trump supporter (which alone says very little about any specific individual), there's no reason to think the new owner would be worse for election integrity than the status quo, and arguably some reason to believe integrity might improve. Only time will tell whether he improves the transparency and integrity of Dominion's products. Though I'm more than a little skeptical, not because of nefarious motives, but just because Dominion's position in the marketplace os providing fancy voting tech. The easiest way to improve integrity might be to just shutdown Dominion's entire voting machine product lineup and tell everybody to move to Scantron paper ballots with hand audits, like California does.

I think it's sloppy wording and rhetoric by the article author. AFAIU most jurisdictions do purchase and own their machines, as opposed to leasing.

by wahern 1y ago

I think it's sloppy wording and rhetoric by the article author. AFAIU most jurisdictions do purchase and own their machines, as opposed to leasing.

consumer451 1y ago

But we live in the age where it's normal to buy something, and yet not really own it. The most egregious example has to be the F-35. Does the local gov "buying" a voting machine give them total visibility into the software? I am genuinely curious.

wahern 1y ago
> Does the local gov "buying" a voting machine give them total visibility into the software? I am genuinely curious. No, it doesn't. But there's a wide variety of machines, from comparatively simple, tested-and-true Scantrons to the fancy touch screen Dominion machines with conceptually easier-to-hack software and processes, and plenty of nuance across the board. But I think the author's language is still sloppy, if not downright misleading. Also, IIRC the purchaser of Dominion has publicly committed to ensuring paper trails for everything, which at least 8 or so years ago was a popular criticism of Dominion machines--what paper receipts it did (or could optionally) produce didn't necessarily provide robust accounting of the overall tabulation system. Beyond being a Trump supporter (which alone says very little about any specific individual), there's no reason to think the new owner would be worse for election integrity than the status quo, and arguably some reason to believe integrity might improve. Only time will tell whether he improves the transparency and integrity of Dominion's products. Though I'm more than a little skeptical, not because of nefarious motives, but just because Dominion's position in the marketplace os providing fancy voting tech. The easiest way to improve integrity might be to just shutdown Dominion's entire voting machine product lineup and tell everybody to move to Scantron paper ballots with hand audits, like California does.