51 ms·

White House delays US voting-machine vulnerability report

125 points by logickkk1 4mo ago

edoceo 4mo ago
Is anyone aware of any viable, or close to viable open-source options exist? That also have capacity for something like a CA statewide election?
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
cryptoz 4mo ago
[flagged]
- XorNot 4mo ago
  The core of the problem is that you have to have mandatory voting. Sending someone a $30 fine because they didn't vote serves a very important function: it gets you an independent check that they were aware they didn't vote, or didn't turn up. It's one of the core superpowers of the Australian electoral system: you can be fined for not voting, but also just about _any_ excuse will get you out of the fine - the fee itself is considered to be administrative and waived once you provide a valid reason. But the system itself means that voter suppression is vastly more difficult: people are inclined to turn up. Or at least participate with the system. And the elections themselves then have a check system built in - if a whole district is getting fined, well now that's news - people complaining to media, sending letters etc.
  - atmavatar 4mo ago
    I'm not opposed to making voting mandatory, but making election day a national holiday should come first. While I'm aware many (most? all?) polling locations allow for early voting, the reality is that many people wait for election day, and the combined hassle of having to work that day and deal with sometimes multi-hour waits (due to Republicans repeatedly closing and limiting polling locations) inevitably leads to some not voting. Of course that also ignores many of the other issues with our electoral system that convince many they shouldn't bother voting (e.g., the electoral collect and heavy gerrymandering disenfranchising large swaths of people), but those are a larger and more complicated set of issues to address.
    - litoE 4mo ago
      > I'm not opposed to making voting mandatory, but making election day a national holiday should come first. How about having elections on Sundays instead of on Tuesdays?
    - amalcon 4mo ago
      Making election day a (normal) national holiday would not help. The type of service sector or emergency service job that makes it a problem to vote needs to work more on a national holiday, not less. Making it a kind of super holiday where we mandate closure of everything from gas stations to non-emergency hospital services might help, but you're never getting the votes to make that change.
  - gcau 4mo ago
    >just about _any_ excuse will get you out of the fine Hilariously wrong, and if it were true it defeats the purpose of making it mandatory.
    - Perenti 4mo ago
      In my experience, ringing the AEC and saying "I thought I might have flu, and thought it best to avoid crowds" is enough to save AUD$50. A huge difference between here in Oz and there in the USA _as I see it_ is that we are conditioned to vote, whilst you are conditioned to vote if you care enough. The fine here is just enough to be annoying, and given the streamlined process at most polling places (you still get queues) it's usually much less hassle to go to the local polling place (town hall or primary school usually) for half an hour. Given the existence of early polling and postal votes there's really not much excuse for _not_ voting unless you're religiously opposed - although I have avoided fines by calling ill-health.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- Danox 4mo ago
  Baloney…
- pclowes 4mo ago
  Big claims require big evidence.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - k12sosse 4mo ago
    [dead]
- tootie 4mo ago
  Surely there's tons of evidence and we don't need to wait for a government assessment that has been teased for over ten years. This has been litigated and investigated over and over and there's never been a shred of usable evidence. Fox and others were sued and lost unable to prove anything. Trump ran a voter fraud commission in 2016 and they just gave up with no findings. They have nothing. They have all the resources in the world to bring to bear and they can't prove a single thing.
- hallman76 4mo ago
  My brother in tech. If anyone wanted to prove voter fraud it's President Donald Trump. Trump's campaign filed 62 lawsuits. 61 were lost, dismissed, or dropped. The other was a technicality. IANAL. Get the vagueposting out of here.
  - thin_carapace 4mo ago
    [flagged]
caseysoftware 4mo ago
I'd love to hear the steelman - what's the argument in favor of using a proprietary electronic system? There have been legit complaints about closed sourced voting systems for ~20 years and DEFCON has done a "Voting Village" for ~10 years demonstrating numerous issues, some of which were not addressed by the next elections. Transparency doesn't appear better either. Is it speed to tally? Cost? Easier to screw with results?
- jfengel 4mo ago
  You must have missed the 2000 election. We hung for weeks on the vagueness of paper ballots. Both sides filed motion after motion to exclude some batch of ballots or other. There was a huge number of extremely unlikely votes in a place with a badly designed paper ballot. The system right now is a security nightmare, a bad implementation of a bad idea. But anybody who lived through 2000 remembers that as even worse.
  - mcculley 4mo ago
