Can you point us to any evidence of actual election fraud? If so, what do you make of the courts not being clear about the facts as you see them? Was this evidence simply not part of the tens of lawsuits that were filed or are you suggesting that the courts are simply complicit in this stolen election? Or is it something else?
> Can you point us to any evidence of actual election fraud?
I certainly can. There is an audio recording of a sitting president asking, then begging, then threatening a Secretary of State to create illegitimate votes to overturn a state election so it goes in his favor. That act was the very definition of election fraud. Perhaps not the kind the person you replied to was inferring, but it's real and we have all witnessed it.
The courts don't want to get involved with politics, hence the lack of evidentary hearings & dismissals based on technicalities such as standing, mootness, latches, jurisdiction, lack of injury, etc. A judge has a number of tools to avoid hearing a case.
This crowdsource site has a collection of the evidence.
To flip the standard around, the chain of custody has been broken for millions of the votes. This means these votes cannot be verified as being authentic or legal. Also the IT infrastructure is not secure, despite Christopher Krebs' claim. How do I know? Georgia's Election Machines was remotely exploited by Jovan Pulitzer's team. Pulitzer also has diagnostic technology which can forensically verify if a paper ballot is inauthentic.
America simply needs to do better. Third world countries have higher standards with their elections. This election (& others) is an embarrassment to the United States.
~~edit~~
To fix these reoccurring issues/embarrassments, we need the following:
* All laws need to be followed
* A full certified chain of custody for all eligible & legal ballots
* Audit ALL Elections
* Open Source ALL relevant Election Software & Hardware
* Public Domain & distributed Voter Rolls
* Public Domain & distributed Precinct data
* All Tabulation traffic is logged
* All Electronic Ballot images is saved
* All ballots are forensically audited using automated processes. The forensic technology should be Open Source.
* Equal representation of both parties with the poll workers, poll watchers
* Protect poll watchers from harassment & removal
* Ensure public health safety measures do not affect Election Integrity
60 court cases(and counting!) about it have been lost or simply thrown out because of lack of evidence. But sure, let's pretend that there's any kind of uncertainty about it.
Numerous cases had their merits scrutinized and soundly rejected, such as the one against Wisconsin Election Commission.
Moreover you aren't entitled to have your "evidence" heard when you're invoking non-existent legal rights (such as one state overturning the results of another state, or asking a state legislature to decide instead of letting the votes stand), and no one should take the word of random person in a comment thread over the collective consensus of 60+ cases rejecting every legal theory Trump's team put forward.
There's a basic pattern with all of this. Someone insists Trump had a legitimate grievance, it leads down an obscure rabbit hole of tangled facts and interpretations that, when investigated, turns out to be a series of confusions, basic misundertandings, insane theories of law fundamentally incompatible with Democracy, and in some cases willful misrepresentation of the facts.
Trump's legal team was largely incompetent, and invoked non-existent legal rights and authorities to challenge valid election results, and were appropriately dismissed.
>>Thrown out due to Laches and lack of standing or lack of injury.
I don't know what "Laches" is? Besides,
>> Evidence was never actually heard in any courtroom
Well, that is a lie, many of his cases were thrown out due to lack of evidence and lack of witnesses willing to actually testify to anything. Guess where does that happen? In a courtroom. Where a judge looks at the case and decides whether to proceed with it or not. So all of these cases had their time in court, to say otherwise is just a lie. You, like many other people, seem to operate under the assumption that you first start a case, everyone gathers and then you present evidence. That's not true, at least not in the US it isn't. Evidence has to be presented when you file to open the case, and since there wasn't any, judges have dismissed the cases. Why would they continue? So they could gather in an empty room listening to...nothing? Evidence can be admitted to the case later, with the permission of a judge, but you can't just start a case with nothing in the first place, which is what Trump and his team were doing.
Well, thanks but I won't, I think people trying to steal an election should be in jail, so my wish for 2021 is that we see trump and his cronies where they need to be - in prison. Either because of the election, or because of his many other crimes, I'm really not going to be fussy about it, he's done enought to spend rest of his life behind bars, attorneys everywhere will have enough to bring him to justice.
>>Trump was just Hindenburg
Hindenburg represented the complete collapse and end of the entire airship industry, it has crashed and burnt and with it the entire trust and reputation these ships had. And it crashed and burnt because people in charge of building them wilfully ignored the dangers of building flying ships filled with explosive gas.
So yeah, I think this is a very apt comparison to trump - just probably not in the way you intend.
Edit: so this is fun, https://twitter.com/Elaijuh/status/1347205394393927697 Trump campaign lawyer throws him under the bus "“client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime and the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant”"
You should really consider the facts instead of baseless claims repeated ad-nauseum.
Meanwhile, keep in mind that Trump himself, whenever asked to present any proof that substantiate any of his wild outlandish claims, falls back to the convenient excuse that his proof needs to be kept secret and away from the public to not be untarnished.
Trump does this continuously, even in his infamous Georgia tphone call with fellow Republicans when they stated quite bluntly that they had absolutely zero evidence to review election claims and directly requested Trump to help them out and hand out any evidence as a last resort effort.
Now as yourself this: if Trump is days before Biden is sworn in, without any election fraud claim being shown to be valid or realistic, and when fellow Republicans beg him for some evidence to support his claims for them to be able to mount any semblance of a case... Why on earth would he still refuse to share any info at all?
* credible claims of foreign interference in elections
* credible claims of organized state agent hacking of US digital infrastructure.
* voting machines with designs and source code which are secret, and no way to know if they're working as advertised.
We have cryptographic protocols for honest, verifiable, anonymous elections, which we don't bother implementing. It's all an honor system, in a government without much honor. We, quite frankly, have no way to know if votes are being counted correctly or honestly.
As much as I disbelief Trump's claims of this election being rigged by democrats, the claims that we have excellent election security are false too. We have a huge chunk of the country openly lying about election results, and another half lying about election security. Two lies don't make a truth.
If our current elections aren't being manipulated, you can bet future ones will be. It's easy for an organized state agent to do, and if it wasn't being done before, it will be now. And fixing this will be almost impossible post-Trump, because Democrats.
When Georgia conducted a hand re-count of the ballots without using dominion machines and found it fairly consistent with the original tally (biden did drop 2000 votes but not because of count erros), doesn't that put to pasture claims about hacked voting machines flipping votes?
I think that poster isn't disagreeing but merely saying that that doesn't necessarily mean such a system couldn't be compromised in a future election. (Unless every single polling station with machines does a recount by hand for all elections from now on. But then it might put into question why we have the machines at all.)
This is similar to the common argument about voter fraud. Of course there was almost certainly basically no fraud to speak of in this election, like usual. (And that's important to emphasize, especially right now.) But the way this overall topic tends to be approached in general is very odd, to me:
There's a routinely used argument that concern about voter fraud is ridiculous because there's essentially been no significant incidence of it in modern history. This isn't unreasonable to bring up, but I think by itself is a very poor approach to risk assessment that's reminiscent of early COVID predictions/warnings/guidance and 2016 election odds from many of the same people. Especially when some foreign intelligence agencies appear to be getting increasingly brazen, and when considering that for most of the recorded history, voting was a lot less digitized.
There was almost no incidence of jets being deliberately flown into buildings as a form of WMD, until some people pulled out all their cards and exploited a "0-day", doing as much damage as they could in a single effort before a "patch" could be deployed. And sometimes it's simply a matter of no one making a serious, motivated attempt to do something until one day someone finally does.
The problem is that the countermeasures people want to put in place strip people of their ability to vote legitimately. For example, voter id laws are put into place to prevent voter fraud, that you admit isn't happening, but strip ten of thousands of people of the right to vote. [0] Similar to poll taxes and literacy requirements in the 19th century, this was said to have a better electorate, but it was selectively enforced so that it disproportionately affected black voters. That's why you have to be careful with this rhetoric. When someone is fixing a problem that doesn't actually exist, they could (likely?) have ulterior motives.
I'm aware of this issue and agree with the concern, but there are additional ways of mitigating fraud, and I wasn't thinking about IDs or any specific solutions while writing the post. (But now that it's come up, in theory if this were to be implemented, I think there could possibly be ways of proactively providing as many people as possible with IDs without requiring them to spend money or time to obtain it; maybe this could be done over a years-long process before adding any requirements. I don't know all the nuances, though.)
I was just trying to talk about this specific argument and how it's often used in isolation to create a certain way of seeing things that I think is based on shaky grounds.
I'm not trying to take any ideological stance, but just discuss epistemology in general. (Though for the record, I've only ever voted and will very likely only ever vote Democrat. I promise I don't have any ulterior motives regarding this topic and am a strong supporter of voter enfranchisement. Risk assessment in general just is a component of my job and hobbies.)
I'm not accusing you of anything. I just want to make sure that it's clear why proactively preventing vote fraud when there historically has been much isn't as simple as it sounds. My parents are all about voter IDs and other measures because they have only heard one side of the argument, that it is possible. What they haven't heard about is the cost to these laws.
Epistemologically, that's why I believe these discussions should be evidence based instead of theoretical or ideological. We don't do a good job of figuring out what is going to work and what is not going to work until we've tried some stuff out. And it needs to balanced. There will be a few people who will try to cheat the system. As long as they get caught and it doesn't affect the election, that's ok. There will be a price to pay in legitimate votes who are unable to cast a ballot because of whatever countermeasures we put in place. The question is, did we strike the right balance?
