seattle.politics

"dangerman" < @ > wrote in message
news:06adnecJdozWxSDbnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@ ...
> Clave wrote:
>> "dangerman" < @ > wrote in message
>> news:CbKdnWxx-e-RyyDbnZ2dnUVZ8v2vnZ2d@ ...
>>> Clave wrote:
>>>> "dangerman" < @ > wrote in message
>>>> news:9OCdnY6cs8nJiyDbnZ2dnUVZ8qLinZ2d@ ...
>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>>> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>> There have been studies that show that exit polls reveal just such
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> problem, because the exit polls are accurate in one county and way
>>>>>>>> off
>>>>>>>> in the next one over, and the difference is that they're way off in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> county that uses e-voting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which, again, isn't evidence of cheating, but it's enough to cast
>>>>>>>> serious doubt on e-voting.
>>>>>>> How does it cast doubt on e-voting?
>>>>>> In the way that would make sense to anyone with half a brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So it doesn't cast doubt on e-voting then.
>>>> Are you taking argumentation lessons from Lobby or what?
>>> Paul, Actually. But my point, which I suppose you missed, is that there
>>> is that there is doubt about the whole concept of e-voting, which has
>>> always been there. This instance of badly designed e-voting machines
>>> being used in an election that apparently ended counter to the election
>>> exit polls didn't cast that doubt there. It's the same doubt that was
>>> always there.
>>>
>>> Here is another question, though. If you were an evil CEO who wanted to
>>> manipulate elections with voting machines made by your company, and do
>>> it without detection, how would you do it?
>>
>> Disguise it as incompetence so the rubes think it's just bad engineering.
>
> Really?

Is that *really* all you could think of to say?

Sufficiently-advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

Jim