#votingsystems — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #votingsystems, aggregated by home.social.
-
MAGA spirals as Trump election scheme implodes exposing hypocrisy
MAGA spirals as Trump election scheme implodes after Virginia voters approve redistricting, exposing GOP hypocrisy on election power -
Here is a reminder of the kind of voting systems we have in Australia. Not all use the same system. Aside from “First past the Post’ (as in the US) which is not used here, we have ‘preferencial’ and’proportional’ voting systems. This article by #RichardDenniss in The point, clarifies this:
https://thepoint.com.au/opinions/260324-what-the-south-australian-result-shows-about-how-elections-are-really-wonFor my money, proportional is the best as in the ACT.
-
Here is a reminder of the kind of voting systems we have in Australia. Not all use the same system. Aside from “First past the Post’ (as in the US) which is not used here, we have ‘preferencial’ and’proportional’ voting systems. This article by #RichardDenniss in The point, clarifies this:
https://thepoint.com.au/opinions/260324-what-the-south-australian-result-shows-about-how-elections-are-really-wonFor my money, proportional is the best as in the ACT.
-
Here is a reminder of the kind of voting systems we have in Australia. Not all use the same system. Aside from “First past the Post’ (as in the US) which is not used here, we have ‘preferencial’ and’proportional’ voting systems. This article by #RichardDenniss in The point, clarifies this:
https://thepoint.com.au/opinions/260324-what-the-south-australian-result-shows-about-how-elections-are-really-wonFor my money, proportional is the best as in the ACT.
-
Here is a reminder of the kind of voting systems we have in Australia. Not all use the same system. Aside from “First past the Post’ (as in the US) which is not used here, we have ‘preferencial’ and’proportional’ voting systems. This article by #RichardDenniss in The point, clarifies this:
https://thepoint.com.au/opinions/260324-what-the-south-australian-result-shows-about-how-elections-are-really-wonFor my money, proportional is the best as in the ACT.
-
Here is a reminder of the kind of voting systems we have in Australia. Not all use the same system. Aside from “First past the Post’ (as in the US) which is not used here, we have ‘preferencial’ and’proportional’ voting systems. This article by #RichardDenniss in The point, clarifies this:
https://thepoint.com.au/opinions/260324-what-the-south-australian-result-shows-about-how-elections-are-really-wonFor my money, proportional is the best as in the ACT.
-
🚨BREAKING NEWS: Internet voting is insecure! 🤯 Thanks, Captain Obvious, for the shocking revelation that nobody saw coming, ever. Meanwhile, vendors continue their magical quest for the mythical "secure internet voting" system, because who needs facts when you have marketing, right? 🦄✨
https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2026/01/16/internet-voting-is-insecure-and-should-not-be-used-in-public-elections/ #InternetVoting #Insecurity #CyberSecurity #News #TechHumor #VotingSystems #HackerNews #ngated -
🚨BREAKING NEWS: Internet voting is insecure! 🤯 Thanks, Captain Obvious, for the shocking revelation that nobody saw coming, ever. Meanwhile, vendors continue their magical quest for the mythical "secure internet voting" system, because who needs facts when you have marketing, right? 🦄✨
https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2026/01/16/internet-voting-is-insecure-and-should-not-be-used-in-public-elections/ #InternetVoting #Insecurity #CyberSecurity #News #TechHumor #VotingSystems #HackerNews #ngated -
🚨BREAKING NEWS: Internet voting is insecure! 🤯 Thanks, Captain Obvious, for the shocking revelation that nobody saw coming, ever. Meanwhile, vendors continue their magical quest for the mythical "secure internet voting" system, because who needs facts when you have marketing, right? 🦄✨
https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2026/01/16/internet-voting-is-insecure-and-should-not-be-used-in-public-elections/ #InternetVoting #Insecurity #CyberSecurity #News #TechHumor #VotingSystems #HackerNews #ngated -
🚨BREAKING NEWS: Internet voting is insecure! 🤯 Thanks, Captain Obvious, for the shocking revelation that nobody saw coming, ever. Meanwhile, vendors continue their magical quest for the mythical "secure internet voting" system, because who needs facts when you have marketing, right? 🦄✨