I don’t think this is as hard of a problem as people make it out to be. Why not just take fingerprints, plain old ink on paper, in lieu of ID? Or a photograph of your face that is immediately printed and signed, they already do this at airports. You should have to leave some form of identification but there are lots of free, easy and instant ways to do this that don’t exclude anyone.
Analogy: When I looked around my computer, I found no evidence of someone having broken in. Doesn't that lay to pasture claims of all these "security holes" "zero-days" and "hackers?" And aren't these "security updates" just paranoia?
Whether or not something happened in Georgia this election -- and I don't particularly care whether something did -- the perfectly valid point is we have an insecure election system, and we should fix it.
Why is that evidence in any direction. “Computer security is hard” is just as much evidence that Biden actually won by 10% in Georgia as it is that Trump won.
It's not evidence in any direction. It's perfectly possible votes were stolen from Biden, from Trump, or neither. We don't know. I wish we did.
In this context, though, security is NOT hard. We've just made the decision not to do it. I see no excuse for why I shouldn't be able to see the source code and design of the voting machines in my state, or audit any part of the manufacturing or voting process. This should all be open and transparent. A not-for-profit should be able to spot audit a hundred random machines around the US:
- Swipe a credit card to cover supervisor time
- In a secure facility, confirm the source code and hardware are as advertised on local voting machines
This just isn't rocket science.
Judging from downvotes and comments on HN, building political consensus around that will be neigh-impossible post-Trump. Click on my post history. Most of my comments are in the +3 to +15 range. Virtually all my comments in this thread are either 1 (not voted on) or between 0 and -4 (having gone to -6). None are swinging Trump conspiracy theories; merely pointing out the obvious: we need robust, auditable, secure voting.
The context here is that one side is advancing frivolous claims of voter fraud, believed by millions of people, some of whom were moved by those claims to violent insurrection.
And in this context, you are choosing to jump into those conversations to express vague generalities and open ended speculation that can't be pinned down to any specific claims about anything in a context where a mob is looking to those exact themes to motivate their violence.
There's a form of dishonesty that comes from making untrue claims about voter fraud, and there's another kind that comes from the themes you choose to emphasize to fan on the flames of false arguments while being coy about whether you personally believe them. This falls in the latter category, and this is the problem people have with your comments.
Well, there's a question about what will calm millions of people down:
1) Lying to them that elections are secure, and telling them to sit down and shut up
2) Taking concerns seriously and addressing them
Your premise is that #1 will prevent a violence. My claim is that #2 will.
You can flipped this around. We had a lot of violence and lawless behavior around BLM protests. What would have calmed people down? Telling them we didn't have racism, to go home, and shut up? Or providing a clear process to address their concerns peacefully?
I think most folks on the right will move on from the Trump election if the left knocks it off with "sit down and shut up," which is coincidentally the exact language right wing commentators use.
As a footnote, which concerns are valid is almost irrelevant. For this, what matters is which concerns people believe.
The specific allegations about voter fraud as believed by millions are indisputably fraudulent.
You are trying to equivocate between those specifically and indisputably false allegations and something completely different: a much more generalized and vaguely expressed set of concerns with election security writ large.
These have nothing to do with each other and yet you are equivocating between them.
That's exactly what the other side says about BLM.
With that attitude -- that there are tens of millions of people who can't be trusted or reasoned with and need to be locked up and silenced -- civil war is inevitable.
"Those people" are human beings too. You might not agree with them and they might be wrong, but they're not very different from you. They're just exposed to different culture and information.
Don’t be so tribal. You’re othering a broad swath of people, most of whom are quite reasonable. Hyperbole and lack of communication and empathy are what got us into this mess in the first place. This shit comes from both sides and it has to stop.
It is. How many papers were been published in Oakland between 2000 and 2010 on election security? Lots. Clearly this is a problem interesting enough to capture the interest of computer security faculty. It isn't a toy problem.
In addition to technical challenges (open sourcing isn't magic), there is a very complex organizational challenge due to the decentralized structure of elections in the US.
But more importantly, making vague claims about hypothetical limitations of the existing systems while tens of millions of americans believe that actual literal fraud stole the election from Trump and are using that as motivation to invade the capitol building and disrupt the process of transitioning power between parties is tone-deaf to say the least.
Proper security may be hard, but election security is at the level of someone running a 5-year-old Android phone which no longer receives security updates.
Seriously.
