Romney must be doing really well in the polls if you guys are already paving the way for the “Romney stole the election!” defense.
Ah yes, that excuse for conflict of interest. So, how much of a stake do you have in vB?
The scary possibility isn’t some grand conspiracy but the conspiracy of the wink and the nod. Romney wouldn’t have to do anything, lift a finger or make a call. It’s not implausible that the owner of one of the voting machine companies make software changes to a handful of machines with only a couple of people involved for technical assistance, completely at their own initiative, because of their ideological fervor and/or hatred of Obama. That is the real threat to vote counting fraud, imo. Multiple unrelated and unconnected individuals throughout the voting system so convinced the other side is “evil” that they, independently and without knowledge of any other similar activity, take it upon themselves to “fix” the situation, whether by owning a vote machine corporation, or being a public servant in counting absentee ballots in contested states, or whatever position of authority and responsibility they find themselves in charge of counting votes.
Or even worse, you could have a group who is so convinced that the other side is “evil” that, when their candidate loses, they come up with grandiose theories about how the election must have been rigged against them somehow. But when their candidate wins, it is a sign of a fair and just voting system, and a natural groundswell of support for their candidate.
Which is easy enough to solve with open source software and an audit trail, so there will be no problem doing, right?
Otherwise, what /are/ you hiding? Diebold was hiding the fact they couldn’t code or do security for shit, for instance.
It’s bizarre. I don’t think any other country allows corporations to count the votes cast in their elections. Do Americans not see the potential for abuse there?
But corporations are people too.
Yeah, I can’t imagine any problems using open-source software for voting!
I hate to disagree with you, for fear that you’ll throw a tantrum and delete all your posts, but what are you talking about?? I’m not hiding anything. I also have no stake in the company being discussed. What made you think that I do?
We’ve been over this. Proprietary software is less secure than open source. Either way, a paper ballot/physical record is the smart way, and even those get thrown out from time to time. But why should you listen to me, I come from a town with three paper mills.
Of course you can’t, why, you might be able to prove to YOUR satisfaction there are no security holes. Open source has reliably turned out software with less security holes than closed source, after all.
What made you think that I do?
Your contempt for the idea of verifiable software used in voting, and the same for the idea that there should be a verifiable audit trail. What are you hiding? (After all, the right use that argument for secrecy generally a lot, and this is one of the few cases where it genuinely applies. So…)
And are you going to demand that your reality is the only one which exists? Why would you be “afraid” of your reality?
I never said anything about contempt for a verifiable audit trail, so you’re just grasping at straws here. And “what are you hiding?” is a non sequitir in this context. We’re having an internet discussion.
And here we go! A few more posts where I disagree with you, you claim that I don’t accept your “reality,” and then you go back and delete all your posts. Not that it’s not entertaining, but I’ve already seen this movie before.
Yes yes, you managed to completely ignore half of what I typed, as well as posting propaganda. Well done!
You’re trying very hard to eliminate posts Contrary To Doctrine, eh.
Keep hiding your shares, or whatever you’re hiding. Time to start investigating! (my current bet is “shares in propitiatory software with an open source competitor”)
Of the two of us, which one has actually eliminated posts? (Hint: It’s not me.)
Yeah, good luck with that investigation.
Thanks for the endorsement, I’ll use that if anyone is reluctant to cough up the info. And of course, YOUR principles won’t allow you to withdraw it, right?
And I’ve only matched YOUR reality. Why is your reality so abhorrent to you?
You interpret a simple disagreement as an excuse to delete all of your posts, and then you blame the other person for disagreeing with you. Dude, it’s an internet discussion, not a playground where you have to take your ball and go home. Get over it.
Oh it wasn’t an endorsement, but you’re going to interpret it however you want anyway.
Yes, you think demanding your reality at all costs is disagreement. You’re the one demanding that the other person’s ball never existed, then you’re shocked when the other person complies with your reality and removes their ball. You’re just proving my point, and you are also claiming that the internet is magic or something, because it’s what…“unreal”? Nope, words are words.
Oh it wasn’t an endorsement, but you’re going to interpret it however you want anyway.
It is, quite literally, an endorsement. You’re the one trying to demand it isn’t now. Your reality, etc. (If it was from someone British, sure, you could pass it off as sarcasm…)
Only you would think that “Yeah, good luck with that” isn’t sarcasm.
Would you like to put a bet on that? Bear in mind I know a lot of Americans.
(And yes, keep up discussing anything but the topic)
Would I like to bet on whether I was being sarcastic when I said, “Yeah, good luck with that”? You may not realize it, but here in America, people can choose to be sarcastic all by themselves. We don’t need special dispensation from the Queen or something.
What discussion? I made an offhand comment, and you decided to be insane. As far as I can tell, you can do that just as well without me participating.
No, on what you previously said. That only I would think you were being sarcastic. Do try and read what you type sometime.
Quite willing to put a VERY large bet on this, in fact, given my discussion with an American friend of a few weeks ago.
I made an offhand comment
Yes, you try and brush off your doom so lightly.
So…no, you don’t get sarcasm. Or for that matter, iron-y. Fore!
(Yes, you’ve been played)
Anyway, back in reality, I support voting machines where I can verify, not blindly trust.