Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 839 posts

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#771

Post by seanmcdirmid »

david927 wrote: post #769
kreeben wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That clip does not show massive failure. Does it show failure? Yes. Is it massive? No. Did the US court system show massive fraud? No. Did they show fraud that wasn't massive but could still have changed the outcome of the election? No. Were you cheated out of winning the election? A thousand times no.

> Did the US court system show massive fraud? It was never heard in court. I think that's what people are upset about. If they felt it had its day in court, they would feel differently. Instead, they have the media patting their heads explaining that "it's all fine." Fraud didn't have to be proven; it simply had to be shown to have been possible. The question is whether protections were breached that keep fraud from…

The courts were never given anything to hear. They can’t just go to trial on hearsay, innuendo, or wild speculation. You have evidence or you don’t, this isn’t like a court room drama where they decide to go to trial first and see the evidence later.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#772

Post by skynet-9000 »

jamiesonbecker wrote: post #493
wvenable wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have flagged it already but "voting machines" is vaguely tech related and it's still here. It appears you only care what a sizable portion of HN wants up to a point as they are the one's upvoting and downvoting the comments.

> I'd have flagged it already but "voting machines" is vaguely tech related and it's still here. Agreed. > It appears you only care what a sizable portion of HN wants up to a point as they are the one's upvoting and downvoting the comments. Fair point, but in a flame war, HN runs a risk of having a one-sided discussion. Of course, some people believe that the losers in any particular forum should be silenced, because…

> Of course, some people believe that the losers in any particular forum should be silenced, because the majority view must be correct.

.. that is, consensus, at least in that particular forum. But losers still shouldn't be silenced.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#773

Post by yters »

JshWright wrote: post #762
yters wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a stolen election precisely a conspiracy? I would prefer not to believe the election was stolen. I wanted Trump out, and Biden seems a reasonable replacement. I also debunked a number of the fallacious statistical 'proofs' the election was stolen. Believe me I would like nothing better than to believe everything is fine. But especially Navarro's report makes me unable to dismiss the allegations off hand with a…

Peter Navarro is a _highly_ partisan source, and not someone you should assume to be arguing in good faith. Are there other, more credible, sources that are influencing your thinking? There is zero evidence supporting the claim of widespread fraud. Unless you have some evidence of some kind, it really seems like you would prefer to believe there is some vast conspiracy and you are writing off all the evidence to the…

I am looking at the lawsuits and articles linked from Navarro's report. The lawsuits sound pretty credible to me. When I read the court's reason for rejecting the lawsuit it sounds like the judge is looking for technical reasons to reject the lawsuit.

When I look for articles explaining why the lawsuits are rejected en mass, every article I have found is very hand wavy, stating the judges are appointed by Trump so we should expect them to be unbiased. However, no one actually dogs into the opinions or takes the reason why the election seems highly suspicious seriously.

To pick out one specific piece of evidence, in PA they found 200k more votes than voters, which is more than enough to change the result for that state. The counts are all from state government databases.

http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmaker...

Navarro has over 50 such claims linked in his report, totalling over 3M potentially fraudulent votes. Regardless of what you think of the man, the evidence itself I find hard to set aside, even though I am like you and would tend towards dismissing Navarro as a partisan hack. But when he has laid out the claimed evidence like this in detail I must at least give it a spot check and the spot checks hold up so far.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#774

Post by aw1621107 »

bdowling wrote: post #745
aw1621107 wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is correct. Your comment appears to imply otherwise. Did I misread it? > conflating "on the merits" with determining facts by considering evidence. Do you mind elaborating on the difference?

> Your comment appears to imply otherwise. Did I misread it? My comment wasn't very clear. Sorry about that. Usually we think of a judgment "on the merits" as one that occurs after considering both the law and facts of a case. > Do you mind elaborating on the difference? In the case of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the judge in theory assumes that the facts alleged in the complaint are all true. I…

> In such a case it is incorrect to say that the evidence was found to be lacking because the evidence was never considered.

I feel like now the disputable phrase is "considering the evidence". Is the judge not considering the evidence when deciding that the presented facts/evidence are insufficient to support the complaint, even when assumed to be true? How would such a ruling differ from a hypothetical one where the case goes to trial and the defense does literally nothing? Is the evidence considered in the latter case but not the former?

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#775

Post by Haunted_Cabbage »

luxuryballs wrote: post #668
enkid wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence of any of this? If so, why was this not presented in any of the 60 court cases?

You can look up each case and see what the rulings were, in some cases the lawsuits were dismissed before evidence could be presented. I have seen other people claim this and get buried which confuses me, is it just not ok to talk about the idea that there was election fraud which has been noticed but not confirmed? It should be OK to talk about this, especially in a democracy.