    As a Floridian, I apologize for the 2000 election. But we have a much better system now. We have paper ballots that are scanned. We have an auditable fallback for untrustworthy machines. There is no reason other states cannot have the same.
  - wahern 4mo ago
    Florida was using a punch-card system, thus the infamous hanging chads. Fill-in-the-bubble scantron systems are much faster and less error prone; not as fast as purely electronic voting, but you get a reliable paper trail that is more transparent and much easier to audit.
    - tzs 4mo ago
      > Fill-in-the-bubble scantron systems are much faster and less error prone; not as fast as purely electronic voting, but you get a reliable paper trail that is more transparent and much easier to audit. An even bigger advantage of scantrol systems is with two simple changes to how ballots are produced and marked you can greatly increase the security and audibility of them. The two simple changes are: 1. When the ballots are printed you print some alphanumeric codes on them in an invisible ink, and 2. The voter fills in the bubble using a special marker provided at the polling place that turns the invisible code visible. The scanning machines themselves do not require any modification. Voters vote the same was as before, and can ignore the code that becomes visible in the bubbles they fill in if they way. By combining the clever chemistry used for the invisible ink and marker with some clever cryptography in how those codes are generated you can overlay and end-to-end auditable voting system on the scantron system. And end-to-end auditable voting system (also called and end-to-end voter verifiable system) has these properties: • Individuals can verify that their ballot was included in the final count and they vote was attributed correctly. • Any third party can verify that the ballots were counted correctly. The candidates, the parties, news organization, civil rights groups, and anyone else can check. • Voters cannot prove to third parties who they voted for. This is called coercion-resistance. Such a system was developed by several cryptographers, including David Chaum and Ron Rivest. It is called Scantegrity II [1] and has been used successfully in a few elections. Here are links to a paper by its creators explaining it, in HTML [2] and PDF [3]. Here's a paper [4] showing that it is coercion-resistant. With this system after the voting is done the election officials can publish all the codes that were revealed. A voter who wants to know if their vote was counted can check that list to see if the code that was revealed to them for that candidate is in the list. The election officials can also publish some more information that along with the code list allows anybody to verify that the totals for each candidate were right without this revealing the mapping from codes to candidates. With this we get all the pluses of paper system including hand recounts, plus fast machine counting that can be done with a simple single purpose machine that has no software that could be hacked, yet with the kind of end-to-end auditing that the electronic voting systems promise. And it inexpensive to implement and operate. Around half of the districts in the US already are using the scantron machines. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity [2] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/chaum/chaum_html/index.html https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/c... [3] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/chaum/chaum.pdf https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/c... [4] https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/502.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/502.pdf
rcpt 4mo ago
Seems to be an exclusive article that's also paywall. Anyone know the story? Ensuring secure elections and auditing extensively seems like good practice. However the issue has become political and neither party is interested in that. The right claims fraud with no good evidence, in response the left has decided that our elections perfectly secure and to suggest otherwise gets you a sound "tsk tsk"
- jordanscales 4mo ago
  Pretty remarkable both-sidesism in this comment. One side _does not admit the results of the 2020 election_ and the other side says widespread voter fraud is not happening in the United States. Being a fence-setter on this one is intellectually lazy.
  - wahern 4mo ago
    Conservatives in multiple states looked under every rock to find voter fraud in the 2020 election and largely came up empty handed. In Arizona they even forced a quasi-legal audit with their own citizens brigade, spending weeks pouring through records, then quietly admitted there was no systemic fraud. All the cumulative fraud uncovered nationwide, most of which was mistaken registration, discovered through existing processes, and didn't even favor a single party, never amounted to enough to even to turn even a single state.
    - SV_BubbleTime 4mo ago
      I don’t get this. Isn’t it weak, two point out that no one can find evidence after the fact, versus the proper alternative that no one can prove that they’re actually-secure before the fact? Let’s just say that you were a bad guy and manipulating elections, wouldn’t you be bad at your job if someone could detect it after the fact? How many people would a conspiracy even take to pull of? I don’t get the US system. The people mad at Trump and 2020 claims brush off all the ways the elections can’t be proven in favor that weeks or years afterwards no one can’t point to hard evidence.
jmward01 4mo ago
The red haring is that voting is hacked or illegals are voting, etc etc etc. The -real- story is disenfranchising voters by making it hard for them or out-right steaming their votes in the courts. We don't have an election fraud issue in the us. We have an election legitimacy issue.
- jpkw 4mo ago
  Red Herring* - it's a fish, not a rabbit
  - pinkmuffinere 4mo ago
    You’re right, but that’s a distraction from the bigger misconception — it’s actually “Read Herring”. The idea is that the herring has already been documented (and “read” back), no longer deserving of additional discussion.
    - blacksmith_tb 4mo ago
      I have never heard that suggestion... if you can document it, the wiki entry would need an update[1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring#History
      - pinkmuffinere 4mo ago
        I can’t tell if you’re serious, but my definition was certainly not, lol. My claim was that correcting “red haring” to “red herring” distracts from a bigger misunderstanding (thus making the correction itself a red herring! Please laugh.) I completely made up my claim about the true meaning. For better or worse, my brain finds that humorous. Edit: i am honored that you found my origin story believable enough for serious consideration.
        dfee 4mo ago
        where am i?
verdverm 4mo ago
What does HN know about https://www.voting.works/ https://www.voting.works/ ? (open source/hardware voting machine) Note, they are also trying to change the USPS rules regarding mail-in ballots, such that the USPS will not deliver ballots either direction unless the recipient is on a list they are allowed to make. Public comment is open until July 2 https://www.regulations.gov/document/USPS-2026-1289-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document/USPS-2026-1289-0001
- SV_BubbleTime 4mo ago
  What does USPS assume for chain of custody for a ballot? Do they hand them directly to a person?
- enoint 4mo ago
  Since the President has no constitutional role in running elections, what do you think this order is meant to do?
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
pclowes 4mo ago
Faith in elections and election integrity is incredibly important. Unsubstantiated claims of election fraud should be punished severely. Politicians who baselessly erode confidence in elections without providing timely evidence should be ineligible for political office at least and potentially tried for treason.
- readthenotes1 4mo ago
  Doing such is probably as old as elections. Without going too far back, https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/factchecking-clintons-voter-suppression-claims/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/factchecking-clintons-vote...
- rayiner 4mo ago
  Faith in elections is a two-way street. The election system must also be fully transparent, minimize the degree to which voters must trust election administrators, and keep records that would allow evidence of voter fraud to be detected. You can’t punish people for not providing evidence if you’ve designed an election system that fails to keep the information that would allow anomalies to be detected.
  - mulderc 4mo ago
    My states system is very transparent and has many systems for detecting fraud but people on the right claim otherwise and they are either ignorant of how it worked or just lying.
    - tmp10423288442 4mo ago
      What’s your state?
      - mulderc 4mo ago
        Oregon
  - afavour 4mo ago
steele 4mo ago
[flagged]
k310 4mo ago
Every Accusation is a Confession. Voter fraud means: 1. I did it. 2. I need to blame someone else. 3. The more general definition of fraud is: anything done by someone who disagrees with me. 4. Jim Crow. 5. Must go.
asadeddin 4mo ago
Delaying vulnerability disclosure for political reasons undermines the entire coordinated disclosure model. If researchers learn that findings get buried when inconvenient, they stop reporting through official channels.
mobrules 4mo ago
I used to be in the minority and actually vote but now I have joined the majority of the population and will no longer cast my vote. Maybe I am now disenfranchised but if both parties want it to be this messy and not use "well architected frameworks" because it might disenfranchise people who aren't yet disenfranchised then they are just disenfranchising a different group of people, me. I guess I haven't done the numbers and new naive voters are more valuable. "I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you!" -grandpaSimpson
- dofm 4mo ago
  Not voting tends towards causing worse outcomes than voting. The way I recommend people vote is this: 1) think of the worst, stupidest, most revolting, irritating and consistently wrong you know in your local area 2) wouldn't you like the power to potentially cancel out the damage they could do with their vote? 3) congratulations: you have that power. It's using your vote.
- Volundr 4mo ago
  > now I have joined the majority of the population and will no longer cast my vote. >then they are just disenfranchising a different group of people, me. "They" aren't disenfranchising you, you are disenfranchising you. You have the same access to vote you always did, your just choosing not to exercise it.

