NOTE: This article is from more than 7 months ago.
Edit: I’m on my phone, so forgive any formatting snafus, but I just recently responded to a question about why that Substack post was removed for, and I think it is applicable here.
I’m a mod on c/politics. I don’t speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn’t necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don’t know enough about the author’s intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.
And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.
The response I got from that post was (the other person quoting me):
I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect.
This seems to be stating that we must accept what you say at face value without evidence.
(End of the other person’s quote.)
To which I responded, and I would say is just as applicable here:
Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:
The individual or group of individuals involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
The technology involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
The article completely skips over addressing how any of these changes wouldn’t be caught during count verification steps.
Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.
I just came back to this thread because I wanted to say: thank you for this write up, you got a lot of details I neglected to mention. The most important of which is that elections are run at the state level and every state is going to have their own security and cybersecurity teams, and the assumptions made in this treat it like either every cybersecurity team in every state is grossly incompetent or the cybersecurity teams were somehow “in on it” and kept their mouths shut (not a skill most of the people in Trumps orbit seem to have) or that the Trump admin had been sitting on a massive zero-day exploit to be used at the right moment, through the right channels, with the right pieces of hardware installed in the right spots every place they needed them (once again, these people are not good about keeping quiet about such things). Which, to me, all three are so highly implausible it really makes no sense to make grand conspiracies in your own head about it all.
Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:
I’m quoting OP to make a point here, and that point is they gave you an opportunity to validate the evidence they were presenting and not just take their word for it.
I have never worked in elections but have done enough research on elections to agree with the mod that these are indisputable facts. Elections are run at state and county levels and at each level you literally have security and cybersecurity teams that have to work with each other but were all hired by different groups: State, county, city. Due to this, processes will be different at each level and in each city/county/state. Similarly, each place will be sourcing their hardware from a different vendor, meaning it is highly implausible that somehow they all had the correct Tripp Lite devices in place in all the right districts and that the cybersecurity teams were either all grossly incompetent or somehow in on a grand conspiracy. Hell, I’ve had a government job for a short time, and even different agencies in the same government will be using different vendors than another agency. There is no overarching “you have to get your equipment from this specific vendor and no one else” more like “you can get your equipment from this large group of vendors who fit the specifications and requirements our city/county/state government has.”
These are things you can research and verify. The mod isn’t just asking you to their their word on it, they provide evidence and give you the opportunity to go verify that evidence for yourself. To go ask the people who run your local elections and find out. Not just trust the musings of some random asshat on the internet. Also the whole “elections are run at the state level” thing should be pretty common knowledge because that’s basic civics.
NOTE: This article is from more than 7 months ago.
Edit: I’m on my phone, so forgive any formatting snafus, but I just recently responded to a question about why that Substack post was removed for, and I think it is applicable here.
I’m a mod on c/politics. I don’t speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn’t necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don’t know enough about the author’s intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.
And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.
The response I got from that post was (the other person quoting me):
This seems to be stating that we must accept what you say at face value without evidence. (End of the other person’s quote.)
To which I responded, and I would say is just as applicable here:
Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:
Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.
The entire point of this is that it takes considerably more effort on your end to respond.
I just came back to this thread because I wanted to say: thank you for this write up, you got a lot of details I neglected to mention. The most important of which is that elections are run at the state level and every state is going to have their own security and cybersecurity teams, and the assumptions made in this treat it like either every cybersecurity team in every state is grossly incompetent or the cybersecurity teams were somehow “in on it” and kept their mouths shut (not a skill most of the people in Trumps orbit seem to have) or that the Trump admin had been sitting on a massive zero-day exploit to be used at the right moment, through the right channels, with the right pieces of hardware installed in the right spots every place they needed them (once again, these people are not good about keeping quiet about such things). Which, to me, all three are so highly implausible it really makes no sense to make grand conspiracies in your own head about it all.
It’s wild that a mod can just decide what is misinformation based on whether they personally know who the author is or not.
Just post your rebuttal as a comment. Objectively, you are hardly a more reliable source than the person who wrote this.
You may “know what you’re talking about,” but how do I know that you know? Why should I believe that your opinion is more correct?
I’m quoting OP to make a point here, and that point is they gave you an opportunity to validate the evidence they were presenting and not just take their word for it.
I have never worked in elections but have done enough research on elections to agree with the mod that these are indisputable facts. Elections are run at state and county levels and at each level you literally have security and cybersecurity teams that have to work with each other but were all hired by different groups: State, county, city. Due to this, processes will be different at each level and in each city/county/state. Similarly, each place will be sourcing their hardware from a different vendor, meaning it is highly implausible that somehow they all had the correct Tripp Lite devices in place in all the right districts and that the cybersecurity teams were either all grossly incompetent or somehow in on a grand conspiracy. Hell, I’ve had a government job for a short time, and even different agencies in the same government will be using different vendors than another agency. There is no overarching “you have to get your equipment from this specific vendor and no one else” more like “you can get your equipment from this large group of vendors who fit the specifications and requirements our city/county/state government has.”
These are things you can research and verify. The mod isn’t just asking you to their their word on it, they provide evidence and give you the opportunity to go verify that evidence for yourself. To go ask the people who run your local elections and find out. Not just trust the musings of some random asshat on the internet. Also the whole “elections are run at the state level” thing should be pretty common knowledge because that’s basic civics.
Click the “more direct source” in the body of the post for a recent tie-in of how it fits in with Rockland county etc.
I just updated my comment, to reflect another conversation about that Substack, and the short of it is: that Substack post is misinformation.
I know it probably wasn’t your intent, but In the future though, please don’t use a “shell” article to post other content.