141–150 of 839 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll be a win/win situation if baseless allegations of fraud are punished, and every detail of how voting machines work, including source code, are made public.
I agree but wouldn't making the source code becoming public make the machines more prone to hacking?
before donald trump was ever in office, i always believed that these voting machines are complete bullshit. our entire voting system is bullshit. and it would be easy to fix. these machines have been shown to be massively flawed and vulnerable to hacking/tinkering. again, this was my opinion before donald trump was elected.
And if Trump had won, I suspect most of these comments would be critical of the absolutely sub-par security of our voting infrastructure. But tribalism still rules, so lots of praise abounds about how well things went. Mostly because their opponent lost. Frankly, we need publicly auditable records. For some reason we can request practically any non-classified data from the government... but not fine grained, anonymou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely agree. Let's hold our politicians accountable. https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019...
These aren't accusations of voter (or election) fraud in the same sense as was being claimed for 2020. From your second link: > During the tour's stop Friday in Seattle, Clinton pointed to FBI Director Christopher Wray's warning last month that Russia continues to pose a "very significant counterintelligence threat" and that efforts to influence U.S. elections with "social media, fake news" and "propaganda" has "cont…
The Capital Hill attack was partially a result of unchecked claims from Dems and left-leaning media claiming Trump was an illegitimate President. Somehow people here think that's ok while Rudy/Trump's claims are not. Smh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree but wouldn't making the source code becoming public make the machines more prone to hacking?
Not if they're well designed, if the security of the system depends on it's function being completely secret it's not secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually avoid commenting on political stuff, but my advice is to please find a better source for information than Scott Adams. He's a smart guy, but he is a strong proponent of "persuasion", i.e. changing people's minds is more valuable to him than presenting the facts accurately. This video is a classic example of his persuasion style, which is to make sloppy claims with flimsy evidence simply to make his opponent…
Are you saying that I should track down and link each video of each of those individual situations that happened? And put it in a post on HN to be downvoted exactly as much as the Scott Adams video? Pardon me for getting the exact same results for like 1/80th the amount of work. Go ahead and dismiss all of those videos because they are in a supercut featuring Scott Adams. You do you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll be a win/win situation if baseless allegations of fraud are punished, and every detail of how voting machines work, including source code, are made public.
I agree but wouldn't making the source code becoming public make the machines more prone to hacking?
The keys should be secure, but the design of algorithms and implementation of the system should not be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would anyone know they are baseless unless a proper investigation is conducted independently? What about the thousands of sworn affidavits? Surely, ALL of them can't be lying.
Surely, ALL of them can't be lying. Why not?
I hope whatever happens with these lawsuits it chills the baseless accusations of voter fraud used to undermine voter confidence in our democracy
How would anyone know they are baseless unless a proper investigation is conducted independently? What about the thousands of sworn affidavits? Surely, ALL of them can't be lying.
Which is more damaging to US political institutions, having an illegitimate president or admitting that the election was stolen?
I'd wager an admission of election changing fraud would make it almost impossible to recover any trust in political institutions. What would be the next steps from admitting that the election was fraudulent?
Given the above, I'm not sure it matters. Of course that scenario is still possible, if evidence is produced. The institutional incentives align towards keeping the results as is. Proceeding from there, what can be done to restore trust?
*Disclaimer, please do not misread this as an assertion of evidence existing, not existing or the validity of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually avoid commenting on political stuff, but my advice is to please find a better source for information than Scott Adams. He's a smart guy, but he is a strong proponent of "persuasion", i.e. changing people's minds is more valuable to him than presenting the facts accurately. This video is a classic example of his persuasion style, which is to make sloppy claims with flimsy evidence simply to make his opponent…
Are you saying that I should track down and link each video of each of those individual situations that happened? And put it in a post on HN to be downvoted exactly as much as the Scott Adams video? Pardon me for getting the exact same results for like 1/80th the amount of work. Go ahead and dismiss all of those videos because they are in a supercut featuring Scott Adams. You do you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You linked to an abstract of the Russian vote manipulation behind a paywall. That abstract says nothing specifically about hand-count being manipulated. Hand counting remains the golden standard for voting.
All allegations against Dominion voting machines were pretty much disproved by subsequent manual vote courting. Again, the machines leave a paper trail that allows manual counting for verification. That makes simple handcounting without any assistance more prone to errors and less paper trail as well.
What is for sure - with voting machines, there is less validation. Hand counting means - all ballots are counted always (by volunteers with all parties invited) - whereas voting machines means a spot-test (in some states), and only a full manual count is when a recount is demanded.
All this to say - I think Dominion did a thorough job - but this all only happened because the election was close. What about those where the election isn't "close"?