General Discussion

egduj

(854 posts)

70. The first stage is the hardest to get past.

Reply to lostnfound (Original post)

Sun Dec 1, 2024, 11:32 AM

Dec 1

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Fish700

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