bloodfart @ bloodfart @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

1,371

Joined

2 yr. ago

It’s turned up.

Turn it down.

If you can’t build trust with a group what do you think is the way forward?

Yeah I didn’t say that I think it’s a mistake, I said I think it’s not a good idea for the democrats to use the convictions as a lane of attack.

I even said that trump probably systemically doesn’t file paperwork he’s supposed to and that it’s common for people to do that.

Okay, you and the Georgia board of elections disagree about the 2020 result.

What is the right way to go about building trust in the election process in that circumstance?

Is it to just tell the people who think there was manipulation to sit down and shut up or is it to go ahead and prepare for the inevitable accusations of manipulation?

What im trying to make clear here is that I think that the board of elections is making the right call, even if they don’t think hand counts are inherently better like I do, and even if they’re nefariouslly planning to drum up unfounded accusations of manipulation, because they’re making the call that has the most opportunity to build trust in the election process back up.

How should it be?

I honestly think it’s more likely that like almost every business, nonprofit and other organization I’ve had any experience with, trump doesn’t have a “proactive” filing regimen.

An old ass accountant I used to work with explained why it’s like this: why give them something to beat you over the head with? Just know the requirements, know the punishment and give the least amount of information you possibly can until compelled.

Of course, larger, richer groups are more able to take that strategy, but that’s a systemic problem.

But it doesn’t matter for the purposes of the crimes in question if it was an “innocent” mistake or purposeful omission.

I think it’s pretty disingenuous for the democrat message to be an attack on trump for simply having been convicted because democrats are at the same time trying to catch lefty and otherwise third party voters who see that criminal justice system as having serious fundamental flaws.

I think getting bogged down in the details of trumps convictions isn’t helpful to the democrats either because explaining them to people makes trump relatable. Nothing he actually did with money was a crime. It was not filing paperwork that was the crime.

The whole thing becomes more akin to having to pay a ticket for a taillight you got fixed because you didn’t bring the receipts to court.

“Your honor, the taillight in question is new, intact and installed on my car”

“Your car isn’t in my courtroom”

“It’s in the parking lot 80 feet to the west of your courtroom. I have a picture of it right here.”

“I will only admit a receipt”

Tbh the conviction rhetoric only appeals to reactionary right wing voters who want to punish people with records or makes him incredibly relatable to normal people.

If anything it seems like a hedge to move towards the right.

It’s really funny seeing ppl make the surprised pikachu face about fetterman.

I don’t agree with his reasoning, but I do agree with his assessment that it’s a mistake to push the felon message so hard with trump.

If simply being convicted of a crime makes you a person not worthy of serious consideration in the political sphere, is that implicit endorsement of the legal system? Seems pretty conservative if you ask me.

Even if a person was to believe that our legal system is infallible and that there’s nothing wrong with weaponizing its decisions against one’s enemies, doesn’t bringing up the felony convictions beg the question of what they’re for? That hasn’t been a powerful message for democrats.

I have no love for trump, democrats seem to be messing up here though.

Again, I don’t see anyone saying that they’re planning to lie in order to claim fraud.

I’m also not entirely convinced that a hand count can be manipulated as easily as you’re suggesting based on the election work I’ve been involved in.

This honestly seems like one of those times that a stopped clock is right, a person truly believes there is gonna be fraud or recognizes that there are gonna be claims of it and pushes to prepare for the worst.

Let me flip the script on you:

Georgia was the focus of a lot of claims of election fraud last time around. If your goal was to build trust in the election process there, wouldn’t you want to go ahead and be prepared for the worst, a hand count?

I just saw your second diagram. If all you’re worried about is serveo being able to see, you could do all your http server stuff with https and require ECH on the client side and you’d be okay?

I’m not 100% that would work perfectly, especially if DNS is involved, but I don’t think serveo messes with DNS.

It also provides a level of transparency to refute those claims if there is no fraud.

In the future there will be more contested elections. If you want to stop hearing people claim voter fraud then we need to start practicing clear and open processes now instead of pushing those people to the sideline.

Most elected officials don’t take office until January. The window between the election and Those people being seated is two months and some weeks no matter what. If the count is done in two hours, two days or two weeks, there’s still two months and some weeks to drum up a fraud case.

They would have had to recount the whole state of Florida to get the correct result (gore wins), not the counties they were recounting, so bush v gore was decided correctly. Maybe not for the right reasons, but it reflected reality.

