Not a single vulnerability or shortcoming?
How would one know such a thing?
> You just can't run a scam with senior citizen volunteers in thousands of individual precincts.
Is this the only possible exploit? Is corruption of thousands of precincts even needed in a tight race?
> It would be impossible for fraud to happen on any regular basis and not coming to light.
How would one know such a thing?
Is it possible on an irregular basis?
Is it impossible that it does get noticed, but no serious followup?
Have there been no examples of whistleblowers who were not listened to in the history of the USA, election related or not?
> So the incidence of 0.00002% (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/26/15424270/v...) is somewhat informative.
How might we know that that impressive looking number is accurate? Does vox have an omniscient on staff?
I wonder if when the discussion is about a non-politicized topic (like standard, run of the mill security), might there be a difference in mindset when people are formulating their opinions. If the system in question was for anything other than voting, I suspect IT folks would be a little less accepting of evidence-lite assurances that a distributed, largely manually implemented (by non-experts) system of this scale and frequency of usage is 100% up to snuff. It seems rather unlikely that an inconsistent, somewhat cobbled together and non-expertly manned system of this scope is absolutely perfect. And yet, this seems to be not only the overwhelming narrative, but the fact passed down from the media - the same one that spent the last 4 years assuring us that Russia had hacked the prior election.