125 points by logickkk1 4mo ago

Is anyone aware of any viable, or close to viable open-source options exist? That also have capacity for something like a CA statewide election?

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

cryptoz 4mo ago

[flagged]

XorNot 4mo ago
The core of the problem is that you have to have mandatory voting. Sending someone a $30 fine because they didn't vote serves a very important function: it gets you an independent check that they were aware they didn't vote, or didn't turn up. It's one of the core superpowers of the Australian electoral system: you can be fined for not voting, but also just about _any_ excuse will get you out of the fine - the fee itself is considered to be administrative and waived once you provide a valid reason. But the system itself means that voter suppression is vastly more difficult: people are inclined to turn up. Or at least participate with the system. And the elections themselves then have a check system built in - if a whole district is getting fined, well now that's news - people complaining to media, sending letters etc.
- atmavatar 4mo ago
  I'm not opposed to making voting mandatory, but making election day a national holiday should come first. While I'm aware many (most? all?) polling locations allow for early voting, the reality is that many people wait for election day, and the combined hassle of having to work that day and deal with sometimes multi-hour waits (due to Republicans repeatedly closing and limiting polling locations) inevitably leads to some not voting. Of course that also ignores many of the other issues with our electoral system that convince many they shouldn't bother voting (e.g., the electoral collect and heavy gerrymandering disenfranchising large swaths of people), but those are a larger and more complicated set of issues to address.
  - litoE 4mo ago
    > I'm not opposed to making voting mandatory, but making election day a national holiday should come first. How about having elections on Sundays instead of on Tuesdays?
  - amalcon 4mo ago
    Making election day a (normal) national holiday would not help. The type of service sector or emergency service job that makes it a problem to vote needs to work more on a national holiday, not less. Making it a kind of super holiday where we mandate closure of everything from gas stations to non-emergency hospital services might help, but you're never getting the votes to make that change.
- gcau 4mo ago
  >just about _any_ excuse will get you out of the fine Hilariously wrong, and if it were true it defeats the purpose of making it mandatory.
  - Perenti 4mo ago
    In my experience, ringing the AEC and saying "I thought I might have flu, and thought it best to avoid crowds" is enough to save AUD$50. A huge difference between here in Oz and there in the USA _as I see it_ is that we are conditioned to vote, whilst you are conditioned to vote if you care enough. The fine here is just enough to be annoying, and given the streamlined process at most polling places (you still get queues) it's usually much less hassle to go to the local polling place (town hall or primary school usually) for half an hour. Given the existence of early polling and postal votes there's really not much excuse for _not_ voting unless you're religiously opposed - although I have avoided fines by calling ill-health.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
Danox 4mo ago
Baloney…
pclowes 4mo ago
Big claims require big evidence.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- k12sosse 4mo ago
  [dead]
tootie 4mo ago
Surely there's tons of evidence and we don't need to wait for a government assessment that has been teased for over ten years. This has been litigated and investigated over and over and there's never been a shred of usable evidence. Fox and others were sued and lost unable to prove anything. Trump ran a voter fraud commission in 2016 and they just gave up with no findings. They have nothing. They have all the resources in the world to bring to bear and they can't prove a single thing.
hallman76 4mo ago
My brother in tech. If anyone wanted to prove voter fraud it's President Donald Trump. Trump's campaign filed 62 lawsuits. 61 were lost, dismissed, or dropped. The other was a technicality. IANAL. Get the vagueposting out of here.
- thin_carapace 4mo ago
  [flagged]

caseysoftware 4mo ago

I'd love to hear the steelman - what's the argument in favor of using a proprietary electronic system? There have been legit complaints about closed sourced voting systems for ~20 years and DEFCON has done a "Voting Village" for ~10 years demonstrating numerous issues, some of which were not addressed by the next elections. Transparency doesn't appear better either. Is it speed to tally? Cost? Easier to screw with results?

