You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
5
PurestEvil on scored.co
4 days ago5 points(+0/-0/+5Score on mirror)1 child
Oh come on, they don't *have* to do that. The funny thing is about the concept of "lying" is that you don't actually have to do the things. Better even: They can just rig the election computers at the central point. How many computers are that? One? Maybe a few in some building?
If I'd create a voting system that can be rigged by the user to create results that appear organic, I could do it. I'd even do multiple patterns like "Linear" (just keep the ratio roughly equal), "EpicTurnaround" (one side loses until the end, then it miraculously wins), "Fluctuating" (an arbitrary back-and-forth, but at the end one side wins), "CloseVictory" (the result will be close).
And I wouldn't be so sloppy as to use decimal numbers - what utter idiocy is that? I'd simply use a random generator. So if it's 0.75 vs 1.25, meaning 3 to 5 ratio, it means the first has a 37.5% chance to get a point, the second has a 62.5% chance to get a vote. By shifting this around dynamically, you can create various racing patterns to make it more "exciting."
But ultimately the one who is set to win will win.
Yes but what I was trying to explain is how easy it is to LEGALLY cheat the election with millions of dollars. You only have to bus in a few thousand new "Kentucky residents" and you might even be able to get government to pay for it with refugee or migrant money
The fact you get equal vote to lifetime Kentucky resident if you've lived there for 28 days is ridiculous.
There's so many LEGAL ways to cheat elections before we even get into conspiracies about their secret ballot counting software
If I'd create a voting system that can be rigged by the user to create results that appear organic, I could do it. I'd even do multiple patterns like "Linear" (just keep the ratio roughly equal), "EpicTurnaround" (one side loses until the end, then it miraculously wins), "Fluctuating" (an arbitrary back-and-forth, but at the end one side wins), "CloseVictory" (the result will be close).
And I wouldn't be so sloppy as to use decimal numbers - what utter idiocy is that? I'd simply use a random generator. So if it's 0.75 vs 1.25, meaning 3 to 5 ratio, it means the first has a 37.5% chance to get a point, the second has a 62.5% chance to get a vote. By shifting this around dynamically, you can create various racing patterns to make it more "exciting."
But ultimately the one who is set to win will win.
The fact you get equal vote to lifetime Kentucky resident if you've lived there for 28 days is ridiculous.
There's so many LEGAL ways to cheat elections before we even get into conspiracies about their secret ballot counting software