4 ms·

Seems to be an exclusive article that's also paywall. Anyone know the story? Ensuring secure elections and auditing extensively seems like good practice. Howev

by 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.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
      > 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? Isn't it weaker, to claim fraud so vast it changed a presidential election, while presenting no evidence? Then, to ask for billion-dollar changes to voting, which also suppress voting, and when asked why, to shrug and then repeat the same debunked claims? I mean, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't get it: the people mad at voting advocates and 2020 brush off proof that their claims are unfounded, yet they just repeat the same claims. At some point, it's malice, not ignorance.
      - SV_BubbleTime 4mo ago
        You people are ridiculous. Such mental gymnastics for a simple fact: no one can prove elections are secure. End of story.
        ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
        No need, the onus is on election deniers and voting opponents to first convincingly prove they're insecure enough to justify changing things. So far, they've tried hard a lot, and failed hard a lot. All they have left is mental gymnastics.
        SV_BubbleTime 3mo ago
        Yes, this makes sense that it’s OK that banks do not need to audited and proven that they handle money well, if I don’t know any bank robbers then I have no reason to suspect any issue! Do you seriously hear yourself? Ideologue life is crazy.
        wahern 3mo ago
        Elections are audited as a matter of course. In California every election is audited after the fact, in addition to observers (including from the different parties) wherever voting, tabulating, and auditing occurs. Here's the bill of rights for election observers: https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/regulations/current-regulations/elections/election-observations-rights-and-responsibilities https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/regulations/current-re... They have access to everything. Claims of fraud generally come from either people who have no experience with elections (and apparently don't care enough to get involved), or wish to sow uncertainty and doubt in their self-interest. Sometimes auditors make complaints, but those complaints are a far cry from the accusations thrown around in public discourse. More often election officials themselves make recommendations to improve things--usually efficiency related--but the discourse is so heated legislatures often don't want to get involved, or if they do it's to appease some political faction, not to address the mundane issues that actually need addressing. If you're so worried about election fraud, get involved. There aren't any barriers. Heck, in some places you can easily volunteer to host a voting place. Some years we get flyers to ask if we want to host, but usually the only house on our block who offers is the same one down the block. What I don't get is the conspiratorial minded folks who make accusations, but demand other people fix whatever imagined problem exists. How can you trust the new system any more if you're still a keyboard warrior? It makes no sense. The public is locked out of direct involvement with most machinations of governance, but elections are one of the few areas where you're free to get involved at almost every level with minimal, even zero friction.
- what 4mo ago
  Did you memory hole 2016?
  - UncleMeat 4mo ago
    Did Clinton claim that she actually won?
    - the_gastropod 3mo ago
      Of course not! But both-sides guys need to make outrageous reaches like this to prove that both sides are equally bad, and that they are enlightened beyond such petty partisanship.
- rcpt 4mo ago
  "tsk tsk"
mapontosevenths 4mo ago
Non-paywalled - https://archive.is/ki4vM https://archive.is/ki4vM I think this paragraph summarizes it nicely. "The report, produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, concludes that voting machines could be further safeguarded by, for example, updating their software, the sources said. It does not say the vulnerabilities have led to votes flipping, but examines security gaps in how the machines are used during U.S. elections." My take is that they couldn't find anything that amounted to the level of fraud Trump needs to justify the deaths, chaos, and loss of faith in the system he caused, so they'll keep delaying it until they either find something or find someone willing to just make something plausible sounding up.
Danox 4mo ago
All places, outside the American South in the United States don't have a problem, the American South however, is where it is a time honored tradition to make it hard to vote for some citizens. And it has always been political and other things in the south.
- blanched 4mo ago
  The South does have this problem. But pretending it's /only/ the South does no favors to people who are disenfranchised elsewhere. A quick google will show that it has been a nationwide problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite...
  - enoint 3mo ago
    Where could it have affected totals? Only southern states. Wisconsin in 2016 couldn’t have changed the electoral college.
- ubertaco 4mo ago
  Tell me you've never been to Idaho without telling me you've never been to Idaho, where a considerable portion of the population (especially around Moscow, Idaho) wants explicitly to repeal the 19th amendment (the one that gave women the right to vote). Or Michigan, home of both Henry Ford (and his now-infamous Dearborn Independent, which still seems to resonate with most Michiganders that I've met) and Charles Lindbergh. What you're describing is a rural areas problem, and the South, most of which has never really developed much urbanism (outside Atlanta and maybe Charlotte) has never had to "grow up", much like rural Michigan has never had to "grow up" and remains a hotbed of MAGA racism and plots to kidnap their governor, or the same way that much of Idaho has never had to "grow up" and is a common destination for Doug-Wilsonites and similar "trad" homesteaders. Drive an hour outside of Detroit or Lansing and ask the almost-universally-white rural folks what they think of Dearborn and they'll tell you all the same wild "sharia law" white-replacement conspiracy theories they've told me over and over again. And of course, even Boston famously took rather poorly to the notion of desegregation – look up Boston's reaction to "forced bussing" (since the only way to racially-integrate Boston schools was to bring in black kids from outside Boston, since the redlining had been so severe there, and the city was covered in widespread protests).
jfengel 4mo ago
A local media channel running the same wire service report: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ktvu.com/news/report-white-house-delay-voting-machine-study.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ktvu.com/news/report-white-...
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
what 4mo ago
> the right claims fraud So does the left every time Trump wins.
- pclowes 4mo ago
  This is not comparable. A couple groups on the far left is not the same as the leader of the party. I don’t see any major figure on the left: Bernie, Obama, AOC, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi etc claiming fraud.
  - ibejoeb 4mo ago
    > Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum..., among literally hundreds of other instances claiming the election was stolen, rigged, Russianed, whatever.
    - FireBeyond 4mo ago
      It's very much on record that the Trump campaign reached out to the Ukraine to see if they'd dig up dirt on Hunter Biden and the Biden campaign in general, and that's what Clinton is referring to. Unless of course you think incumbent leaders should be able to use foreign intelligence services as a part of their campaign strategy to attack their oppoosition?
      - ibejoeb 4mo ago
        > that's what Clinton is referring to We agree. The statement was that no major figure on the left claims fraud. Hillary Clinton, a specifically named major figure on the left, claims fraud.
        FireBeyond 4mo ago

