Ex-CIA Whistleblower: "The NSA Audited the 2024 Election, Kamala Harris Won" | Hacker News Reader

Ex-CIA Whistleblower: "The NSA Audited the 2024 Election, Kamala Harris Won"

thiswillhold.substack.com

11 pointsakudha7 comments

This entire article focuses on “hashes” but doesn’t really offer any hard evidence that the election was won by Harris, just vague allegation that the software could be better.

But if we are demanding election security then why not do so fully? Why allow voting without ID and via mail in ballots that anyone could fill out? Why allow census numbers inflated by illegal immigrants to affect congressional seats and the electoral college?

All that said, if there are such investigations or reports from the CIA or FBI, I support them being released and discussed in the open.

> We have the authority and the obligation to remove this entire unelected, illegitimate regime.

I feel like the article is basically advocating for insurrection. I guess extremists on both sides do share similar ideas.

Did we read the same article?

There is an ongoing court case which I linked above.

Is the takeaway that electronic voting machines are corrupt and/or susceptible to manipulation? Why is there such strong backlash against paper ballots?

Yes. It goes into the history and also how paper ballots were sabotaged.

I’m surprised any code can be changed without an audit.

Voting machines do cause problems, see 2000 presidential election. Best practice appears to be along the lines that CO, OR and WA do, mail human marked paper ballots to every voter, allow in person voting. The paper ballots are both human and machine readable. After a count, human or machine, perform a risk limiting audit.

There's a good paper, "A gentle introduction to risk limiting audits", Mark Lindemann and Philip B. Stark, on the topic.

This kind of voting increases participation, decreases costs, a win-win. Anybody advocating for in person, same day voting, or using voting machines has not worked through the issues, or wants to suppress voting.

In Germany there was basically 20 years of "digital is the future, so voting has also to be digital" in media, politics etc. However, because Germany is a digital laggard, it just never happened, which is why the waiting time was long enough for the opinion to change enough that nowadays digital voting is not even in discussion.

See, sometimes waiting solves problems. So, TL;DR America was too quick with digital voting, which is why it became entrenched. Should've been laggards like Germany.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com