It's tone deaf to one side, but I'm pretty scared since the other side has, just as wrongheadedly, convinced itself these systems work. I'm not worried about 50,000 votes stolen due to doublevoting somewhere or a mailtruck of votes getting lost. If victory falls on the 50.1% mark versus the 49.9% mark, that's okay. I'm worried because we have a system which IS exploitable and which WILL be exploited, if it hasn't already been.
Rigging US elections has incredible ROI for any foreign state actor, and simply isn't hard.
For the record, I made equally tone deaf comments when 9/11 happened and when COVID19 was in its early days. Now, they're common sense to most people. I don't want to wait for Russia, China, or North Korea to pick our next president before we do something.
Open source, transparency, and auditability won't solve the problem 100%, but they'll prevent most types of gross, blatant rigging. Cryptographic voting algorithms or paper trails will get us much of the rest of the way there. We don't need perfect security, but we need to be in a place where a single point of compromise can't break our democracy.
> Proper security may be hard, but election security is at the level of someone running a 5-year-old Android phone which no longer receives security updates.
I'm serious. Go read the papers. You very obviously don't have a background in academic security. Because Oakland doesn't tend to accept stuff on trivial matters.
For some reason I can't reply to your other comment about your downvotes, so I'll just reply here.
We have reached an era of wrongthink- where even if you align slightly with the wrong side in your thinking, you are silenced. You are no longer allowed to agree with any portion of the wrong side, it must wholly be rejected.
I don't understand this "electronic voting machines are bad" myth. I voted with one of these machines for the first time this election and all it did was... print out my choices on a ballot. It takes all of 15 seconds to look over your votes and make sure they're correct. Then I manually put the ballot in a privacy sleeve, walked over to the ballot box, and inserted my ballot. The machine was a mere convenience that kept me from needing to manually circle my choices with a pen. Not much opportunity for widespread voter fraud in my opinion.
If the machines were switching votes so rampantly you'd think, of the millions of people who voted, more people would've raised concern at the polls when they noticed their vote for the president of the United States at the top of the printed ballot was switched.
I'm inclined to agree that no paper trail is a bad idea. It's interesting that of all the states you listed, only NJ went blue this election. You'd think democrats would be the ones more vocal about potential fraud from electronic voting.
The ballots are counted by machine too right? I would not say that is a good idea but the hand recounts would have shown any fraud from those if there were any fraud.
I'm not worried about machines which print ballots and leave a paper trail. That's not what they look like many places. You hit a button on the screen. Your pray your vote is counted correctly. There's no audit trail, no security, and no transparency.
Techniques like Zero-knowledge proofs, homomorphic encryption and multiparty computation exists, but none of them are sufficient for elections. The security requirements are simply too complex, and we can't require that every voter manages a private keypair to issue their votes from an electronic device they can't audit.
* You have a list of people who voted. That's public.
* You have a list of votes. That's public (and not correlated with the above) by anonymous tokens.
* You have an anonymous token, which lets you verify your own vote.
If the list of people who voted doesn't match up to real people, that's detectable. If I go into Massachusetts and find 10% of the people claimed to have voted don't exist, I can confirm fraud. If someone who didn't voted has there vote counted, that also confirms fraud.
Anyone can count up and add up the votes. That's public too.
And anyone can confirm their own vote was counted.
How are those tokens less complicated to use than a private keypair? How do you ensure that the votes are cast anonymously, without leaking metadata from timing, etc?
Yeah. They've been around for decades. Applied Cryptography gives them (excellent book; highly entertaining, yet reasonably mathematical). The gist of it is that:
- Everyone can verify who voted (so number of votes equals number of voters)
- Everyone can verify their individual vote was correctly and uniquely counted
- All votes are released under unique, anonymous identifiers, so anyone can recount all votes
- However, no one can verify anyone else's vote individually
It's pretty awesome! I've watched with gradual shock and horror as voting machines came out and seemed almost designed for riggable elections.
Right on. Voting systems must have integrity but also voter anonymity. To quote Schneier:
> If we could do away with anonymity — if everyone could check that their vote was counted correctly — then it would be easy to secure the vote. But that would lead to other problems. Before the US had the secret ballot, voter coercion and vote-buying were widespread.
Suprisingly enough, the strongest fear is not so much "pressuring people to vote for X" but "having a black market of people getting paid to vote for Y".
... and I can lie and show you the vote of someone who voted the same as your orders, unless you following me to the polls (in which case, you might as well hide a pinhole camera in my button).
I've seen this before. Do you remember the name of the algorithm?
The question I've had with this is whether you can prove who you voted for. If you can, you can sell your vote and prove tongue buyer that you voted correctly.
It's complex. The scheme I saw in Applied Cryptography would in abstract permit vote selling, but not simple vote selling -- you'd need pretty complex security between the buyer and seller.
