I'd prefer that we use the best software, regardless of whether the company producing it happens to be perceived as leaning left or right. Considering that nobody is forcing these districts to buy this software, I don't see the problem.
I don't think you fully understand what you are saying, here.
There is no such thing as "the best software." Code is code and if there is any developmental security risk, then that risk needs to be removed and/or mitigated out. The issue on that level, is not the software, rather the process for developing the software.
Example: Right now, probably the primary air-to-air threat to our F-22 Raptor, is the Russian built Sukhoi Su-37. If the Raptor is ever called upon to establish air superiority in the same theatre where this variant of the Flanker is also operational, the Raptor Driver will have his hands full.
Question: Would you allow the Tactical Weapons Control & Avionics systems to be developed (coded) and engineered in the Ukraine? Of course, not. Why? For a billion reasons, but mostly because you don't want coded routines in the software that controls the targeting, tracking and firing systems to put American pilots in a position of receiving unexpected results in battle.
Similarly, would you allow, in a mission critical election for the White House, one party to have behind closed door privilege and access to the code that delivers votes to each respective candidate? Of course, not - and for the exact same principles, though the actual reasons may differ.
This is very straight forward, NYC. There is no wiggle room, here. Not on this subject. This is a matter of appropriate protocol that removes planned error from the system. That's not something that you can simply trust - rather - you have to set-up rules around the entire process that includes a bi-partisan solution set.
Anything less is just asking for trouble.
Because if I were to start trying to debunk every one of your crackpot theories, I wouldn't have time for anything else. Don't want to set a bad precedent.
That's a cute cop-out, but it does not answer the question - which is the typical response from those who can't answer direct questions.
Frankly, I think it takes a crack pot theorist, is the one who fails to understand something so incredibly easy to see as a potential problem. One would almost have to be high on something, given what I've just outlined as the potential threat to our democracy, to still fail to understand or see it, or understand it.
It is tantamount to allowing the Ukraine, to develop the software that drives the tactical weapons & avionics systems on-board our Raptors. They might very well get the job done without any problems whatsoever - that is a possibility. However, it is not very probable.
Until you show me proof that a single incident of voter fraud was committed by Diebold, then yea, that's a less serious problem than ACORN.
That's very dangerous thinking and it demonstrates a level of disengagement from reality.
Do you need proof that getting hit by a moving freight train might hurt just a little? Or, would you naturally take precautions against getting hit by one before it happened?
Given the ease with which my scenario demonstrates that votes can be tampered with specifically because the tallying process is software driven, who in their right mind would fail to realize that protection protocols removing the potential bias from such a system, are necessary
before the country got "hit" with a stolen election?
