Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with—it will eventually get your main account banned as well.

In case anyone's worried about it, yes, we ban accounts for this regardless of which ideology they're flaming for. It's an existential issue for HN; we'd rather not burn to a crisp, regardless of the color of the flames.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ramsland lists "Fenton" without specifying Fenton City or Fenton Township. But the turnout Ramsland lists for Fenton does not match the turnout in either jurisdiction.

The actual turnout statistics reveal the inaccuracy of Ramsland’s numbers. His figure for North Muskegon is off by a factor of 10: The actual number is 78.11%, not 781.91%. For Zeeland Charter Township, he inflated the turnout nearly sixfold. For Grout Township and the City of Muskegon, his number is more than triple the correct number.

First paragraph: simply made up by Ramsland, by basically treating all the times a ballot was entered incorrectly (such as upside down) as a vote requiring adjudication.

Second paragraph: False. The person in charge of updating the system...was a Republican. Also, the voting machines were in compliance with federal voting system standards. The machine that was not updated prior to the election was the computer that the voting machines connected to, which was updated after the election during vote tabulation. (A hand recount of the paper receipts printed on Election Day confirmed the post-update count.)

Third paragraph: Also fiction, and quite literally contradicts your first paragraph. (They can't both possibly be true; either the adjudication logs were there and there were a lot of adjudicated votes, or they weren't, and the first paragraph is made up.) Also, the machines were audited after the election...by Republicans.

On a further note, neither NASA or MIT has any record of Ramsland or any of his companies, doing any work for them as he claims (and which forms the basis of his supposed technical expertise).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Also read this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.

Stop making throwaway sock puppet accounts every time your lies are rightfully downvoted and your posting rights restricted. Your lies aren't "sensitive information".

We've ALL heard the tired old conspiracy theories you're parroting before, and we've ALL seen them thoroughly debunked already. You're the only one who seems surprised you were duped.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/audit-in-michigan-county-r...

1. Voters vote by marking ovals with a marker pen on paper ballots.

3. The paper ballots can be counted by the optical scan machines that are already widely used in many places.

4. The paper ballots can be hand counted.

5. All the ballots can be published, allowing anyone to independently verify the counts.

6. An individual voter if they choose to can make a note of short alphanumeric code that is revealed when they vote for a candidate, and using that note later can verify that their vote was included in the total and went to the correct candidate.

7. An individual voter cannot prove to a third party that they voted for a particular candidate.

Here is a paper on such a system: https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/502.pdf

Wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity

Here is a paper showing how it satisfies item #7: https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/502

Almost all of the cryptographic mojo takes place when the ballots are printed, so no modifications are required to the scanners. You do have to use a special marker to mark the ballots.

Doing the cryptographic verification of all the votes would almost certainly be done by software, but as all the ballots are published and the system is completely open and documented, independent parties can easily do their own counts. The software is also fairly simple.

It's funny how things change. Just five years ago, HN was awash in people shouting that paper ballots are not secure and everyone should switch to electronic. Now the conventional wisdom is the opposite. Much like the way that in the 90's, keeping a password on a Post-It note was considered not secure, and now it's the safest thing going.

Instead, time after time, we get shady software from shady people with disturbing political connections (I’m not talking the dominion thing either — this seems true for all voting software). The idea that crooked politicians hire crooked companies to wrire crooked software shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Subscribing to this kind of "digital bad" dogma is lazy because you don't have to think for yourself.

But when people think elevator software is broken, they don't take the elevator. When (enough) people think voting software is broken, they topple governments and start civil wars.

And some people who disagree with you are still thinking for themselves. That "not thinking for yourself" is lazy argument.

But why would they be distrustful unless non-sequitur arguments are presented as the holy grail of truth? "Bro trust me, software engineers and our entire profession are total hacks". Thanks XKCD, very cool.

Yet you fly in airplanes and drive in cars that are digitally controlled. You trust the unsecured web with your banking details because a green padlock appears in your browser. The federal reserve and their network banks don't mail each other IOU's "to be secure" so why should that be the MO for accounting public consensus? I'd call it tired reasoning but it's not even reasoning, it's just some hand-wavy appeal to.. p a p e r