-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
Can someone explain why the voting process is not digital yet?
Most are not that easy to verify. But there arre systems that have paper backups. And voters can login to confirn there vote. But there are issues with security etc too
Yeah, I understand it would be a nightmare, but banks, tax office, passports etc seem to have done a pretty good job of it.
I wonder where they keep all the voting papers, must be a big fucken warehouse somewhere, and I wonder for how long they must keep them.
Plenty of fraud in those areas as well, and most of it gets caught in time. Voting is more time sensitive though
What stops the hacking of the results that are entered into the digital system, or is there a manual way of doing that? Are the papers scanned through a machine that adds it up?
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
Can someone explain why the voting process is not digital yet?
Most are not that easy to verify. But there arre systems that have paper backups. And voters can login to confirn there vote. But there are issues with security etc too
Yeah, I understand it would be a nightmare, but banks, tax office, passports etc seem to have done a pretty good job of it.
I wonder where they keep all the voting papers, must be a big fucken warehouse somewhere, and I wonder for how long they must keep them.
Plenty of fraud in those areas as well, and most of it gets caught in time. Voting is more time sensitive though
What stops the hacking of the results that are entered into the digital system, or is there a manual way of doing that? Are the papers scanned through a machine that adds it up?
The process is overseen at multiple steps, that's why the reports of people being kicked out is so serious
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
Can someone explain why the voting process is not digital yet?
Most are not that easy to verify. But there arre systems that have paper backups. And voters can login to confirn there vote. But there are issues with security etc too
Yeah, I understand it would be a nightmare, but banks, tax office, passports etc seem to have done a pretty good job of it.
I wonder where they keep all the voting papers, must be a big fucken warehouse somewhere, and I wonder for how long they must keep them.
Plenty of fraud in those areas as well, and most of it gets caught in time. Voting is more time sensitive though
What stops the hacking of the results that are entered into the digital system, or is there a manual way of doing that? Are the papers scanned through a machine that adds it up?
The process is overseen at multiple steps, that's why the reports of people being kicked out is so serious
I would hope so, hate to be the vote counter who gets to 1,234,567 and loses count
-
I also agree with my more left leaning friends on this forum that there is probably not fraud of any significant scale. The US system is very decentralized. It is difficult to cheat on a massive scale. If you vote twice, your original vote plus the fake ones are thrown out.
I also think the mail-ins should have been counted at first if possible. Even if legitimate, the late dumps after the election day vote at 4 am give the perception of suspicious minds (and trust me that is the majority of Republicans) that the Dems knew how much was needed. But to be clear, I don't believe there has been mass fraud unless proven.
Trump should NOT be going around saying that. They should simply get their lawyers and court litigations and quietly go about the checking and recount processes that may be needed.
If Trump loses, and it seems he almost certainly will, there will be a tiny fraction of militant right wing extremists wanting to, shall we say, do something, in revenge if the major perception is the Dems won by fraud. Trump has a responsibility to shut the fuck up about this. But the horse has bolted.
I am withdrawing my support for him for the time being unless it is proven it was a steal by the Dems because I think he is being irresponsible for the whole country and you can still do all the checking through litigation anyway.
-
For the sake of the country I hope as many of the remaining states to call go to Biden to shut down the squabbling over a couple of close ones.
(I say Biden because it is looking like he could sit bang on 270 after the initial counting which will open a desire on both sides to litigate results) -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
For the sake of the country I hope as many of the remaining states to call go to Biden to shut down the squabbling over a couple of close ones.
(I say Biden because it is looking like he could sit bang on 270 after the initial counting which will open a desire on both sides to litigate results)Whoever wins, litigation is a certainty at this point.
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
Can anyone explain why the US elections are often close to 50/50. It is amazing that a population of 300+ Million can be equally divided. Is it a concern that 160 Million people don't agree with the other 160 Million on a lot of topics?
It does seem convieniant, I'd suspect gerrymandering (from both sides) to try and chase their voters as populations relocate
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
For the sake of the country I hope as many of the remaining states to call go to Biden to shut down the squabbling over a couple of close ones.
(I say Biden because it is looking like he could sit bang on 270 after the initial counting which will open a desire on both sides to litigate results)Whoever wins, litigation is a certainty at this point.
Probably, as we know that America loves their lawyers, however the squabbling will get dampened somewhat if the 68? remaining EC votes give Biden an advantage of about 50. That means flipping 3 states minimum via the courts.
Hey, it is their duty to question things if they have grounds. I don't think that right should be taken away. I just hope that spurious fishing expeditions don't become the standard.
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
Can someone explain why the voting process is not digital yet?
Most are not that easy to verify. But there arre systems that have paper backups. And voters can login to confirn there vote. But there are issues with security etc too
Yeah, I understand it would be a nightmare, but banks, tax office, passports etc seem to have done a pretty good job of it.
I wonder where they keep all the voting papers, must be a big fucken warehouse somewhere, and I wonder for how long they must keep them.
Plenty of fraud in those areas as well, and most of it gets caught in time. Voting is more time sensitive though
What stops the hacking of the results that are entered into the digital system, or is there a manual way of doing that? Are the papers scanned through a machine that adds it up?
The process is overseen at multiple steps, that's why the reports of people being kicked out is so serious
I would hope so, hate to be the vote counter who gets to 1,234,567 and loses count
That's a lot of fingers and toes.
-
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
because I think he is being irresponsible for the whole country
Its the opposite. If the republicians have evidence of fraud he needs to voice this straight away. I would expect the democrats to do likewise
What is his evidence?
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
because I think he is being irresponsible for the whole country
Its the opposite. If the republicians have evidence of fraud he needs to voice this straight away. I would expect the democrats to do likewise
What is his evidence?
One (and its serious) is that the checkers weren't allowed to do their job
-
I’d be amazed if there hasn’t been fraud of some type. But whether it is coordinated or material enough to invalidate the result isn’t clear. I also don’t know whether there’s much merit in the assumption that the Democrats are more likely to cheat than the Republicans. There are some shifty people on both sides.
You have to wonder what would have happened if the Dems had fielded an inspiring candidate. And also whether the situation would be the same if Trump had taken some advice and tried to reach out to some more moderate swing voters.
-
@Winger why does he need to announce it publicly...why not just lodge the legal action...like a profressional
side bar, some of these are genuinely funny
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
because I think he is being irresponsible for the whole country
Its the opposite. If the republicians have evidence of fraud he needs to voice this straight away. I would expect the democrats to do likewise
What is his evidence?
Quite obviously it is impossible for him to lose. That's all the evidence required unless you can point to another reason.
I do agree with @winger in that there is an obligation to fix something wrong but to dive in on a whim when you were quite happy up until the point of losing isn't enough to claim as 'evidence'
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Winger why does he need to announce it publicly...why not just lodge the legal action...like a profressional
side bar, some of these are genuinely funny
To keep the people informed. They have a right to know.
US Politics