General Discussion

paleotn

(19,702 posts)

53. Articles and stories. That's not evidence. That's articles and stories.

Sun Dec 1, 2024, 11:07 AM

Dec 1

Usually by people who aren't experts regurgitating the same data source(s). Your Brennan Center link references the same Rice study. Where are the others? Is the consensus among experts based on evidence? Give me that, and I'll change my view. Otherwise, my hypothesis is as good as yours.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

F the "I-voted" stickers. I don't even see risk limiting audits that were supposed to be done [View all] lostnfound Dec 1 OP

I agree... Think. Again. Dec 1 #1

I agree with you Ohioboy Dec 1 #4

I am with you BonnieJW Dec 1 #7

Or the recounts are very too expensive Clouds Passing Dec 1 #13

Correct on both counts MichMan Dec 1 #15

... Clouds Passing Dec 1 #18

See post #20 Think. Again. Dec 1 #22

Protecting our Democracy through military preparedness seems to cost quite a lot too. Think. Again. Dec 1 #20

They did the same to me regarding garland. onecaliberal Dec 1 #36

Yeah, it's a tactic they use a lot. Think. Again. Dec 1 #40

Hoping we don't see what they ARE supporting here calling themselves Dems. onecaliberal Dec 1 #43

Yes, and let's be clear... Think. Again. Dec 1 #46

Same reason they want a child rapist in the White House instead of the most qualified person to ever run. onecaliberal Dec 1 #48

The give-away is that they are fighting SO HARD (and seem so well-prepared)... Think. Again. Dec 1 #60

The give-away is that they are fighting so hard Abnredleg Dec 1 #64

I understand that you believe we should never, ever question first-counts of any elections. Think. Again. Dec 1 #68

We absolutely are in agreement about questioning election results Abnredleg Dec 1 #73

: onecaliberal Dec 1 #75

My position is that those existing processes are not nearly enough. Think. Again. Dec 1 #77

The Pennsylvania Senate recount was not done by hand MichMan Dec 1 #2

Either eliminate machine voting or open-source the software hueymahl Dec 1 #3

Open source software would not help... reACTIONary Dec 1 #6

An auditable paper-trail is worthless if we don't do sufficient audits (recounts) on the papers. Think. Again. Dec 1 #9

You are right! And what does that have to do with.... reACTIONary Dec 1 #14

Why would my downloading the software matter? Think. Again. Dec 1 #23

Yes, that would be silly.... reACTIONary Dec 1 #69

The point of open source software is so the activity of any given machine... Think. Again. Dec 1 #74

We've discussed this before Abnredleg Dec 1 #78

No, the software is proprietary, it can not be looked at by anyone except 2 labs. Think. Again. Dec 1 #80

The labs are acting as agents of the Government Abnredleg Dec 1 #85

Yes, those 2 labs look at the software to be sure it is what it's supposed to be... Think. Again. Dec 1 #87

They look at the entire chain of custody Abnredleg Dec 1 #91

Yeah, that's why major banks, federal agencies, etc, never get hacked... Think. Again. Dec 1 #92

Their equipment is not airgapped Abnredleg Dec 1 #99

Well then I agree with them... Think. Again. Dec 1 #101

The layers are there Abnredleg Dec 1 #104

But still you don't think we double-check our numbers. Think. Again. Dec 1 #108

The activity that is supposed to be happening... reACTIONary Dec 1 #86

Audits are only done on a portion of the results. Think. Again. Dec 1 #89

Sampling is sufficient Abnredleg Dec 1 #93

If all that were "sufficient", why are discrepencies still found? Think. Again. Dec 1 #97

Human error Abnredleg Dec 1 #103

Do they? How often has THAT happened???? Think. Again. Dec 1 #105

Yes, a random sample... reACTIONary Dec 1 #102

Good point. Think. Again. Dec 1 #107

Surprisingly, when our side wins an election, the results are always deemed to be accurate, safe, and secure. n/t MichMan Dec 1 #111

Deemed by who? Not by me. Nt lostnfound Dec 1 #115

What elections that Democrats won do you think were stolen? n/t MichMan Dec 1 #119

Open Source software should be mandatory... Think. Again. Dec 1 #8

Open source software would not be helpful in the activity.... reACTIONary Dec 1 #95

I believe the phrase "software" understandably covers all that. Think. Again. Dec 1 #100

Not "open source" software... reACTIONary Dec 1 #106

Open source code of voting machines (and tabulators) would allow... Think. Again. Dec 1 #110

Hand count and take the time necessary to do it correctly, accurately. Expense be damned. paleotn Dec 1 #5

Hand counts will have significantly more errors than machines. MichMan Dec 1 #11

Exactly. Why don't people get this? Hand counting is far less accurate than machine counting. Wiz Imp Dec 1 #17

