heybruce

How will an open system provide evidence without revealing how individuals vote? How? Meaningless. Verifying there is a record of who you voted for will not verify your vote was counted properly, but it will mean there is a record of how everyone voted. This record would supposedly be completely unhackable, but it won't be. The only way an "open" system would prevent the kind of fraud you seem concerned about would be if every vote for every candidate could be traced to the people who cast those votes, and the count could be independently verified. However this would not only open the doors to coercion of voters (which would happen), it would also make possible and inevitable the creation corrupt political machines in which those who are elected would reward those who voted for them and punish those who didn't. Think Tammany Hall on steroids and nationwide. All this because some people believe, without evidence, that the current system isn't trustworthy. Sorry, but I'll stick with a proven system in which there is no evidence of fraud over a backwards leap into an age of rampant corruption.

And how would you design a system in which a record is kept of who the anonymous voter voted for that could only be checked by this anonymous voter?

"Can you show me the evidence it was not rigged?" Can you show me evidence the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? Proving a non-existence is impossible. "Start with my single vote please. Can i see it. Did it get counted and correctly?" In absence of evidence to the contrary, you may safely assume it was counted correctly.

In a system in which half the voters choose to make their vote known and half choose to vote anonymously, how will you verify the votes of those who choose to vote anonymously? If you can't verify these votes, how do you have a system any different from now? Is that easier to understand? Even if 100% of votes have to be public, how do you prevent coercion before and during the vote and coercion of those doing the count? What makes you think this open system is cheat-proof?

I trust that every time I put ten gallons of gas in my truck I'm getting something close to ten gallons. I trust that any business that was cheating would be caught and pay a heavy penalty. In a similar manner I trust that any attempt at widespread cheating on a scale that would change a national election outcome would be found out and the penalties would be severe. All attempts to show such widespread cheating have failed. So I trust the election results are legitimate. Abandoning anonymous voting would not make cheating impossible. It would change the way cheating would have to be done, but it would still be possible. Every type of voting requires some element of trust. It would be very difficult to cheat with electronic counting of votes from a well designed, independently verified system, but it's probably possible (don't ask me how, I haven't a clue). Cheating with hand counting would also be possible, and would delay the election results by days, or much longer if there are challenges and recounts. Such delays would leave ample opportunity to spread rumors/conspiracy theories about cheating. No system is perfect. However in absence of credible evidence that our current system is flawed, I prefer to stick with it.

So bignok thinks ignorance is bliss. I'm not surprised.

That is why anonymous voting is popular. People can vote in a manner that may upset their employer, their union, their church, their neighbors, their family, etc. without fear.

Hardly. You are assuming that currently anonymous votes can be changed without anyone knowing, but if some people choose to make their votes public knowledge the remaining anonymous votes could not be changed without anyone knowing. Can you see the fallacy in that assumption?

If there were a move to make anonymous voting optional, the default choice should be anonymous. If such an option were available, how would you prevent conspiracy theorists like Trump and yourself from claiming that all the anonymous votes were changed?

In other words, you want to eliminate anonymous voting. Bad idea.

Bull. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/?ref=theflstandard.com#datatracker-home

I fumble-fingered my original post. My post was a reply to EVENKEEL.

As I understand it, the only reason Trump didn't lose everything in the 1980's is that banks had stupidly loaned him so much money they couldn't afford to let him fail. I also understand some bankers were doing a lot of cocaine in the '80's. These two things might be related.

You think an honest, informed and properly qualified statement about the credibility of a laptop with an uncertain provenance is election interference? What do you think about storming the Capitol to prevent the certification of a legitimate election?

"his political opponents" are doing it to him with evidence and grand juries. I don't think that's what Trump has in mind.

It seems you hope Trump is elected and will be more deranged than ever.

Do you need to have it explained again? That stuff about having average the rate or transmission per person driven below one by widespread use of a vaccine that lowers to risk of infection but doesn't completely eliminates it? Just read this: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-naught-reproduction-number

Pay attention MAGA people; Trump is explaining how to really politicize the justice system.

Is there no one in your life who is vulnerable? Or do you simply not care if you catch Covid and pass it on to them? I'm not worried for myself about catching Covid, but I have an 88 year old mother (in good health for her age, but still...) that I don't want to risk catching Covid from me or anyone else.

"How is "we're going to use your tax money to fund a vaccine that you may not want" not a mandate?" Does that mean the promise of a wall is also a mandate? How about the "paid for by Mexico" part? As placeholder pointed out, you really need to look up the definition of mandate.

You have learned from Trump: Rant, but through in a weak qualifier.

If you read the entire article it does not state that Hunter Biden did anything. The closest thing to maybe something done by Hunter is a report of second hand info that Hunter called "DC". Also, the fact that the emails are from a laptop that was in unknown hands for an extended period of time raises suspicions. Shokin now claims he was fired for investigating Burisma. I wonder why it took so long for him to make the claim. Edit: Here are the reasons why Shokin was fired. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/shokin-s-revenge-ukraine-s-odious-prosecutor-general-fires-honest-deputy-before-parliament-sacks-him/

And when they aren't it's fraud, which is a crime.

"Anti democracy haters are naturally not very credible sources." Correct. Democracy haters such as Trump and all those who attempted to overturn 2020 election are not credible sources." "I prefer level headed facts backed up by actual evidence. " Coming from you that is rich. We're still waiting for those facts that support your claim that President Biden is a criminal.

"He added that it’s “tentatively” recommended “that everybody get it,” once the shots are ready." You understand that is not a mandate, right?