undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsshadowgovt6y ago0 comments

Rampant incompetence isn't the same as fraud, and one would still have to make the case that we lose hundreds of envelopes more often than we have an entire data-store go missing (or, for that matter, than we have a fleet of digital voting machines crash and deny access to the polls to face-to-face voters for hours).

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

RandomTisk6y ago· 4 in thread

Then the tweet wasn't 'factually incorrect' as was claimed, perhaps unsubstantiated given past performance isn't a guarantee of future performance but certainly election security is nothing to turn a blind eye to.

Please do not spead false information on HN. The tweet in question is:

> "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent."

Twitter labeled it as unsubstantiated, and provided a link to facts on mail-in ballots. Even if they didn't, his tweet is factually incorrect.

RandomTisk6y ago

Which part are you asserting is factually wrong, that the election that hasn't happened yet will have "substantially fraudulent" mail in ballots?

Or are you asserting that mail-in-ballots are secure or secure-enough to maintain the American democracy?

I have provided plenty of sources in my other comment on why 100% factually correct:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331091

shadowgovtOP6y ago

I'm not sure where you're getting the "factually incorrect" claim; "unsubstantiated" is the actual terminology Twitter used:

"Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse