this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
539 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2227 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump and his team are attacking media outlets like Politico and The New York Times for reporting that his 2024 election victory over Kamala Harris was narrow, not a “landslide.”

Trump won by 1.6 points and failed to secure a majority of the popular vote, a smaller margin than Hillary Clinton’s over him in 2016.

Despite these facts, Trump and his allies continue to tout his win as “historic” and “dominant,” aiming to bolster his political mandate amid criticisms that his victory was less decisive than claimed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That isn't the claim though. The claim is enough "bullet ballots" (Trump only ballots) had been inserted to flip the election.

Elections don't work that way. I was telling people the same thing in 2016 and 2020.

When people cast a vote, it's tied to a registration. If you insert a bunch of votes, you end up with more ballots than voters.

[–] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So, not to say I necessarily believe in this, but the case laid out has a lot to do with Elon's PAC, which was collecting only names and addresses with the promise that voters would be paid x amount after taking some sort of pledge. The argument then follows, that if electronic tabulation systems were hacked and continuously connected to the Internet, the people who signed up to his list could have their vote automatically cast as a bullet ballot for Donald Trump. Supposedly, there's a way they could do this digital ballot stuffing specifically for voters whose ballot had not shown up as cast within the voter registry past a certain point in time, so all the fraudulent ballots look like legitimate ones tied to actual people.

It's pretty far-fetched, but just plausible enough that it's appealing to a lot of people who were blindsided by election day's results

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Tabulation systems aren't connected to the internet. Any manipulation has to be done on a machine by machine basis, which can still be done with physical access and USB keys, but doing that at election scale would not go un-noticed.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

counting machines could be compromised and doing an office space thing in targeted areas, flipping one democrat vote for every 10 counted. no one would question it. only a hand count would verify, and those aren't usually done anymore.

[–] Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

THIS.

They had direct access to our voting machines during their bullshit "inquiries".

The voting machines that ARE KNOWN to have direct access vulnerabilities.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Could the Russians and Elon access the voting machines?

Ask the "cyber ninjas" and all the other seditionists with their hands illegally on our voting machines during the whole twitlers big lie charade.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Oh, absolutely agreed, but again, that's not the accusation when it comes to bullet ballots.