Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @jennycohn1

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @jennycohn1

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    1. velj
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 2 sata
    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    I dunno why, but now seems like a very good time to retweet this piece by and on how we should not be racing forward with internet voting.

    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 43 minute
    Odgovor korisnicima i sljedećem broju korisnika:

    Most important is that the paper ballots must be hand marked by humans not machine marked for humans by computers.

    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    With everyone up in arms over the mobile results reporting app in Iowa, it’s a good time to recall there are states that actually use mobile apps to deliver ballots to voters and who want voters to be able to return ballots same way. Despite warnings about why this is a bad idea.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. prije 7 minuta

    Yes, the GOP is much worse. But the Democrats have not taken election-security seriously enough. Only & have messaged the importance of , as distinct from sticking a glitchy touchscreen voting machine between voters & their ballots.

    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 24 sata
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    They don’t have to flip “millions,” & there was remote access software in central county or state election mgmt systems, which the vendor lied about. Pls tell to force ES&S to disclose the 300 jurisdictions in which this was installed. 1/

    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 16 minuta

    I don’t want instant news. Iowa created a fiasco & undermined public confidence by unnecessarily using a glitchy new app. Glad Iowa has hand marked paper records to fix this. We should scale down our use of unnecessary election technology, not increase it, as Iowa did here.

    Poništi
  9. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 31 minutu

    Was it really too difficult for campaigns to have had observers at all 1600 Iowa precincts to photograph & report the individual precinct totals? The article in my thread says that Pete had 77% covered, Bernie 40%, Warren “hundreds.” Why not all?

    Poništi
  10. prije 16 minuta

    I don’t want instant news. Iowa created a fiasco & undermined public confidence by unnecessarily using a glitchy new app. Glad Iowa has hand marked paper records to fix this. We should scale down our use of unnecessary election technology, not increase it, as Iowa did here.

    Poništi
  11. prije 23 minute

    Re: the debacle, note that the individual campaigns did NOT have observers at all 1600 Iowa precincts to photograph & report the individual precinct totals. The article in my thread says Pete had 77% covered, Bernie 40%, Warren “hundreds.” Why not all?

    Poništi
  12. prije 31 minutu

    Was it really too difficult for campaigns to have had observers at all 1600 Iowa precincts to photograph & report the individual precinct totals? The article in my thread says that Pete had 77% covered, Bernie 40%, Warren “hundreds.” Why not all?

    Poništi
  13. prije 34 minute
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. prije 36 minuta

    Exactly. Why don’t campaigns have observers at every precinct to photograph totals? They have millions and millions of dollars. They could pay people to do this. They should do this in the general too, as I & others keep screaming. Beto’s senatorial campaign, for one, did not. 😳

    Poništi
  15. prije 39 minuta

    And yes this Iowa fiasco shows the urgency of having reliable paper records of voter intent, ie, hand marked (not machine marked) paper ballots, plus transparency re: precinct totals, plus a transparent chain of custody. 5/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. prije 43 minute

    4/ As I explained here, candidates should compare precinct results to reported totals (to make sure they add up corrrctly) as a matter of standard practice and due diligence. But they generally do not.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. prije 46 minuta

    3/ I ask in part because deploying such observers to photograph & report precinct totals should be standard practice in the key states in the general election, & yet campaigns don’t do this.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. prije 47 minuta

    2/ Also, was it really too difficult/expensive for campaigns to have had observers at all 1600 precinct to photograph & report the individual & aggregated totals? This article says that Pete had 77% covered & Bernie 40%.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. prije 56 minuta

    Here’s what I don’t understand. There are only about 1600 precincts in the Iowa caucuses. How hard can it be to add those with a calculator? I hope the individual precinct will be posted in addition to the aggregated total & that precinct captains will confirm accuracy. 1/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 1 sat
    Odgovor korisnicima

    Hopefully w/ treatment they can stabilize ’s cancer. I know she wants to make a positive impact. She already has & will no doubt continue, putting vanity aside to share her struggle, showing that people can grow & relationships can heal, & advocating mammograms.

    Poništi
  21. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 21 sat

    This is a plausible prediction. And it’s another reason why it wld help for the Democrats to do an infinitely better job than they have on election-security offense and messaging. Ds shld also remind everyone that Bush spent 5 years looking for vast voter fraud & failed. 1/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·