Some would still say those were rigged too MichMan Dec 1 #24

Always? All hand counting procedures? All of them? paleotn Dec 1 #28

I wonder why they didn't do the same study to test machine accuracy. Think. Again. Dec 1 #42

It's not one study, it's all of them and there have been lots of them Wiz Imp Dec 1 #44

Articles and stories. That's not evidence. That's articles and stories. paleotn Dec 1 #53

I give up Wiz Imp Dec 1 #57

In my defense, I looked at only the Brennan Center article paleotn Dec 1 #67

The only major country I've found that does all hand counting is France and there are many Wiz Imp Dec 1 #94

There are also many computer and elections experts who disagree with you. Think. Again. Dec 1 #90

Name them Wiz Imp Dec 1 #96

How would we know how many errors machne-counts have if we don't verify through recounts? Think. Again. Dec 1 #25

Stop using logic! They don't like logic. paleotn Dec 1 #30

Logic is all I have because I refuse to stoop to their attempts at silly name-calling. Think. Again. Dec 1 #33

Wise. But I'm not above silly name-calling. paleotn Dec 1 #34

While interesting, I wouldn't take one paper's results as universal gospel. paleotn Dec 1 #26

Fine, you must be able to produce multiple studies showing that hand counting is much more accurate than machines MichMan Dec 1 #39

And I've not seen enough proof that they're not. paleotn Dec 1 #58

Not 100% hand recounts. Just DO the statistical sampling / risk limiting audits, and publish them. And... lostnfound Dec 1 #116

Hand counts are less accurate then machine counts Kaleva Dec 1 #52

Based on what? paleotn Dec 1 #71

See post #11 Kaleva Dec 1 #113

There is no way to verify the vote counts Farmer-Rick Dec 1 #10

Counties are responsible for the audits.... reACTIONary Dec 1 #12

Exactly why we need recounts. Think. Again. Dec 1 #27

PN requires "recounts", or, at least.... reACTIONary Dec 1 #83

Correct, we need an election system that fool-proof, hence recounts. Think. Again. Dec 1 #84

2024 and the United States can't figure out how to have foolproof elections? NoMoreRepugs Dec 1 #16

Does Anyone Believe The GOP would NOT Cheat? Parzival72 Dec 1 #19

Great. Now progressives are sharing MAGA type conspiracies. TomCADem Dec 1 #21

Trying to scare people away from common sense election verification .... Think. Again. Dec 1 #31

Doesn't PA Follow The Election Verification Process You Describe? TomCADem Dec 1 #41

I'll try to be more clear... Think. Again. Dec 1 #50

Your Post Is The Opposite of the OP, Which Was Asking Where is the Normal Risk Limiting Audit... TomCADem Dec 1 #61

Yes, my post (that you are ar referring to) is not a direct response to the OP, correct. Think. Again. Dec 1 #65

There are processes in place to verify the machine counts are accurate Wiz Imp Dec 1 #47

Oh, "there are processes", nothing to see here. Think. Again. Dec 1 #51

Congratulations - you're on the same side as Diamond & Sylk. You must be so proud. Wiz Imp Dec 1 #63

Yeah, the personal attacks don't work. Think. Again. Dec 1 #66

That wasn't a personal attack Wiz Imp Dec 1 #79

Saying "you're on the same side as Diamond & Sylk." Think. Again. Dec 1 #82

How else can one avoid painful emotions of an election loss, but with an irrational, evidence free conspiracy theory? Fiendish Thingy Dec 1 #37

There have been audits. For example, "Hand-count election audit confirms Trump's victory in Georgia." 11/20/24. Silent Type Dec 1 #29

Only 750,000? Think. Again. Dec 1 #32

Trust the science. That's a huge sample size out of 5.3 Million voters. Silent Type Dec 1 #35

That's only around a one in 7 chance of catching anything major anywhere. Think. Again. Dec 1 #38

No - that's almost a 100% chance Abnredleg Dec 1 #49

A 100% chance of catching machine miscounts would be accomplished only through... Think. Again. Dec 1 #54

Here's the NC final audit, which includes hand recounts Abnredleg Dec 1 #59

Gee, that's odd... Think. Again. Dec 1 #62

Not if you read the report Abnredleg Dec 1 #72

I agree, hand recounts are simple and should be done. Think. Again. Dec 1 #76

Parsing the data in the NC hand recount audit results is interesting MichMan Dec 1 #88

NC also does handcounts for their audit Abnredleg Dec 1 #45

The level of denial here is mind blowing Wiz Imp Dec 1 #55

Our country is boned. Even a big chunk of Democrats don't think the US has free and fair elections base on conspiracy Fish700 Dec 1 #98

Exactly. It's really very sad and disappointing. Wiz Imp Dec 1 #109

Crazy. Callie1979 Dec 1 #112