You say: "The honest answer is almost certainly not. More precisely: no credible evidence has suggested it was". [Context is ~was the 2020 election corrupt~]
No one that I have seen or read ever includes the "almost certainly" phrase. Your post is the first.
When high school students and college students can prove, without qualification, that computerized voting machines are hackable, how can the phrase "almost certainly" be used??? How can anyone in America trust "voting machines"?
There is an annual hackathon for voting machines. Been going on for at least 7 years:
Same results every year for the past 7 years and it has been getting easier. 7 yrs ago, it was college students. Lately it is high school students and even middle school students.
[BTW, I am seeing continuing efforts from the IEEE to shrink into
oblivion this specific hackathon over the past 7 years. These talented middle
school, high school, and college students are America's future.]
Chain of custody of a ballot is missing and presumed dead in Democrat minds. Who is OK with that?
I was the R "chief" at an Austin voting site for 2020 election (Airport Blvd). At the close of polling, the "Boxes" were left in the hands of the D "chief" and he, alone, took them to "headquarters". Chain of custody means nothing to Democrats.
I can't say 2020 was honest. I am 100% (provably) certain no one else can prove the "honesty" or "integrity" of the 2020 election. I know almost nothing about all the details of all the elections in 50 states. I have not encountered anyone else who has.
[The statement that "no evidence exists" is like declaring "we have not
ever seen a black swan; therefore, they don't exist".
You don't know what you don't know -- would be good meme for
all human kind to embrace, WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.]
I cannot say the 2016, 2012, 2024(!), 2008 ... elections were "honest" either.
Indeed by my thinking most of the margins were too great for partisan corruption
to affect the results. Any who declares unequivocally that 2020 elections were "honest" is a fool to my way of thinking.
Nevertheless, here is a (Democrat) Texas lady who has given real thought to "election integrity" and proposed a solution that would address "integrity" issues.
The human mind struggles to deal with the non-intuitive nature of both probability and counterfactuals, let alone following the complex chains of reason necessary for statements of these types. Worse, knowledgeable elites who previously could credibly make simple pronouncements based on these complex arguments have been diminished in the public’s opinion. Some of that was well earned, be it in the regulatory and market failures of the Great Financial Crisis, the anemic and slow recovery of the resulting recession, flipflopping on masks during Covid, etc. And the rest of their diminution is simply the result of our modern information ecosystem where anyone can publish anything to the world at large.
Ultimately, I think it’s on elites and their institutions to adapt. Gone are days where a noble lie to preserve masks for healthcare workers can go undetected. As are the days where nuance can be striped away from complex arguments to provide simple narratives and pronouncements. Instead, the public must be met where they are at with ephistimetically-humble communication that recognizes the existence of more nuance, even when elites simplify their message; just note the existence of complexity without diving into it.
Furthermore, most elites need to focus on descriptions rather than prescriptions. Epidemiologists can tell us their best understanding of the current situation, recognizing that there is uncertainty and that their understanding will evolve. They can even propose multiple interventions and their forecasted effects of each. But it isn’t their place to strongly advocate for one specific approach, doubly so when they fail to recognize alternatives. That is ultimately a decision for politicians, taking input from additional experts such as economists, sociologists, etc.
Only with such adaptations can a semblance of institutional, elite authority be regained.
You say: "The honest answer is almost certainly not. More precisely: no credible evidence has suggested it was". [Context is ~was the 2020 election corrupt~]
No one that I have seen or read ever includes the "almost certainly" phrase. Your post is the first.
When high school students and college students can prove, without qualification, that computerized voting machines are hackable, how can the phrase "almost certainly" be used??? How can anyone in America trust "voting machines"?
There is an annual hackathon for voting machines. Been going on for at least 7 years:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/defcon-hackers-find-holes-in-every-voting-machine#toggle-gdpr
Same results every year for the past 7 years and it has been getting easier. 7 yrs ago, it was college students. Lately it is high school students and even middle school students.
[BTW, I am seeing continuing efforts from the IEEE to shrink into
oblivion this specific hackathon over the past 7 years. These talented middle
school, high school, and college students are America's future.]
Another 2020 (2016, 2012, 2024, 2008, 2004, 2000, ...) election issue:
Chain of custody of a ballot is missing and presumed dead in Democrat minds. Who is OK with that?
I was the R "chief" at an Austin voting site for 2020 election (Airport Blvd). At the close of polling, the "Boxes" were left in the hands of the D "chief" and he, alone, took them to "headquarters". Chain of custody means nothing to Democrats.
I can't say 2020 was honest. I am 100% (provably) certain no one else can prove the "honesty" or "integrity" of the 2020 election. I know almost nothing about all the details of all the elections in 50 states. I have not encountered anyone else who has.
[The statement that "no evidence exists" is like declaring "we have not
ever seen a black swan; therefore, they don't exist".
You don't know what you don't know -- would be good meme for
all human kind to embrace, WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.]
I cannot say the 2016, 2012, 2024(!), 2008 ... elections were "honest" either.
Indeed by my thinking most of the margins were too great for partisan corruption
to affect the results. Any who declares unequivocally that 2020 elections were "honest" is a fool to my way of thinking.
Nevertheless, here is a (Democrat) Texas lady who has given real thought to "election integrity" and proposed a solution that would address "integrity" issues.
https://www.wired.com/story/dana-debeauvoir-texas-county-clerk-voting-tech-revolution/
All partisans ignored or shunned it; died on the vine. That lady is one of my Austin heros.
I don't respect the rejection of her proposal in any way. She proposed provable excellence
to the public and politicians rejected.
There is great desire from those who
win office
to suppress
those who question the election.
Winning office, by definition (in America), means
suppressing all who question the election.
Ed
The human mind struggles to deal with the non-intuitive nature of both probability and counterfactuals, let alone following the complex chains of reason necessary for statements of these types. Worse, knowledgeable elites who previously could credibly make simple pronouncements based on these complex arguments have been diminished in the public’s opinion. Some of that was well earned, be it in the regulatory and market failures of the Great Financial Crisis, the anemic and slow recovery of the resulting recession, flipflopping on masks during Covid, etc. And the rest of their diminution is simply the result of our modern information ecosystem where anyone can publish anything to the world at large.
Ultimately, I think it’s on elites and their institutions to adapt. Gone are days where a noble lie to preserve masks for healthcare workers can go undetected. As are the days where nuance can be striped away from complex arguments to provide simple narratives and pronouncements. Instead, the public must be met where they are at with ephistimetically-humble communication that recognizes the existence of more nuance, even when elites simplify their message; just note the existence of complexity without diving into it.
Furthermore, most elites need to focus on descriptions rather than prescriptions. Epidemiologists can tell us their best understanding of the current situation, recognizing that there is uncertainty and that their understanding will evolve. They can even propose multiple interventions and their forecasted effects of each. But it isn’t their place to strongly advocate for one specific approach, doubly so when they fail to recognize alternatives. That is ultimately a decision for politicians, taking input from additional experts such as economists, sociologists, etc.
Only with such adaptations can a semblance of institutional, elite authority be regained.