Hacker News Reader

Comment by drdaeman | Hacker News Reader

No party in the US seem to fight for a secure (end-to-end auditable) voting process. I've yet to hear any politician talk about anything like that, a process where no voter has to trust the system and can be still confident (assuming they understand the underlying math) their vote was counted and counted correctly.

It is true that every scheme out there (that I've read about) has some flaws. But I'd rather have NSA spending their budgets and talent working on this kind of stuff, than spying on citizens or whatever they do.

The current discourse is all about identification during registration vs when voting. Which is meaningful but feels like avoiding the actual issue, as it is still not really secure either way.

View on HN

The reason is nobody trusts a single party to implement that honestly.

Last time I checked, Party X only cared about Party Y’s voters who are voting illegally. They’re perfectly fine with their voters doing it.

Technology is a tool against corruption not a cure for it.

Sure, but that's the point of an end-to-end auditable system so you don't have to trust whoever implements it. The whole idea is that no crooks can make math work any differently than it does.

What Democratic policies are geared towards disenfranchising Republican voters? I don't believe there are any. Unlike Republican-enacted policies, which have been found in court to have discriminatory intent.

I don’t have a say here… but wouldn’t allowing potentially illegal votes be exactly disenfranchising the side that illegal votes do not benefit?

Allowing “potentially illegal votes” is a hypothetical. Actual disenfranchisement is not hypothetical, it is measurable.

To date, every audit, recount, signature review, and court case has found illegal voting rates so low they have no statistical impact. Meanwhile, multiple Republican-backed laws have been struck down by federal courts for intentionally or disproportionately disenfranchising specific groups of eligible voters.

So one side is dealing with documented, court-verified disenfranchisement. The other is raising a theoretical scenario that has no evidence behind it. Hypotheticals do not outweigh the real, observed effects of restrictive voting laws on lawful voters.

Leftists fight as hard as they can for an insecure and unverifiable voting system, so it's not surprising that audits, cases, etc. find little fraud. That's the entire idea, to make it difficult if not impossible to find!

This is the MAGA playbook: make an allegation, produce no evidence, then claim the lack of evidence proves the cover-up. It’s two fallacies at once.

1. Unfalsifiable claim.

2. Reversed burden of proof.

If fraud is real at meaningful scale, you show it. You don’t assume it, declare the system rigged, and treat every failed audit or court case as part of the conspiracy. That’s not analysis. It’s a closed loop designed to protect the claim from scrutiny.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com