b) transparency is generally good, both to bolster trust in process and because it allows for errors to be corrected, and c) errors are more likely with manual counting/paper ballots etc, but d) public errors undermine trust in the process, and...
-
-
Show this thread
-
e) the election tech we have so far is bad and manual counting/paper ballots might still be the best way to do things... basically, the only way to square transparency & reliability in reporting with a slow and error-prone process is to not report results quickly.
Show this thread -
In other words, if we can only have two out of [speed, reliability, transparency], it seems to me that it's much preferable to sacrifice speed than transparency or reliability. If it takes a week to validate results such that they can be reported, that seems worth it.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
in
, via
| she/her