jfengel 4mo ago
You must have missed the 2000 election. We hung for weeks on the vagueness of paper ballots. Both sides filed motion after motion to exclude some batch of ballots or other. There was a huge number of extremely unlikely votes in a place with a badly designed paper ballot. The system right now is a security nightmare, a bad implementation of a bad idea. But anybody who lived through 2000 remembers that as even worse.
- mcculley 4mo ago
  As a Floridian, I apologize for the 2000 election. But we have a much better system now. We have paper ballots that are scanned. We have an auditable fallback for untrustworthy machines. There is no reason other states cannot have the same.
- wahern 4mo ago
  Florida was using a punch-card system, thus the infamous hanging chads. Fill-in-the-bubble scantron systems are much faster and less error prone; not as fast as purely electronic voting, but you get a reliable paper trail that is more transparent and much easier to audit.
  - tzs 4mo ago
    > Fill-in-the-bubble scantron systems are much faster and less error prone; not as fast as purely electronic voting, but you get a reliable paper trail that is more transparent and much easier to audit. An even bigger advantage of scantrol systems is with two simple changes to how ballots are produced and marked you can greatly increase the security and audibility of them. The two simple changes are: 1. When the ballots are printed you print some alphanumeric codes on them in an invisible ink, and 2. The voter fills in the bubble using a special marker provided at the polling place that turns the invisible code visible. The scanning machines themselves do not require any modification. Voters vote the same was as before, and can ignore the code that becomes visible in the bubbles they fill in if they way. By combining the clever chemistry used for the invisible ink and marker with some clever cryptography in how those codes are generated you can overlay and end-to-end auditable voting system on the scantron system. And end-to-end auditable voting system (also called and end-to-end voter verifiable system) has these properties: • Individuals can verify that their ballot was included in the final count and they vote was attributed correctly. • Any third party can verify that the ballots were counted correctly. The candidates, the parties, news organization, civil rights groups, and anyone else can check. • Voters cannot prove to third parties who they voted for. This is called coercion-resistance. Such a system was developed by several cryptographers, including David Chaum and Ron Rivest. It is called Scantegrity II [1] and has been used successfully in a few elections. Here are links to a paper by its creators explaining it, in HTML [2] and PDF [3]. Here's a paper [4] showing that it is coercion-resistant. With this system after the voting is done the election officials can publish all the codes that were revealed. A voter who wants to know if their vote was counted can check that list to see if the code that was revealed to them for that candidate is in the list. The election officials can also publish some more information that along with the code list allows anybody to verify that the totals for each candidate were right without this revealing the mapping from codes to candidates. With this we get all the pluses of paper system including hand recounts, plus fast machine counting that can be done with a simple single purpose machine that has no software that could be hacked, yet with the kind of end-to-end auditing that the electronic voting systems promise. And it inexpensive to implement and operate. Around half of the districts in the US already are using the scantron machines. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity [2] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/chaum/chaum_html/index.html https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/c... [3] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/chaum/chaum.pdf https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/c... [4] https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/502.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/502.pdf

rcpt 4mo ago

Seems to be an exclusive article that's also paywall. Anyone know the story? Ensuring secure elections and auditing extensively seems like good practice. However the issue has become political and neither party is interested in that. The right claims fraud with no good evidence, in response the left has decided that our elections perfectly secure and to suggest otherwise gets you a sound "tsk tsk"

jordanscales 4mo ago
Pretty remarkable both-sidesism in this comment. One side _does not admit the results of the 2020 election_ and the other side says widespread voter fraud is not happening in the United States. Being a fence-setter on this one is intellectually lazy.
- wahern 4mo ago
  Conservatives in multiple states looked under every rock to find voter fraud in the 2020 election and largely came up empty handed. In Arizona they even forced a quasi-legal audit with their own citizens brigade, spending weeks pouring through records, then quietly admitted there was no systemic fraud. All the cumulative fraud uncovered nationwide, most of which was mistaken registration, discovered through existing processes, and didn't even favor a single party, never amounted to enough to even to turn even a single state.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4mo ago
    I don’t get this. Isn’t it weak, two point out that no one can find evidence after the fact, versus the proper alternative that no one can prove that they’re actually-secure before the fact? Let’s just say that you were a bad guy and manipulating elections, wouldn’t you be bad at your job if someone could detect it after the fact? How many people would a conspiracy even take to pull of? I don’t get the US system. The people mad at Trump and 2020 claims brush off all the ways the elections can’t be proven in favor that weeks or years afterwards no one can’t point to hard evidence.