https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2026/01/16/internet-voting-is-insecure-and-should-not-be-used-in-public-elections/ #InternetVoting #Insecurity #CyberSecurity #News #TechHumor #VotingSystems #HackerNews #ngated -
Alaska is heading toward a high-stakes 2026 vote on whether to keep ranked choice voting and open primaries or return to party primaries and single-choice general elections. 🔥🗳️ If you care about how votes are counted and who gets a voice, this is must-read context: ⬇️ https://tinyurl.com/5fnw6ak4 #AKPolitics #Alaska #AlaskaHeadlineLiving #RCV #RankedChoiceVoting #Election2026 #VotingSystems #Democracy #TomBegich #SarahVance #NancyDahlstrom
-
Alaska is heading toward a high-stakes 2026 vote on whether to keep ranked choice voting and open primaries or return to party primaries and single-choice general elections. 🔥🗳️ If you care about how votes are counted and who gets a voice, this is must-read context: ⬇️ https://tinyurl.com/5fnw6ak4 #AKPolitics #Alaska #AlaskaHeadlineLiving #RCV #RankedChoiceVoting #Election2026 #VotingSystems #Democracy #TomBegich #SarahVance #NancyDahlstrom
-
Alaska is heading toward a high-stakes 2026 vote on whether to keep ranked choice voting and open primaries or return to party primaries and single-choice general elections. 🔥🗳️ If you care about how votes are counted and who gets a voice, this is must-read context: ⬇️ https://tinyurl.com/5fnw6ak4 #AKPolitics #Alaska #AlaskaHeadlineLiving #RCV #RankedChoiceVoting #Election2026 #VotingSystems #Democracy #TomBegich #SarahVance #NancyDahlstrom
-
Alaska is heading toward a high-stakes 2026 vote on whether to keep ranked choice voting and open primaries or return to party primaries and single-choice general elections. 🔥🗳️ If you care about how votes are counted and who gets a voice, this is must-read context: ⬇️ https://tinyurl.com/5fnw6ak4 #AKPolitics #Alaska #AlaskaHeadlineLiving #RCV #RankedChoiceVoting #Election2026 #VotingSystems #Democracy #TomBegich #SarahVance #NancyDahlstrom
-
Alaska is heading toward a high-stakes 2026 vote on whether to keep ranked choice voting and open primaries or return to party primaries and single-choice general elections. 🔥🗳️ If you care about how votes are counted and who gets a voice, this is must-read context: ⬇️ https://tinyurl.com/5fnw6ak4 #AKPolitics #Alaska #AlaskaHeadlineLiving #RCV #RankedChoiceVoting #Election2026 #VotingSystems #Democracy #TomBegich #SarahVance #NancyDahlstrom
-
Public Trust Demands Open-Source Voting Systems
https://www.voting.works/news/public-trust-demands-open-source-voting-systems
#HackerNews #PublicTrust #OpenSource #VotingSystems #Democracy #Transparency
-
Public Trust Demands Open-Source Voting Systems
https://www.voting.works/news/public-trust-demands-open-source-voting-systems
#HackerNews #PublicTrust #OpenSource #VotingSystems #Democracy #Transparency
-
Public Trust Demands Open-Source Voting Systems
https://www.voting.works/news/public-trust-demands-open-source-voting-systems
#HackerNews #PublicTrust #OpenSource #VotingSystems #Democracy #Transparency
-
Public Trust Demands Open-Source Voting Systems
https://www.voting.works/news/public-trust-demands-open-source-voting-systems
#HackerNews #PublicTrust #OpenSource #VotingSystems #Democracy #Transparency
-
Public Trust Demands Open-Source Voting Systems
https://www.voting.works/news/public-trust-demands-open-source-voting-systems
#HackerNews #PublicTrust #OpenSource #VotingSystems #Democracy #Transparency
-
Could this shift threaten election integrity? NewsHound Ellen reveals Dominion Voting was sold to Scott Leiendecker, a former Missouri election official linked to Trump supporters. This raises concerns about voting tech ownership amid rising election misinformation. Learn more in the full article. #ElectionSecurity #VotingSystems #MAGA https://crooksandliars.com/2025/10/dominion-voting-systems-sold-maga-crony
-
#Elections #VotingSystems #USPol
Former Republican election official buys Dominion Voting — a target of 2020 conspiracy theories
-
#Elections #VotingSystems #USPol
Former Republican election official buys Dominion Voting — a target of 2020 conspiracy theories
-
#Elections #VotingSystems #USPol
Former Republican election official buys Dominion Voting — a target of 2020 conspiracy theories
-
#Elections #VotingSystems #USPol
Former Republican election official buys Dominion Voting — a target of 2020 conspiracy theories
-
Gerrymandering seems a feature of
majoritarian elections (i.e. not proportional)
in single-member districts
(it is affected by multiple factors, of course).