If you're trying to buy my vote, and I'm trying to sell it, I could give you my unique anonymous number, and you could verify my votes. But I could also vote a different way, lie, and give you someone else's unique number, and you'd have no way to know.
You could ask for a special ballot too, where, for example, I vote a particular pattern (yes/no/no/yes/yes/no), to encode things, ideally picking ones that aren't likely to come up in practice, or other complex schemes, but these generally have work-arounds.
At the end of the day, though, it'd be cheaper and easier for you to require me to wear a pinhole camera to vote, do a mail-in, or otherwise. Plus, we had open voting for much of history, and it worked okay. If we went back to the risk of illegal vote selling versus the risk of wholesale election fraud, I'd take the former which seems like the lesser of two evils (and much easier to police too).
How would this work in practice? Voters post to a publicly accessible append-only database from a personally owned computer? Can this be implemented on paper ballots?
I'm not sure it's relevant. Paper ballots can't be hacked on a national scale. I trust my local election commission. And even modest fraud can be managed; if someone wins with 45% of the vote, we've changed an outcome, but the democratic check-and-balance remains.
The problem is closed, proprietary, secretive, touchscreen voting machines. For all we know, Biden won Texas. Or perhaps everyone wrote in Putin as a joke write-in. We just don't know.
For how this works in practice, Applied Cryptography has a nice, readable explanation.
Some of these "stolen" elections took place under Republican state administrations, supervised by Republican appointed election officials. WTF are these people doing if tens of thousands of votes are sneaking through the system and they can't find any evidence of it, and say themselves the election was fair?
Trump did exactly the same thing in 2016, claiming massive vote fraud and that the election was being stolen from him. Not only did he provide no evidence, but his own Justice department and subsequent administration was unable to find any evidence. If he really though the electoral system was so badly flawed, he had control of the House and Senate to do something about it, so why no voting reforms? If he actually believed his claims why didn't do something about it?
The truth is he didn't do anything because there's nothing to be done. He and his people know perfectly well the electoral system is fair, that's why they haven't bothered to reform it. There would be no point. In fact it would simply make them responsible for the voting system and thus unable to claim fraud anymore. Instead he's simply using claims of fraud as a tool to incite his supporters and avoid the ignominy of being a "loser". Something he has said many times he cannot tolerate.
Both his words and his actions show very clearly this is a pre-meditated attempt to undermine democracy in America.
Can you please point to where I contradict any of that?
It's like telling your grandma to install security updates, and her coming back saying no one has broken into her computer so it must be secure (while gramps insists someone has).
The simple fact of the matter is our elections are NOT secure, and making them secure would be cheap, and easy.
We have absolutely no idea whether the vote counts in the US are authentic. That doesn't mean anyone stole this election. That certainly doesn't mean Democrats stole this election. But it does mean we should secure them.
Of course, physical security is a cheap and easy step. The harder part is gaming our media. If attackers can help direct where voters vote with $$$, that's a cheap attack too.
As a footnote, if I were an attacker, of any type, I wouldn't even bother with the November election. The easiest place to attack is primaries. Both 2020 and 2016, we had among the weakest candidates among the crop win.
We're going from a con artist to a senile mildly corrupt lifetime politician of limited accomplishment. UPGRADE! I'll expect we'll move from major corruption to minor corruption, without an attempted coup.
What I think we deserve, though, is a politician with intelligence, vision, and integrity.
That requires fixing systems, rather than GOP pointing to DNC, and vice-versa.
> We have absolutely no idea whether the vote counts in the US are authentic.
Of course we do. Georgia did a full hand recount this election, finding no evidence of anything like what you're alleging. And many states do random-sample hand recounts every election. We didn't check every single vote, but "absolutely no idea" is way off the mark.
> finding no evidence of anything like what you're alleging
Indeed. A recount provides absolutely no evidence in either direction on what I'm alleging. Fortunately, if you'd like evidence, you can look for the auditable source code for my local voting machines on github. Didn't find any? There's your evidence of a transparency issue.
What many of these posts did provide evidence for are reading comprehension issues on web forums. But we knew that already.
>A recount provides absolutely no evidence in either direction on what I'm alleging.
Georgia electronic votes were all backed by voter verifiable auditable paper ballots. That's independent of whether the software is competent at arithmetic. A hand recount does, in fact, protect against fake totals.
Unfortunately, there are a handful of states that don't mandate paper backups. The solution for machines of that sort isn't open source—it's adding auditable paper.
It's really a waste of time. These people don't care if the election was fair, don't care that Republican appointed officials responsible for implementing the voting systems in Republican run states verified everything. They don't care how audit-able the votes were. They don't even care that Trump and the Republican leadership have no interest in vote reform despite repudiating the results of the vote.