by rcpt 4mo ago

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.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
    > 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? Isn't it weaker, to claim fraud so vast it changed a presidential election, while presenting no evidence? Then, to ask for billion-dollar changes to voting, which also suppress voting, and when asked why, to shrug and then repeat the same debunked claims? I mean, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't get it: the people mad at voting advocates and 2020 brush off proof that their claims are unfounded, yet they just repeat the same claims. At some point, it's malice, not ignorance.
    - SV_BubbleTime 4mo ago
      You people are ridiculous. Such mental gymnastics for a simple fact: no one can prove elections are secure. End of story.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
        No need, the onus is on election deniers and voting opponents to first convincingly prove they're insecure enough to justify changing things. So far, they've tried hard a lot, and failed hard a lot. All they have left is mental gymnastics.
        SV_BubbleTime 3mo ago
        Yes, this makes sense that it’s OK that banks do not need to audited and proven that they handle money well, if I don’t know any bank robbers then I have no reason to suspect any issue! Do you seriously hear yourself? Ideologue life is crazy.
        wahern 3mo ago
        Elections are audited as a matter of course. In California every election is audited after the fact, in addition to observers (including from the different parties) wherever voting, tabulating, and auditing occurs. Here's the bill of rights for election observers: https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/regulations/current-regulations/elections/election-observations-rights-and-responsibilities https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/regulations/current-re... They have access to everything. Claims of fraud generally come from either people who have no experience with elections (and apparently don't care enough to get involved), or wish to sow uncertainty and doubt in their self-interest. Sometimes auditors make complaints, but those complaints are a far cry from the accusations thrown around in public discourse. More often election officials themselves make recommendations to improve things--usually efficiency related--but the discourse is so heated legislatures often don't want to get involved, or if they do it's to appease some political faction, not to address the mundane issues that actually need addressing. If you're so worried about election fraud, get involved. There aren't any barriers. Heck, in some places you can easily volunteer to host a voting place. Some years we get flyers to ask if we want to host, but usually the only house on our block who offers is the same one down the block. What I don't get is the conspiratorial minded folks who make accusations, but demand other people fix whatever imagined problem exists. How can you trust the new system any more if you're still a keyboard warrior? It makes no sense. The public is locked out of direct involvement with most machinations of governance, but elections are one of the few areas where you're free to get involved at almost every level with minimal, even zero friction.
what 4mo ago
Did you memory hole 2016?
- UncleMeat 4mo ago
  Did Clinton claim that she actually won?
  - the_gastropod 3mo ago
    Of course not! But both-sides guys need to make outrageous reaches like this to prove that both sides are equally bad, and that they are enlightened beyond such petty partisanship.
rcpt 4mo ago
"tsk tsk"