What I was referencing was that it’s pretty silly to think that the plan would be to herd the house into choosing the president when it’s easier to influence five or six judges and it worked before.

I don’t know what people think or plan.

I’m interested to see if people have been discussing how to use the election process to disrupt the election itself though.

I also don’t think it’s a big deal if a hand count takes longer. Like I said before, provisional ballots aren’t finalized for weeks after the election so what’s the big deal?

The short answer is: you can’t do this.

The long answer is: you need to go through the process of getting a server you own and have provisioned installed at some colocation/datacenter place. It will be expensive to buy the server, expensive to buy rack space, and you will need to go through significant background and security checks in order to be allowed by the company to do this.

If that sounds terrible, and it is, you can use an overlay network like nebula. It still requires that you have a “server” somewhere, but you can use a $10/yr vps to host that. Your “server” is, in nebula’s terminology, the “lighthouse” node. All it does is punch through nats so people who connect to your overlay vpn are able to see each other.

Your vps provider can still see your data on the lighthouse though, so don’t keep your root certificate on it and use unique credentials. Traffic doesn’t flow through the lighthouse, so you don’t need to worry about snooping, but it’s possible for the vps provider to add themselves to the trusted certificate and get on your vpn. So you have to have good security on your internal network.

Where are you seeing someone saying that?

I know I sound like a broken record, but I don’t buy that.

Last time a recount was ended and decided by a governmental body other than the election boards it was bush v gore and the Supreme Court. Back then there was a judicial branch less accommodating to the republicans. If the goal was to appoint the winner that would be the way to go. Theres precedent and it’s much easier to wrangle seven judges than it is to get the whole house in line.

Why would it matter if the count is slow? Provisional ballots aren’t done for weeks after the election. In a close race it would be a long time till we’d know for sure anyway.

Why do you think only the republican counter will raise objections? That hasn’t been my experience…

When local boards refuse to certify an election the first step is a recount, not to kick it up the chain.

If it is as chaotic and as big a deal as you’re saying, wouldn’t the spotlight be on the count/recount in a way that would make it hard to manipulate?

I’m not gonna dox myself, but my objections to these lines of reasoning stem not just from having read extensively about the way 2000 was handled but also from my own experience working an election.

I interact with a decent amount of dsa people too. In conversation we tend to disagree about some things but in the moment of a conflict they’re right there. I think the police would get a lot farther with them over a cup of coffee than with the plastic shields lol.

I think the party discipline is important in a moment of movement building because it keeps party candidates honest. It makes sense why dsa doesn’t and kinda can’t have it, but for me it’s something important.

You’re right that a pliable nlrb was important in getting some of the victories lately. I guess I have a pretty pessimistic view of the position organized labor is in now considering it’s experiencing a resurgence and we still have declining union density over that same time frame.

From my perspective an nlrb that will play nice is the least of our worries.

I don’t buy that.

I know personally that election worker pay is dogshit. It’s way too cheap to do an election. Even if it weren’t, even if a person didn’t have my mistrust of machine voting, wouldn’t recognizing that the vote will likely be contested mean that going ahead and preparing to do a hand count anyway be the right choice?

I mean, we’re headed for hand counts in the future anyway because no one trusts the elections. Even if someone wasn’t a proponent of hand counts like me, isn’t it good to be ready?

What chaos that you talked about is gonna be brought on by this hand count? I can’t help but think that the whole election is chaotic…

Usually a hand count has several people count the ballot and if they disagree, an official gets called over to sort it out.

It’s why forcing a recount is not a good strategy unless you actually think you can win on it or have control of the source of ballots.

There’s too many people involved and the scale is too granular to make it possible to fake shit in a hand count without it being obvious.

If hand counting is so error prone then why do we hand count during recounts and as you said during spot checks?

I don’t buy it.

Perhaps support for hand counting is partly coming from people hoping it will cause chaos. I don’t think it will based on my own limited experience in elections and weather it will or won’t, even the stopped clock of people who want to prevent and slow down the count tells the right time twice a day.

Why is it such a big deal to know the next day who the winner is? They don’t take office until the next calendar year.

That certainly would have been earlier. To be honest I think even if a person doesn’t have my own “hand counting is the best choice” views, planning on doing hand count in an election that was the subject of manipulation allegations two presidential elections in a row and is smart.

I mean, realistically even if you believe the machine count is fine, you’re most likely going to have to do an auditable hand recount anyway.

Showing that good democrat stick-to-it-iveness that we all know and love.

I’m voting psl in November and so can you.