this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
205 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2369 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 72 points 1 week ago (3 children)

So a couple of points:

"could even develop malware designed to be installed with minimal physical access to the voting equipment by unskilled accomplices to manipulate the vote counts. Attacks could also be launched by compromising the vendors responsible for programming systems before elections, enabling large-scale distribution of malware."

  1. This is not the bullshit theory of "ZOMG! They were connected to Starlink! Elon Musk! Elon Musk!"

  2. There is no such thing as "security" if someone has physical access to the device.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 week ago

I completely agree, but it doesn't matter unless someone does something about it.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Brings to mind the whole pagers thing.

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

There is no such thing as "security" if someone has physical access to the device.

We've gotten a lot closer. With fTPM, FDE, boot verification, etc. it's become a lot more secure than it used to be.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago

All it would take is one hand recount with a difference of a few percentage points to really kick off a movement to confirm there weren't issues. It's does still seem so far there are unaccounted for votes still, but haven't seen any definitive complaints about changed or altered votes.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hopefully this is what gets him /s

[–] just_squanch_it@lemmy.one 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"here's how Bernie could still win"

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

he could still win. here's how:

Trump prooved laws don't matter if your following is violent enough. Bernie can still win, I have an idea . . .

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

Some contests were won by 100k votes that's worth a recount to me.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

My thoughts, and I would really, really love for someone to offer me a sliver of hope.

  • They only have to pick a few counties with surprising results and audit those to figure out if there's a widespread problem worth a more extensive recount, right? I realize that's still far more work than I probably realize, but I feel like it would be a good litmus test for "there is something here" or "there is not, sorry folks."

 

  • Anyone have any faith at all that Dems will pursue the actual possibility of fraud with a fraction of the verve that Republicans have pursued fictitious voter fraud?

 

  • I've been silently praying that on November 6th someone in Kamala's circle had already thought of my first bullet point above, that this is already in progress, and they won't talk about it until they are done, but also see my second bullet point. 😁
[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My hope died when she conceded. It's the same thing that happened in 2016...there were a bunch of counties that we way off their polls. The D's didn't care and let us slide.

My tinfoil hat says it's just too profitable for the D's to have Trump in office. They don't have to accomplish anything, publicly wring their hands loudly, and the donations pour in.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The election is over and they've made their money. There's no profit to be had in demanding recounts.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

computer scientists

[–] Ruorc@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Something certainly feels off and when looking at the data, it's seems to throw some red flags. I'm going to toss these here because trying to rehash everything on this thread isn't helpful.

https://www.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024

Feel like I'm being a conspiracy theorist here, but I feel it's better to at least say something or draw attention to it. Since I do data analytics, I'll be running the numbers myself if I can.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I didn't go to many classes during University, but I remember one class very well, on of the Cryptography classes, the professor spent the entire 2 hours explaining point by point why voting machines are a bad fucking idea and how many new problems it introduces over having to count paper ballots, which is literally the only issue with paper ballots, you need more people, time to count them. They are very hard to fake and if you manage to do it, you can only fake a few votes, compare it with voting machines which are still hard to breach, but if you do you can change election results, this is just the one of many issues.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Paper ballots with machine scanning seems like the ultimate combo. Full paper trail and counting is still fast for 99.9% of the votes. The other 0.1% might take some deciphering if the smudge is actually a mark or an erased mark, or if that tiny dot is intended to be a mark. But, given we are talking 0.1% of the votes here, it generally won't matter, and when it does, having the full paper trail is 100% worth it.