jmward01 4mo ago

The red haring is that voting is hacked or illegals are voting, etc etc etc. The -real- story is disenfranchising voters by making it hard for them or out-right steaming their votes in the courts. We don't have an election fraud issue in the us. We have an election legitimacy issue.

jpkw 4mo ago
Red Herring* - it's a fish, not a rabbit
- pinkmuffinere 4mo ago
  You’re right, but that’s a distraction from the bigger misconception — it’s actually “Read Herring”. The idea is that the herring has already been documented (and “read” back), no longer deserving of additional discussion.
  - blacksmith_tb 4mo ago
    I have never heard that suggestion... if you can document it, the wiki entry would need an update[1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring#History
    - pinkmuffinere 4mo ago
      I can’t tell if you’re serious, but my definition was certainly not, lol. My claim was that correcting “red haring” to “red herring” distracts from a bigger misunderstanding (thus making the correction itself a red herring! Please laugh.) I completely made up my claim about the true meaning. For better or worse, my brain finds that humorous. Edit: i am honored that you found my origin story believable enough for serious consideration.
      - dfee 4mo ago
        where am i?

verdverm 4mo ago

What does HN know about https://www.voting.works/ https://www.voting.works/ ? (open source/hardware voting machine) Note, they are also trying to change the USPS rules regarding mail-in ballots, such that the USPS will not deliver ballots either direction unless the recipient is on a list they are allowed to make. Public comment is open until July 2 https://www.regulations.gov/document/USPS-2026-1289-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document/USPS-2026-1289-0001

SV_BubbleTime 4mo ago
What does USPS assume for chain of custody for a ballot? Do they hand them directly to a person?
enoint 4mo ago
Since the President has no constitutional role in running elections, what do you think this order is meant to do?

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

pclowes 4mo ago

Faith in elections and election integrity is incredibly important. Unsubstantiated claims of election fraud should be punished severely. Politicians who baselessly erode confidence in elections without providing timely evidence should be ineligible for political office at least and potentially tried for treason.

readthenotes1 4mo ago
Doing such is probably as old as elections. Without going too far back, https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/factchecking-clintons-voter-suppression-claims/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/factchecking-clintons-vote...
rayiner 4mo ago
Faith in elections is a two-way street. The election system must also be fully transparent, minimize the degree to which voters must trust election administrators, and keep records that would allow evidence of voter fraud to be detected. You can’t punish people for not providing evidence if you’ve designed an election system that fails to keep the information that would allow anomalies to be detected.
- mulderc 4mo ago
  My states system is very transparent and has many systems for detecting fraud but people on the right claim otherwise and they are either ignorant of how it worked or just lying.
  - tmp10423288442 4mo ago
    What’s your state?
    - mulderc 4mo ago
      Oregon
- afavour 4mo ago

steele 4mo ago

[flagged]

k310 4mo ago

Every Accusation is a Confession. Voter fraud means: 1. I did it. 2. I need to blame someone else. 3. The more general definition of fraud is: anything done by someone who disagrees with me. 4. Jim Crow. 5. Must go.

asadeddin 4mo ago

Delaying vulnerability disclosure for political reasons undermines the entire coordinated disclosure model. If researchers learn that findings get buried when inconvenient, they stop reporting through official channels.

mobrules 4mo ago

I used to be in the minority and actually vote but now I have joined the majority of the population and will no longer cast my vote. Maybe I am now disenfranchised but if both parties want it to be this messy and not use "well architected frameworks" because it might disenfranchise people who aren't yet disenfranchised then they are just disenfranchising a different group of people, me. I guess I haven't done the numbers and new naive voters are more valuable. "I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you!" -grandpaSimpson

dofm 4mo ago
Not voting tends towards causing worse outcomes than voting. The way I recommend people vote is this: 1) think of the worst, stupidest, most revolting, irritating and consistently wrong you know in your local area 2) wouldn't you like the power to potentially cancel out the damage they could do with their vote? 3) congratulations: you have that power. It's using your vote.
Volundr 4mo ago
> now I have joined the majority of the population and will no longer cast my vote. >then they are just disenfranchising a different group of people, me. "They" aren't disenfranchising you, you are disenfranchising you. You have the same access to vote you always did, your just choosing not to exercise it.