SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian has a story detailing the firing of Christopher Krebs, who served as the director of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa)
President Trump made the announcement on Twitter on Tuesday, saying Krebs "has been terminated" and that his recent statement defending the security of the election was "highly inaccurate".
CISA last week released a statement refuting claims of widespread voter fraud. "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history," the statement read. "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."
Krebs, is a former Microsoft executive, and was appointed by President Trump after allegations of Russian interference with the 2016 election.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2020, @06:14PM (9 children)
uhm ... telling our representatives that we won't vote for them if they don't fix the voting system that got them elected. Ironic. When the thing that needs fixing is voting how can we use voting to get it fixed?
What we need is an end to End-to-end auditable voting system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_systems [wikipedia.org]
The burden is not on me to prove that there was fraud. The burden is on the system to prove there wasn't. They hold this burden because I pay taxes.
Of course legislature is never going to get such a system passed, the current system is what got them in power. It needs to be passed through a ballot initiative. It needs to be voted on. We need to vote for a better voting system - we need to vote to fix voting. Again, the irony.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 19 2020, @06:25PM (4 children)
What's even more telling is that's exactly how we did it in every single Blue state except Jersey.
It almost seems like on particular party has no interest in fixing these systems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2020, @11:26PM (3 children)
Wait, what state has an End-to-end auditable voting system. I consider anything less to be broken. If you really have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @02:42AM (2 children)
Once a vote can be linked to a specific voter, and proved to be so after the vote, you open up the voter to being bribed or intimidated into voting a certain way. That's why the US switched to secret ballot in the first place.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @04:20AM (1 child)
So then you agree that we should do away with mail in ballots since mail in ballots allow me to simply show my ballot to someone else before submitting, right?
You can't have it both ways. Either vote buying is an issue and we should do away with mail in ballots. Or it's not an issue and we should create a proof based voting system.
I am entitled to proof based voting system. I am entitled to it because I pay taxes. A government that doesn't provide for one is a fraud.
and your statement isn't really true regardless. The above response is assuming it is true which it's not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2020, @11:15PM
Let me jump in here. When buying a vote. How much would I have to pay for someone to bother voting my way and how do I find one who would not snitch? Those are issues when trying to buy votes. The price for one single vote is likely very high and to make a dent one would need to buy a lot and not get snitched on at the same time. In addition a vote seller could take offers from many vote buyers and send a fake photo to everyone one of them, submitting your own vote for real and cash in. If we'ree going to talk about buying votes, let's look at the logistic nightmare and risks of doing so.
Where I live the vote counts in the local places are so low that we all know who gave that one vote who sticks out.. it's usually me.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday November 20 2020, @07:02AM (3 children)
How does anyone prove a negative? If you want to make claims then the burden of proof is definitely on you to provide evidence that supports those claims. You do have a legal system where you live, don't you?
I claim that you do not understand - and I offer your previous statements to support this claim. That's how it normally works. And time and time again in this election we find that despite all of the claims there is no evidence.
But no matter - the rest of the world has stocked up on popcorn and is waiting for the civil unrest to really kick off. You people need to get your act together and begin cooperating to sort out the mess you are now finding yourself in - no longer is the USA viewed as the paragon of democracy and able to provide leadership to the world. Military might can only get you so far - any further and you just become the bully.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @09:29AM (2 children)
Claiming that there is no fraud is a positive. You claim that there was no fraud. Prove it. Give me an end-to-end auditable voting system. Give me a proof based voting system. Not the faith based on we currently have.
If I apply for a job an employer may want positive proof that I am not a criminal. So they do a background check.
If I apply for a credit card the CC company may want positive proof that I have good credit. Or a mortgage lender may want positive proof that I have a good credit score or they may want positive proof of my income. I have to provide for it.
Landlords may want positive proof of a potential tenant's history.
I'm asking for positive proof. An end-to-end auditable voting system can provide for it. I am entitled to positive proof. I explained why. Deliver.
What we currently have is a faith based system that provides zero proof. I want a proof based system. Systems that provide proof are possible. Deliver. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @09:45AM (1 child)
Imagine if I tried to take a tax deduction for an expense and I didn't keep the receipt and the IRS asked for receipts and I didn't provide for one and said prove that I didn't buy this item?
The IRS wants to see the receipt on my end and they want to see the receipt on the end of the entity I bought the item from.
When I work I submit my taxes to the government. The government also collects information about my taxes from my employer. They match the two. They audit what I tell them.
Likewise when I submit my state taxes I also have to submit to the state information about my federal income. The federal government also submits this information to the state and the state audits the two and compares.
The argument that the government shouldn't be able to audit me because that would be requiring them to prove a negative doesn't hold up.
The problem with our current voting system is that it's not auditable. It's faith based. This isn't rocket science. Accountants understand this. They don't blindly trust us. Tax collectors (ie: the IRS) understand this. They understand what auditable means. Why can't you? Are you just being dense and stupid. Again, this isn't that difficult. I want an auditable system. Why is that so hard to understand? Why should I just blindly trust the system? I shouldn't. I don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @09:51AM
and when I say it needs to be auditable I mean that it needs to be auditable by ME. Not just by some stranger on T.V. or some useless 'journalist'. But by everyone which includes me.
Just in case someone tried to come up with some smart aleck response.