4 ms·
you don't need to have "compelling evidence" to show that something is "open to abuse", you simply need to point out the threat vectors as we know from all ove
by fsckboy 8mo ago
you don't need to have "compelling evidence" to show that something is "open to abuse", you simply need to point out the threat vectors
as we know from all over the internet and from various financial frauds, rug pulls, insurance frauds, etc., if there is something to gain, there is no shortage of people who will abuse any system.
- mullingitover 8mo agoIf you don’t have compelling evidence, you have hand-waving, which is all the concern trolling about massive absentee voting fraud always ends up doing. Mail-in voting has been operating for decades. Nobody fear mongering about for all these years has ever delivered a shred of evidence to back their claims. It’s flat earth-grade conspiracy nonsense.
- habinero 8mo agoNo, that's just fear-mongering and spreading propaganda. Our elections are designed to handle everything you said. I wrote another comment explaining, but you can also literally go watch it done yourself. Everything's a conspiracy when you don't know how anything works.
- ajam1507 8mo agoThis argument would apply to any voting method regardless of how secure it was. If the "threat actors" are the only important factor then the voting method is irrelevant.