You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.

Is it really that the president is all that decides about the future of democracy itself? Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime? Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?

I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Trump has said that Elon “knows those computers better than anybody … And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide”.

      First of all, we know that to be false because we know Elon doesn’t know shit about computers. But, aside from that, there are multiple possible interpretations of what he meant, anything from “Elon rigged the election” to “Elon ensured the integrity of the election”.

      My policy is “Don’t believe anything Trump says about anything”. I don’t change that policy when he says something that I want to believe is true.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s not what that letter says. It says that operatives may have gained access to the software used to count votes, and if that happened they may have been able to probe that software for weaknesses.

          What it doesn’t say is that there was a subsequent, second breach of the voting machines in which doctored software was then installed.

          It’s like someone gaining access to blueprints for a bank vault. Yes, that theoretically lowers the security of the vault, but it doesn’t prove that a bank heist has taken place, just that a heist is more likely to be possible now.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Okay so what do you do when the mob gets the blueprints for the bank vault, and then a few weeks later the Don brags about all the money he stole?

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              The Don who lies constantly about everything? Who didn’t even say “we stole the money” but more, “Elmo is good with bank stuff, and we have lots of money”? The same guy who wouldn’t know how to read a blueprint, and would probably just post a picture of the blueprint on social media to generate controversy and traffic? The Don who, if he actually had broken into the bank, wouldn’t be able to shut up about it, and would be bragging about it non-stop, probably by doing live-streams from within the bank vault?

              You don’t assume that he hit the bank. You follow your normal security procedures, and check that what you expect to see in the vault is what you actually see in the vault. Then you just ignore the blowhard.

              • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                But the people in charge didn’t check. Harris was told to ask for a recount, and she didn’t.

                If the people responsible for security won’t do their due diligence, drag is going to play it safe and assume they fucked up.

                • merc@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  How do you know that the people in charge didn’t check? Just because there wasn’t a big announcement doesn’t mean that there weren’t sanity checks done on the process. It’s likely that was done and that the results seemed to be legit, so there was no need to do more.

                  • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    How do you know that the people in charge didn’t check?

                    Because the letter we both read says so:

                    Audits will be conducted in some of the most scrutinized states, but in key states they will not be conducted in a timely way that could reveal any concerns with the vote count. In addition, in most states the audits are insufficiently rigorous to ensure any potential errors in tabulation will be caught and corrected, and they cannot be considered a safeguard against the security breaches that have occurred.

                    Given these facts, the only guarantee for rigorous, effective audits of the vote in the swing states will be through candidate-requested statewide hand recounts.