Noticed? Doesn't one need evidence to notice something or does imagination suffice?

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#776

Post by mmazing »

hota_mazi wrote: post #718
mmazing wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's terrible to see some of the disinformation that is out there regarding open source software. Time and time again open source is shown to be the way to go, and you still hear lies about how it's not safe. I can already hear the politicians going on about how "being open source" lets "anyone put their own back door in! BE AFRAID!"

They are not lies. Open source is not safer than closed source, unless you can verify with 100% certainty that the code you saw is the code that's running. And that's impossible. People who think open source is the solution to the voting challenge haven't given this problem much thought.

I think the main difference is that software being open source (and maintained by a larger community!) provides wider accountability and visibility to code changes, thus reducing potential security flaws.

You claim that open source is NOT safer than closed source, what is your reasoning there? Security through obscurity?

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#777

Post by wvenable »

xerxespoy wrote: post #758
wvenable wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is excessive polarization an actual problem here? It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems mostly there are butt-hurt people who don't like that their opinions are unpopular, unhelpful, or illogical while everyone else (on whatever side of the issue) is happily commenting. The only times I've ever been downvoted excessively, I've deserved it.

It depends when you ask. Most times checking this thread it's been dire. The current top 3 commenters, comprising the first page of comments: "The problem is that it's not totally clear whether Giuliani believed any of his crazy-talk. It may actually be the case that Giuliani is just off his rocker." "I think it's nuts for a modern democracy to allow for anything but open source software being used to count paper bal…

What comments are you expecting to see? This is not the medium for long form balanced well researched essay comments.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#778

Post by AnimalMuppet »

simonh wrote: post #739
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is, sue before the election , so that the election is held with the correct procedure. You had months. Don't sue after the election. And don't ask for state legislators to pick the winner, either. Voters weren't voting for presidential electors when they voted for state legislators. And don't say "you don't actually know who won". Yes, we do in fact know perfectly well who won. What you perhaps mean i…

They had four years to do something about this apparently pressing, urgent, critical threat to democracy.

Not four years, no. IIRC, the changes to the rules were made ~6 months before the election. But they didn't file suit then. They only filed after the election.

A real cynic might think that they knew before and said nothing, just to keep open the grounds for a lawsuit in case they lost. Laches is a perfect response to that kind of game.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#779

Post by ahupp »

jb775 wrote: post #726
TheDong wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say more about how a blockchain ledger could allow verifying what software is running on a device? The only way I can think of to actually do this is to have some trusted party go out and randomly sample voting machines (i.e. check the software on the disk matches the reproducible builds of the open source software, and decap the machine's CPU and other hardware to verify there's no bugs). Anything else can be foiled…

If there was a whole new voting system built from scratch, couldn't it be designed to use some sort of integrity key in combination with each voter's personal key? Kind of like how some CDNs have an integrity attribute to ensure the CDN's source code hasn't been manipulated.

One of the tricky things with voting is that a provably trustworthy system that voters don't understand is worse than an imperfect system that is totally transparent. Voting is only useful to the extent there's trust in the system.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#780

Post by david927 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #771
david927 wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did the US court system show massive fraud? It was never heard in court. I think that's what people are upset about. If they felt it had its day in court, they would feel differently. Instead, they have the media patting their heads explaining that "it's all fine." Fraud didn't have to be proven; it simply had to be shown to have been possible. The question is whether protections were breached that keep fraud from…

The courts were never given anything to hear. They can’t just go to trial on hearsay, innuendo, or wild speculation. You have evidence or you don’t, this isn’t like a court room drama where they decide to go to trial first and see the evidence later.

Oh, hey Sean! I'd rather talk to you about future of programming than this junk, but OK.

You're right, that's what the courts are saying. I don't think most people are buying that, though. There's too much video evidence and testimony to dismiss every motion. Georgia, for example, is a mess. To say that it's fine is taking the result you want and working backwards. (Again, I'm a Bernie Sanders guy. I don't like either of them! :-)

It's like a clean room. You can't have video of people walking in with their outside clothes, without going through the processes and then say, "You have to prove that it contaminated the room." You don't; it's enough to show the process was tainted. There's enough evidence to show that with the existing video and hundreds of witnesses.

The clip I linked to shows that our electoral systems are a train wreck in many states, especially when compared to other countries. (Go watch it.) Now we're screwed. Tens of millions of Americans feel (pretty validly) cheated out of their vote and it has created a no-win situation.

I hate this topic. What are you working on? Any new insights? :-)

Post reply on HN