• Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yeah, we’re the people that always love to talk about evidence. So, let’s make sure we’re applying that principle evenly and demanding and looking at evidence for claims we like the sound and feeling of.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Well there are irregularitiea and a manual recount would either provide evidence or it would prove that no such thing happened.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You need evidence to justify a recount when they’re normally only expected to shift the results by less than a percentage point. They’re not cheap, you don’t just do them whenever people feel like it.

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I think that’s enough evidence to warrant such recount.

          There’s a irregularity that, did not happen in prior elections and only in swing states, not even neighboring ones. It could be nothing or could be valid.

          You are saying that there’s no evidence, but with electronic voting machines the only time you get evidence is if you verify it.

          The most mind-blowing thing to me is that the less people are familiar with software engineering the more trusting they are of electronic voting machines and when there are irregularities just dismissing it.

          Tell me, what evidence you would need to say “ok, I think we should recount these machine counted votes”.