mapontosevenths 4mo ago

Non-paywalled - https://archive.is/ki4vM https://archive.is/ki4vM I think this paragraph summarizes it nicely. "The report, produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, concludes that voting machines could be further safeguarded by, for example, updating their software, the sources said. It does not say the vulnerabilities have led to votes flipping, but examines security gaps in how the machines are used during U.S. elections." My take is that they couldn't find anything that amounted to the level of fraud Trump needs to justify the deaths, chaos, and loss of faith in the system he caused, so they'll keep delaying it until they either find something or find someone willing to just make something plausible sounding up.

Danox 4mo ago

All places, outside the American South in the United States don't have a problem, the American South however, is where it is a time honored tradition to make it hard to vote for some citizens. And it has always been political and other things in the south.

blanched 4mo ago
The South does have this problem. But pretending it's /only/ the South does no favors to people who are disenfranchised elsewhere. A quick google will show that it has been a nationwide problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite...
- enoint 3mo ago
  Where could it have affected totals? Only southern states. Wisconsin in 2016 couldn’t have changed the electoral college.
ubertaco 4mo ago
Tell me you've never been to Idaho without telling me you've never been to Idaho, where a considerable portion of the population (especially around Moscow, Idaho) wants explicitly to repeal the 19th amendment (the one that gave women the right to vote). Or Michigan, home of both Henry Ford (and his now-infamous Dearborn Independent, which still seems to resonate with most Michiganders that I've met) and Charles Lindbergh. What you're describing is a rural areas problem, and the South, most of which has never really developed much urbanism (outside Atlanta and maybe Charlotte) has never had to "grow up", much like rural Michigan has never had to "grow up" and remains a hotbed of MAGA racism and plots to kidnap their governor, or the same way that much of Idaho has never had to "grow up" and is a common destination for Doug-Wilsonites and similar "trad" homesteaders. Drive an hour outside of Detroit or Lansing and ask the almost-universally-white rural folks what they think of Dearborn and they'll tell you all the same wild "sharia law" white-replacement conspiracy theories they've told me over and over again. And of course, even Boston famously took rather poorly to the notion of desegregation – look up Boston's reaction to "forced bussing" (since the only way to racially-integrate Boston schools was to bring in black kids from outside Boston, since the redlining had been so severe there, and the city was covered in widespread protests).

jfengel 4mo ago

A local media channel running the same wire service report: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ktvu.com/news/report-white-house-delay-voting-machine-study.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ktvu.com/news/report-white-...

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

what 4mo ago

> the right claims fraud So does the left every time Trump wins.

pclowes 4mo ago
This is not comparable. A couple groups on the far left is not the same as the leader of the party. I don’t see any major figure on the left: Bernie, Obama, AOC, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi etc claiming fraud.
- ibejoeb 4mo ago
  > Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum..., among literally hundreds of other instances claiming the election was stolen, rigged, Russianed, whatever.
  - FireBeyond 4mo ago
    It's very much on record that the Trump campaign reached out to the Ukraine to see if they'd dig up dirt on Hunter Biden and the Biden campaign in general, and that's what Clinton is referring to. Unless of course you think incumbent leaders should be able to use foreign intelligence services as a part of their campaign strategy to attack their oppoosition?
    - ibejoeb 4mo ago
      > that's what Clinton is referring to We agree. The statement was that no major figure on the left claims fraud. Hillary Clinton, a specifically named major figure on the left, claims fraud.
      - FireBeyond 4mo ago