I didn't say "isn't a problem." I said "isn't a particularly big problem." In an electorate where millions of people vote every year, a few thousand votes in a non-swing state (using the example you mentioned), or even a few thousand fake votes in every state, is just not that high a rate of fraud.
There is rhetoric now as though most or all voting is subject to this kind of fraud, that the fraud is massive. It just isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or shouldn't be stopped, but threats must be dealt with proportionally to the degree that they are threatening. Your reaction strikes me as disproportional.
It's an UNKNOWN problem because we refuse to effectively detect it. It could be huge, it could be tiny, and we just don't know.
One side assumes the problem is huge, especially when they lose, and wants to take effective measures to prevent it. This side sees opposition to common-sense security as confirmation that fraud is actually occurring and is actively supported by the other side. The refusal to solidly secure things may or may not actually matter to the results, but it sure fuels suspicion. After all, why allow doubt about correctness unless you actually are doctoring the results?
We'd be better off if we could clearly demonstrate to the losing side that the loss is legit. Our low-security situation encourages the loser to claim that victory was stolen from them. That isn't good for keeping things peaceful.
> It's an UNKNOWN problem because we refuse to effectively detect it. It could be huge, it could be tiny, and we just don't know.
The sources I provide clearly demonstrate that it is not an unknown problem. I would agree that it is a problem whose scope is not fully understood, but when you have something that doesn't seem like a big problem to most people, it's hard to argue that you should spend lots of time investigating it/divert resources to it. Since people's perceptions of the system are changing now, maybe that'll change, too. It would be one of the few good things to come of this election cycle if so, provided the money spent and time invested are reasonable/proportionate.
> After all, why allow doubt about correctness unless you actually are doctoring the results?
Like another poster said in this thread: Because you don't know better. Because you don't care. Because you don't think it's necessary. Because you can't afford to. Because it's not what the law says to do. Malice should be the last, not the first assumption.
You use the term "refuse" a lot in your comment; I don't think this is a matter of "refusal," so much as it is a matter of "nothing/nobody is telling us to." The government doesn't do things unless the people force it to do things, or unless those things are absolutely and unquestionably in the best interest of the people in government (and even then, it doesn't always act until the law compels it to).
Generally, I just think this issue is less sinister and more typical of the American political system than people think it is these days.
First, your sources don't demonstrate a damn thing. CBS isn't a respected source of information in the tech community. As a rule, we'd prefer to see documentation and data so that we can arrive at our own conclusions. MSM provides neither, instead it cherry picks information to sell more ads. You can hardly trust anything so biased.
Second, you're statement "Malice should be the last, not the first assumption" is fundamentally incorrect. You shouldn't make any assumptions, you should look at the facts. While the intent may be benign, the effect is wide spread distrust, which is not and should be addressed accordingly.
> First, your sources don't demonstrate a damn thing. CBS isn't a respected source of information in the tech community. As a rule, we'd prefer to see documentation and data so that we can arrive at our own conclusions. MSM provides neither, instead it cherry picks information to sell more ads. You can hardly trust anything so biased.
I do not buy your narrative about media bias. I think it's ironic that you are standing on "we need hard facts and data" while providing none to support the idea that media is as biased as you say, only innuendo and an appeal to "the tech community."
You claim to be data driven, but when I provide data, you summarily throw it out, do not replace it with any of your own (or even an assertion that none exists), and make vague assertions about media bias instead.
> Second, you're statement "Malice should be the last, not the first assumption" is fundamentally incorrect. You shouldn't make any assumptions, you should look at the facts. While the intent may be benign, the effect is wide spread distrust, which is not and should be addressed accordingly.
I'll address this in concert with your reply above:
> It doesn't matter why something happens, only that it happens.
It does matter why, because if you want to fix it, you have to know the cause. If the problem is a problem of perception, that is fixed differently than if the problem is with the system itself. Data is meaningless without context.
I think distrust based on a small amount of fraud is a problem of perception, not a problem with the system. That is, it's the same as fearing you'll get serious side effects with a vaccine because a very small number of people do. In both cases, the risk/reward is out of whack, but you might worry anyway.
There is rhetoric now as though most or all voting is subject to this kind of fraud, that the fraud is massive. It just isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or shouldn't be stopped, but threats must be dealt with proportionally to the degree that they are threatening. Your reaction strikes me as disproportional.