Hacker News Reader

Comment by bikamonki | Hacker News Reader

A successful challenge to the results of an election will most likely end up in a civil war. In other words, whoever is officially announced as winner will remain so, even if proof of fraud is found; accepting fraud would question the capabilities/transparency/independene of the electoral authorities. This situation is aggravated by electronic voting, not because of the possibilities of hacking the system, but because the results come to damn fast: victims of fraud do not have a chance to react. While they are barely starting the legal paper work to ask for a recount, the winner is already giving his/her triumphant speech!

View on HN

Just this year the presidential elections in Austria were repeated because of formal mistakes during counting of the ballots - proven fraud wasn't even the reason. When I was there recently it looked nothing like a war zone.

Civil war? Last time America had a civil war was 150 years ago, and not due to election fraud. Who exactly in today's America do you see potentially engaging themselves in civil war? Most young people - those that would usually be recruited as soldiers - are busy studying, working (debt off). There is no generation of idle, dead poor or undereducated youngsters to pick soldiers from. Many of the young people are really out of shape and have lived comfortable indoor lives. Most importantly they have better options than to fight a war. In what scenario would more than a few thousand crazy people take to arms because, for example Trump was caught in election fraud and impeached? I just cannot imagine that happening.

why are you talking about America ? Parent did not. You also seem to confuse America with USA.

America is the USA. Mexico is Mexico, the United States of Mexico to be exact. If you're thinking of the continent North America and South America, that's a different thing. Besides, America is a common name for the USA. You don't call Peruvians "Americans." But you do call the United States nationality "American."

North America isn't "the north part of America" -- the continent is named "North America."

So the nationality is American but citizens of the continent are North American or South American respectively.

The people's of North and South Americans aren't collectively known as "Americans." In French americain refers to "one who is from the United States." It's the same in multiple languages. Even Spanish refers to people from the US as americanos.

This is a subtle thing and in the grand scheme really makes no difference unless someone feels so strongly about it that they want to change multiple languages.

The American Embassy is not referred to anywhere (in English) as The United States Embassy --

edit: actually "US Embassy" is common, sorry for the misstatement. However American Embassy is very commonly used by diplomatic personnel and in general conversation. --

I don't understand why a certain subset of people, generally from South and Central America have such an obsession with this. Canadians never refer to themselves as Americans. In fact, many would resent such a thing.

Basically, USA is a country without name. Every federalist country from America is an united states of America. South America, Central America and North America are subcontinents. The continent is called America.

> The continent is called America.

Never, not once in writing or in speaking heard it referenced this way. American by itself references the USA, North or South America references the regions.

From en.Wikipedia: "North America is a continent entirely within the Northern Hemisphere and almost all within the Western Hemisphere. It can also be considered a northern subcontinent of the Americas." In most countries (including Brazil), we are taught that America is a single continent and North, Central and South Americas are subcontinents (classical view).[1] Now I see that people from USA are taught that North America is a single continent, and the reason seems obvious now. https://www.quora.com/Are-people-taught-that-the-Americas-No...

The Americas is the name of the entire continent. For example, you cannot say "I'm going to America" to mean you're going to north or South America but you can say "I'm going to the Americas". This is similar to how you can say "I'm going to the Philippines" but you cannot say "I'm going to phillipines"

it seems to me that north and south america (setting aside central for a moment) are as much of "a whole continent" as what you might call "afro-eurasia".

we're talking entirely different tectonic plates - plates that don't even touch. plates that will eventually shift such that you there will be no possible land travel, and a widening gulf (admittedly in the distant future). not to mention different cultures, hemispheres, etc.

You have quite a cynical view. In Switzerland, people usually elect a group of people at the same time to a cantonal executive (i.e. a group of ministers from different parties who have too choose the president among themselves). If one of them refuses to step down in case of a clear fraud, the others will force him/her to do so because it is in their interest of being seen as legimately elected. Also, it is unlikely that they conspire as they stem from different parties. Even the national government consists of ministers from four different parties.

2012 a vote about taxing cars has been repeated in the Canton of Bern, because there was an official complaint which couldn't be resolved because some communes already discarded the ballots making a recounting impossible.

https://www.sta.be.ch/sta/de/index/wahlen-abstimmungen/wahle... (German)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com