General Discussion

reACTIONary

(6,326 posts)

106. Not "open source" software...

Sun Dec 1, 2024, 01:31 PM

Dec 2024

... That term applies to the source code itself being made public. As explained elsewhere, the source code is already being examined. The machines are already being certified. Reasonable, even beyond reasonable, measures are already being taken to ensure the results after the fact.

"Open source" code would not add any value to that.

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 2024 OP

I agree... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #1

I agree with you Ohioboy Dec 2024 #4

I am with you BonnieJW Dec 2024 #7

Or the recounts are very too expensive Clouds Passing Dec 2024 #13

Correct on both counts MichMan Dec 2024 #15

... Clouds Passing Dec 2024 #18

See post #20 Think. Again. Dec 2024 #22

Protecting our Democracy through military preparedness seems to cost quite a lot too. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #20

They did the same to me regarding garland. onecaliberal Dec 2024 #36

Yeah, it's a tactic they use a lot. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #40

Hoping we don't see what they ARE supporting here calling themselves Dems. onecaliberal Dec 2024 #43

Yes, and let's be clear... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #46

Same reason they want a child rapist in the White House instead of the most qualified person to ever run. onecaliberal Dec 2024 #48

The give-away is that they are fighting SO HARD (and seem so well-prepared)... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #60

The give-away is that they are fighting so hard Abnredleg Dec 2024 #64

I understand that you believe we should never, ever question first-counts of any elections. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #68

We absolutely are in agreement about questioning election results Abnredleg Dec 2024 #73

: onecaliberal Dec 2024 #75

My position is that those existing processes are not nearly enough. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #77

The Pennsylvania Senate recount was not done by hand MichMan Dec 2024 #2

Either eliminate machine voting or open-source the software hueymahl Dec 2024 #3

Open source software would not help... reACTIONary Dec 2024 #6

An auditable paper-trail is worthless if we don't do sufficient audits (recounts) on the papers. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #9

You are right! And what does that have to do with.... reACTIONary Dec 2024 #14

Why would my downloading the software matter? Think. Again. Dec 2024 #23

Yes, that would be silly.... reACTIONary Dec 2024 #69

The point of open source software is so the activity of any given machine... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #74

We've discussed this before Abnredleg Dec 2024 #78

No, the software is proprietary, it can not be looked at by anyone except 2 labs. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #80

The labs are acting as agents of the Government Abnredleg Dec 2024 #85

Yes, those 2 labs look at the software to be sure it is what it's supposed to be... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #87

They look at the entire chain of custody Abnredleg Dec 2024 #91

Yeah, that's why major banks, federal agencies, etc, never get hacked... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #92

Their equipment is not airgapped Abnredleg Dec 2024 #99

Well then I agree with them... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #101

The layers are there Abnredleg Dec 2024 #104

But still you don't think we double-check our numbers. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #108

The activity that is supposed to be happening... reACTIONary Dec 2024 #86

Audits are only done on a portion of the results. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #89

Sampling is sufficient Abnredleg Dec 2024 #93

If all that were "sufficient", why are discrepencies still found? Think. Again. Dec 2024 #97

Human error Abnredleg Dec 2024 #103

Do they? How often has THAT happened???? Think. Again. Dec 2024 #105

Yes, a random sample... reACTIONary Dec 2024 #102

Good point. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #107

Surprisingly, when our side wins an election, the results are always deemed to be accurate, safe, and secure. n/t MichMan Dec 2024 #111

Deemed by who? Not by me. Nt lostnfound Dec 2024 #115

What elections that Democrats won do you think were stolen? n/t MichMan Dec 2024 #119

Open Source software should be mandatory... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #8

Open source software would not be helpful in the activity.... reACTIONary Dec 2024 #95

I believe the phrase "software" understandably covers all that. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #100

Not "open source" software... reACTIONary Dec 2024 #106

Open source code of voting machines (and tabulators) would allow... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #110

Hand count and take the time necessary to do it correctly, accurately. Expense be damned. paleotn Dec 2024 #5

Hand counts will have significantly more errors than machines. MichMan Dec 2024 #11

Exactly. Why don't people get this? Hand counting is far less accurate than machine counting. Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #17

Some would still say those were rigged too MichMan Dec 2024 #24

Always? All hand counting procedures? All of them? paleotn Dec 2024 #28

I wonder why they didn't do the same study to test machine accuracy. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #42

