in science, you have to disprove a hypothesis — so the evidence presented has to disprove the hypothesis that every vote was counted as cast.

So really, the nontransparency of using computerized equipment to cast and tabulate our votes disproves, or at least renders uncertain, results when testing the hypothesis that every vote was counted as cast, does it not?

Allin,

You don't really want fair and accurate elections.

You just want the Pussy-Grabber to be re-instated.

Otherwise, I'll bet you couldn't care less about computerized voting.

Please correct me and explain why, if I am mistaken.

Allin @1 asked:

the nontransparency of using computerized equipment to cast and tabulate our votes disproves, or at least renders uncertain, results when testing the hypothesis that every vote was counted as cast, does it not?

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question here. But without a hand-count of hand-marked paper ballots, there is no way to know for certain that votes were counted correctly as cast.

DonL @2:

I believe Allin was asking a legitimate question. FWIW.

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming Allin was, "maga".

If so, I'm sorry about that.

It's just that lately, I have been engaging online with various maga-types who sound progressive/reformist in their complaints at first, about Dominion, etc. But again and again, these folks, when pushed, display no interest in discussing the issue further (i.e.in terms of having a notion of what kind of voting system the US should adopt for the future, hopefully with support from both left and right).

I have found that the magas only want 45 re-instated, and have no interest in any real reforms of US voting systems. Otherwise, the issue apparently bores them.

Hopefully, Allin wants reform (the "gold standard" with no computers) in our voting systems, even when tRump is not going to be
re-instated.

Allin, DonL, Brad,

"in science, you have to disprove a hypothesis" ... actually, it is called "falsify".

In deep science the one who asserts a hypothesis must also present the methodology for falsifying that hypothesis.

For example, when Einstein hypothesized that gravity around a cosmic body (star, planet) curved space around it (so that light would travel around it in a curved path rather than in a straight line) he explained how his hypothesis could be falsified.

He said that a certain star (if light traveled in a straight line) would not be visible at a certain time, from a certain location on earth, and at a certain time.

When the time he mentioned, the star that should be invisible/hidden mentioned, and the location he mentioned were all verified before hand, the time thereafter came for the test.

Scientists were amazed that the star (that would NOT have been invisible if light traveled in a straight line near a planet where its own gravity was curving space around it) was in fact visible, not invisible), his hypothesis withstood the falsification attempt.

In the voting machine context one must verify that hand counting can be valid, that machine counting can be valid, and establish the criteria to establish that. Likewise the conditions where bother are not valid.

If corrupt criminals who have been paid to come up with a certain outcome count ballots, and the count result is corrupt, then the hypothesis that all hand counts are valid is falsified.

If corrupted software counts are corrupted, the same result obtains.

In other words, both machine counts and hand counts can be corrupt or valid.

Thus, voting machines can be more accurate and less corrupt than hand counted ballots, and hand counts can be more accurate and less corrupt that voting machine counts.

Determining which is which is not a function of biased opinion one way or the other.

Both are a matter of professional, competent, and honest implementation and use.

Dredd @6:

I would add that both are a matter of public oversight to determine if they are accurate or not. The problem is, there can be no oversight of machine counts unless the ballots are hand counted. Thus, hand counts are the only way to prove that a machine count was accurate. Thus, why not just start out with hand counts in the first place?