I kind of do care that the election is fair, and I've kind of cared for decades that we've undermined that. I care about that a lot more than Georgie. Discounting me as "these people" is distinctly how we get to corruption.
"These people" also couldn't allege fraud in Georgia if we had fraud-proof systems. It's not rocket science. I wish we could point them to proof. We can't. We can point "these people" to pretty good evidence, but we wouldn't have this particular problem if we could point to hard proof.
We'd probably have a different problem, but it is what it is.
> "These people" also couldn't allege fraud in Georgia if we had fraud-proof systems. It's not rocket science.
What evidence do you have that they couldn't? Plenty of people would make claims of fraud, even in a "fraud-proof" election systems. What would that even look like, in theory, let alone in practice?
What specifically out our current system leaves it open to the widespread, multi-state fraud that is being claimed by the president and others?
... That we have touchscreen voting machines, without auditable source code, auditable hardware, or corporate transparency? That we have no real way to know they're at all running honest algorithms?
I mean, seriously. Look under the hood for five minutes.
How does any of that apply to the situation in Georgia? Sure, the things you mention would be nice incremental improvements to Georgia's system and states that do not have an auditable paper ballot trail are very problematic, we don't disagree there.
You imply that liberals have changed their position on this post-Trump, but I don't think you'll find these suggested improvements controversial to most liberals. But what do you mean by we can't point the people of Georgia to hard proof? I fail to see how addressing even all of the points you raise would suddenly convince the president and his supporters. The existing measures don't appear to have swayed them at all. So I don't think it's productive to pretend like this wouldn't be a problem if only we had some mythical "fraud-proof" system.
> Today, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced the results of the Risk Limiting Audit of Georgia’s presidential contest, which upheld and reaffirmed the original outcome produced by the machine tally of votes cast. Due to the tight margin of the race and the principles of risk-limiting audits, this audit was a full manual tally of all votes cast. The audit confirmed that the original machine count accurately portrayed the winner of the election.
> By law, Georgia was required to conduct a Risk Limiting Audit of a statewide race following the November elections.
> The differential of the audit results from the original machine counted results is well within the expected margin of human error that occurs when hand-counting ballots. A 2012 study by Rice University and Clemson University found that “hand counting of votes in postelection audit or recount procedures can result in error rates of up to 2 percent.” In Georgia’s recount, the highest error rate in any county recount was .73%. Most counties found no change in their finally tally. The majority of the remaining counties had changes of fewer than ten ballots.
Simply alleging something doesn't make it true, or likely or even plausible. It's just saying stuff, especially when you have no evidence and hence no reason for the stuff being said.
Well, I'd argue in all the places voter fraud is likely, we can't have evidence since we don't have transparency or records. That's not the same places as the Trump crowd is talking about right now, but touch screen voting with unauditable proprietary software? Come on. There's one private company which controls the election outcomes in several states. We have no way to know whether they're doing anything illicit and no way to know.
So I say again, why aren’t Trump and Republican law makers and state leaders doing anything about it? Why have they sat on their hands on this issue for four years, including a period when the Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency? I think we all know the reason why.
>We have absolutely no idea whether the vote counts in the US are authentic.
We never have. The only way to know would be to personally verify the voter's driver's license, watch them vote and submit their ballot, count their ballot, and repeat for every single voter in the United States. Since this will never, ever happen, one could always make vague claims about authenticity. But without concrete evidence of fraud, it doesn't matter.
> The harder part is gaming our media. If attackers can help direct where voters vote with $$$, that's a cheap attack too.
Let’s be real that’s basically a part of politics. That’s not an issue with elections per se.
Plus it’s clearly easier to just use social media and targeted propaganda to manipulate voters.
I’m all for secure elections and improving that security.
But my understanding is that to date when people have taken a serious look they’ve found no meaningful evidence of fraud.
The real deal is if we got rid of the electoral college then the presidency wouldn’t come down to a few thousand votes in a few counties in a few states.
> The real deal is if we got rid of the electoral college
I reckon the US system needs to self-reform if it wants to survive. All democracies change their electoral laws from time to time. The current system appears unsustainable: roughly two thirds of the electorate now feel fundamentally disenfranchised (one third thinks it's racist; the other that it's corrupt).
... and it's both racist and corrupt. I agree we need reform if we're to survive. Between BLM this spring, DC now, the fringe militant elements, we're seeing more and more violence.
I will mention that the split-down-the-middle thing isn't a property of electoral college. That's how you win in a democracy. If voters are distributed between 1 and 10 on some issue:
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
I win by picking 5.5. Whatever you pick, you get a minority of voters. That's complicated by primaries. In the same system, if I want to be a ballot candidate, though, I can't do that. I want to pick 2.75 or 7.25 so the majority of my party votes for me.