It's not one study, it's all of them and there have been lots of them Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #44

Articles and stories. That's not evidence. That's articles and stories. paleotn Dec 2024 #53

I give up Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #57

In my defense, I looked at only the Brennan Center article paleotn Dec 2024 #67

The only major country I've found that does all hand counting is France and there are many Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #94

There are also many computer and elections experts who disagree with you. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #90

Name them Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #96

How would we know how many errors machne-counts have if we don't verify through recounts? Think. Again. Dec 2024 #25

Stop using logic! They don't like logic. paleotn Dec 2024 #30

Logic is all I have because I refuse to stoop to their attempts at silly name-calling. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #33

Wise. But I'm not above silly name-calling. paleotn Dec 2024 #34

While interesting, I wouldn't take one paper's results as universal gospel. paleotn Dec 2024 #26

Fine, you must be able to produce multiple studies showing that hand counting is much more accurate than machines MichMan Dec 2024 #39

And I've not seen enough proof that they're not. paleotn Dec 2024 #58

Not 100% hand recounts. Just DO the statistical sampling / risk limiting audits, and publish them. And... lostnfound Dec 2024 #116

Hand counts are less accurate then machine counts Kaleva Dec 2024 #52

Based on what? paleotn Dec 2024 #71

See post #11 Kaleva Dec 2024 #113

There is no way to verify the vote counts Farmer-Rick Dec 2024 #10

Counties are responsible for the audits.... reACTIONary Dec 2024 #12

Exactly why we need recounts. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #27

PN requires "recounts", or, at least.... reACTIONary Dec 2024 #83

Correct, we need an election system that fool-proof, hence recounts. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #84

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

Does Anyone Believe The GOP would NOT Cheat? Parzival72 Dec 2024 #19

Great. Now progressives are sharing MAGA type conspiracies. TomCADem Dec 2024 #21

Trying to scare people away from common sense election verification .... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #31

Doesn't PA Follow The Election Verification Process You Describe? TomCADem Dec 2024 #41

I'll try to be more clear... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #50

Your Post Is The Opposite of the OP, Which Was Asking Where is the Normal Risk Limiting Audit... TomCADem Dec 2024 #61

Yes, my post (that you are ar referring to) is not a direct response to the OP, correct. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #65

There are processes in place to verify the machine counts are accurate Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #47

Oh, "there are processes", nothing to see here. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #51

Congratulations - you're on the same side as Diamond & Sylk. You must be so proud. Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #63

Yeah, the personal attacks don't work. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #66

That wasn't a personal attack Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #79

Saying "you're on the same side as Diamond & Sylk." Think. Again. Dec 2024 #82

How else can one avoid painful emotions of an election loss, but with an irrational, evidence free conspiracy theory? Fiendish Thingy Dec 2024 #37

There have been audits. For example, "Hand-count election audit confirms Trump's victory in Georgia." 11/20/24. Silent Type Dec 2024 #29

Only 750,000? Think. Again. Dec 2024 #32

Trust the science. That's a huge sample size out of 5.3 Million voters. Silent Type Dec 2024 #35

That's only around a one in 7 chance of catching anything major anywhere. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #38

No - that's almost a 100% chance Abnredleg Dec 2024 #49

A 100% chance of catching machine miscounts would be accomplished only through... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #54

Here's the NC final audit, which includes hand recounts Abnredleg Dec 2024 #59

Gee, that's odd... Think. Again. Dec 2024 #62

Not if you read the report Abnredleg Dec 2024 #72

I agree, hand recounts are simple and should be done. Think. Again. Dec 2024 #76

Parsing the data in the NC hand recount audit results is interesting MichMan Dec 2024 #88

NC also does handcounts for their audit Abnredleg Dec 2024 #45

The level of denial here is mind blowing Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #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 2024 #98

Exactly. It's really very sad and disappointing. Wiz Imp Dec 2024 #109

Crazy. Callie1979 Dec 2024 #112

Recommended reading MichMan Dec 2024 #56

The first stage is the hardest to get past. egduj Dec 2024 #70

You nailed it. republianmushroom Dec 2024 #81

As per PA Senate... Polybius Dec 2024 #114

The standard has been set: Only republicans have the right to audits and recounts ecstatic Dec 2024 #117

Agree with everything Meowmee Dec 2024 #118