News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. border surveillance towers have always been broken by Terr_ on Tuesday October 22, 2024 @07:02PM (#41919651)
> I offered that as an example showing that the problem exists and can be detected.

Yet pointing to a possibility of 0.0004% bad votes in an election is not a meaningful example unless you want to sneakily redefine "the problem" away from "significant numbers of bad-votes may affect results" to a pointless bland "a nonzero number of bad-votes exist." [1]

If cases are as widespread as those politicians claim, it should much much easier to find big evidence to match the claims.

> federal courts oversee them, and federal courts have blocked state-level investigations. For example

That "example" is nonsense.

1. It has nothing to do with non-citizens (or felons) registering to vote or casting ballots. The thing Texas "can't investigate" is an entirely separate crime the state recently added to their books, involving a different set of people doing different things.

2. The reason they're being blocked from prosecution is because they passed a shitty law with a novel and maybe-unconstitutional crime, not because the state doesn't manage and audit its own voter-rolls and election systems and enforce existing criminal statues.

____________

[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ednc/pr/nineteen-foreign-nation...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

Re:U.S. border surveillance towers have always been broken by leereeves on Wednesday October 23, 2024 @01:08AM (#41921999)
> not because the state doesn't manage and audit its own voter-rolls and election systems

It only does so under federal regulation and supervision, as proven by the fact that federal courts recently blocked three states from removing non-citizens from their voter rolls.

Regarding the example: once again you've raised irrelevant objections to an example that proves the federal government manages federal elections and blocks investigations into voter fraud. Your objection? That investigation was about a different kind of fraud.

Regarding your first point: once again you've demanded proof be provided before an investigation. Now that's "an excuse for inaction"!

Demanding a national investigation is certainly not "an excuse for inaction" as you claimed; it is in fact a call for action.