Of course, things like charisma fit in a bit too, but for the most part, if one party runs a 2.74 candidate and the other a 7.24, the 7.24 has an advantage, and vice-versa for 2.76 and 7.76.
All that things like electoral college do is shift weights. Tight elections just means politicians have learned to play the game well.
A system where someone with 40% or 60% of the vote wins isn't fundamentally broken -- the underlying check-and-balance works. What is fundamentally broken are when incentive structures misalign.
If he is senile (and a fair amount, but not all, of the "evidence" for that is propaganda), then it probably means that his cabinet will mostly run the show or that he'll be removed from office. This same line of thinking gave me some peace of mind on Trump, and it really held for about a year and a half that it took him to fill the cabinet with more pliant people.
It's also worth pointing out that Biden has a stammer. He hides it extremely well and has had extensive therapy throughout his life, but it still comes out occasionally and is the root of most of these concerns.
Of course there is a cabinet around him, and if his condition is really serious he will step down.
What strikes me, and what I want to say, is why pick someone like HIM out of all people available, and why does everyone seem to ignore his condition? Seeing him talking, it seems like himself and everyone around him try really hard not to put something cognitively challenging in his head, that will have to translate to comprehensible speech.
Do those in charge think one's name and past deeds campaign on their own, as opposed to the actual candidate showcasing himself with his present words and image? Does the need to bring Donald down give a blank canvas to the other side to put in front someone unfit?
I am semi-sure the President can be a puppet - not by definition, but can happen sometimes I guess - since Bush Jr, that creature with the obviously sub-par IQ and cognition, was elected - and again, nobody in the US seemed to actually freak out 24/7 with having such a man as the president. Just remember on the reason he cited for deciding to attack Iraq - and I am not talking about the false WMD claims, but for "God told me", which he stated in complete seriousness. So, when I saw that guy governing, I said to myself - it can't be this thing having the actual power here, he does not have the mental capacity to achieve that on his own.
Same with Biden. He obviously does not have the mental capacity to rule, and Donald going away is not enough reason to be ok with that. I don't even see a consensus of the type "Yeah he is an old senile guy, we'll just use him to take down Trump and then we see how it goes" - everyone pretends he is normal, and that's what baffles me.
The whole fabricated evidence thing has been pretty funny. With both Biden and Clinton, the number of fabrications meant that the few times real things came up, they were simply ignored by the main stream media.
The main stream media has engaged in slightly less fabrication, but there was definitely some of the same "boy who cried wolf" dynamic in the other direction too.
> And fixing this will be almost impossible post-Trump, because Democrats.
Why exactly should Democrats block any attempts at improving election security?
The Democrats even introduced several election security bills the last couple years that all got blocked by the GOP..
My experience is that the stance the Democrats take is the opposite of the stance the Republicans take, and vice-versa. If one party flips on an issue, the other almost immediately flops.
At this point, the Republicans are mid-flop towards election security, while the Democrats have made statements which will be very hard to back out of, so I think we're seeing the fish flipping.... You can even see this in action, as every single one of these posts is trending toward negative infinite upvotes, where just a few months ago, they would have been trending towards upvotes. Even a mild pointer to a textbook on cryptography summarizing a cryptographic protocol is now at zero.
I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, though. Democrats will control both chambers and the presidency. If I see crypto-secure voting, I'll be delighted. I just don't see it. At this point, Democrats are firmly in the voting-is-secure-nothing-to-see-here camp. I understand why given the unpleasantness in DC, but it is, as a point of fact, not secure. That doesn't mean it's been rigged, but it does mean we should fix it.
> My experience is that the stance the Democrats take is the opposite of the stance the Republicans take, and vice-versa. If one party flips on an issue, the other almost immediately flops.
I’m sorry but that is way too reductive. For one thing, there’s a bipartisan consensus (for better or worse) on a lot of foreign policy, which is a pretty huge area.
And, your comment obscures the meaningful differences in ideology between the groups of people each party represents. And the different interests of those groups.
The Democrats are far from perfect. But it’s not a “both sides equally bad” situation.
Well, maybe it is when it comes to corporate money in politics. But even there you see bipartisan consensus on the fringes, I think, plus iirc the Republicans were basically all about Citizens United.
But yeah money in politics is a big problem on both sides. To be fair, it’s been a big problem in all of politics throughout all recorded history.
Which doesn’t mean we can’t (and haven’t) made some progress.
I'm not actually sure it is too reductive. Game theory predicts almost exactly the behavior we see.
My own observation is that we saw major progress with the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment, the Constitution, and so on. Progress slowed around a hundred years ago. From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equilibrium.
1970-2020, progress mostly stopped, and we've pushed hard to optimizing to game theory. Politicians who now get elected play a near-optimal game, and playing this game is overt.
To make progress, we'd need significant reform of the system.
I would argue, though, that a statement like "money in politics is a big problem on both sides. To be fair, it’s been a big problem in all of politics throughout all recorded history" is very reductionist.
For most of history, it wasn't so much money as military might. If I had money and you had military, soon you'd have both. Money was a component of buying military, but it was just one component (see Rome v Carthage for an example, or Athens v Sparta).
I'd much rather be controlled by someone corrupted by money than by a corrupt warlord where I'm a serf. Democracy is a big step up. We just need another step up right now... and pretending we don't is actively harmful.
> From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equilibrium.
1970-2020, progress mostly stopped,
Um if nothing else a LOT in the US happened with regards to women’s rights and feminism between 1970 and today. And LGBTQ rights.
Oh yeah - Obama! First black President. Kind of a big deal when it comes to race and social justice.
Also it’s just a hugely broad statement you are making. I’m not gonna speculate about the sweep of hisiory.
Also your point doesn’t really address the specific points I mentioned - real, actual differences between the parties.
[EDIT: For example if the Republican Party suddenly endorsed the Green New Deal (or other climate legislation) I don’t see the Democrats who already support such legislation flip-flopping.
Same with gun control laws.
And with more federal pandemic relief funds to individuals and states and cities.
They flopped like this on surveillance about two decades ago. Democrats were pro-surveillance, and Republicans were pro-privacy. Now, it's the other way around. I could list of a dozen examples when one party flips, the other flops.
And it's exactly what game theory predicts.
To go with even your first example, Nixon created the EPA.
Flops happen when both parties go too far left or too far right. At that point, it makes sense for the "crowded" party to leapfrog and grab the coveted center.
I don't think I ever said "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything."
I think what I said was that both parties try to be just at the 50 percentile mark of voters, since that wins elections, while candidates try to be at the 75th/25th percentile since that wins primaries (and then sprint to the center).
If both parties are at e.g. the 36th and 37th percentile, the 36th percentile party can jump to the 38th and be wildly successful. That's what happened with surveillance. After 9/11, the electorate shifted, and Republicans leapfrogged the Democrats, leading to a lot of success.
Both parties fundamentally want to win first.
Whether that's good or bad depends on what you compare it to. You can view it as lack of spine, or as a democratic check-and-balance.
I agree that politicians and political parties want to win.
And I appreciate your clarification that (if I’m understanding correctly) you do believe there are currently some meaningful differences between the two parties.
The percentages bit I didn’t really follow (where’s the data/evidence? Or is this a theory?), and, if I’m being honest, on a day like today with the attempted coup and all, I simply don’t have the motivation to parse and understand more of what you are trying to say.
But I appreciate your clarification and additional effort to explain your intended point.
Theory seems to predict practice well, in this case.
Yes, there are meaningful differences. The differences behave just as game theory would predict, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If you want 2nd amendment, vote Republican. If you want to control guns, vote Democrat.
You may be right that an individual politician might not flip on a stance because of those dynamics. Some optimize to dynamics and do flip and flop. Others happen to fit the current Nash equilibrium, and will generally eventually lose a primary or a general election once the equilibrium changes, and one with the aligned view will move in. It's a super-competitive system. The result is the same in the end.
But in terms of effort, given you're exhausted, perhaps I'll let you search for that when you have more mental capacity.
Good starting point is "Rules for Rulers," a short video on Youtube. But there's a lot of robust academic work behind it.
I think you have a misunderstanding on something here. Voting is mostly the province of the states, not the federal government. You will have to look at the actions of the individual state legislatures. Who is in control in DC isn’t going to have any effect on this.
> The Democrats even introduced several election security bills the last couple years that all got blocked by the GOP..
I totally could believe that.
But, be aware that just because you saw it in a left wing site (NYT, CNN, Vox etc), doesn't make it so.
Unfortunately, the few times something got me upset enough to actually try to track down original sources, I found the sites to be representing falsehood, on both sides of the spectrum.
Like, the complete and total opposite of the facts. Some twisted logic, omissions or half facts, but other times it seems they just said "facts be damned".
So, would be curious if you actually have sources, and if you actually looked up the bills and the riders, and the deals.
(1) My state doesn't use machines with a paper trail, so it's sort of irrelevant here.
(2) Many of the machines with paper trails don't show the voter what's printed is the same as their vote (although I haven't looked at the models you refer to).
If there's a printer paper trail that the voter can see, that's a big step forward.