And it is an example of one of the many positive-feedback loops in politics:
if one side does it, the other will as well.Remember the rotten boroughs in Great Britain?
It took serious legislation to abolish them.
(The Reform Act of 1832.) -
Gerrymandering seems a feature of
majoritarian elections (i.e. not proportional)
in single-member districts
(it is affected by multiple factors, of course).
And it is an example of one of the many positive-feedback loops in politics:
if one side does it, the other will as well.Remember the rotten boroughs in Great Britain?
It took serious legislation to abolish them.
(The Reform Act of 1832.) -
Gerrymandering seems a feature of
majoritarian elections (i.e. not proportional)
in single-member districts
(it is affected by multiple factors, of course).
And it is an example of one of the many positive-feedback loops in politics:
if one side does it, the other will as well.Remember the rotten boroughs in Great Britain?
It took serious legislation to abolish them.
(The Reform Act of 1832.) -
I’d like to share some thoughts on a fascinating topic: why democracy—as a decision-making process—is, in a strict mathematical sense, impossible when you have more than one participant. This idea has been influentially formalized in Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which provides a set of criteria that any fair voting system should ideally meet. Unfortunately, Arrow’s work—and many subsequent proofs by scholars like Yu, Geanakoplos, and others—shows that no voting method can perfectly satisfy all these fairness criteria simultaneously when converting individual preferences into a collective decision.
In a nutshell, the theorem illustrates that when voters rank multiple options, trying to find a method that always reflects individual values, maintains consistency, and respects collective rationality leads to an inherent contradiction. For instance, one of the key issues is that any system must sometimes arbitrarily privilege one candidate over another based on small shifts in voter preferences. This phenomenon can even lead to paradoxical outcomes where, for example, a supposedly “more democratic” decision ends up being self-defeating.
These findings do not mean that democracy is unworkable—in fact, democratic systems have evolved to accommodate human imperfections. The mathematical impossibility points out a trade-off: all voting systems have built-in limitations, no matter how sophisticated they are. In our modern, high-information society, there’s a growing opportunity to refine our methods (think of innovations like ranked-choice voting, liquid democracy, or even sortition-based approaches) to better capture the complex voice of a diverse populace.
If you’re curious to delve deeper into these ideas, I highly recommend checking out the TED Talk by Alex Gendler, “Which Voting System Is the Best?” It offers a really approachable introduction to the subject. Additionally, there’s a treasure trove of academic work on Arrow’s theorem and its implications available through resources like this video https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk by Veritasium and various research papers (by Maskin, Sen, Black, and others) that explore the nuances of social choice theory.
Ultimately, while democracy might be “mathematically impossible” to perfect, engaging with these ideas can help us understand our systems better and inspire innovations that move us closer to fairer, more representative governance. It’s a reminder that striving for improvements—even in imperfect systems—is both necessary and worthwhile.Additionally, I recommend checking out the French-speaking channel Science4All, which has produced a great series exploring the theoretical and mathematical concepts behind democratic election systems. Their video “Le scrutin de Condorcet randomisé | Démocratie 5” (https://youtu.be/wKimU8jy2a8?list=PLtzmb84AoqRSmv5o-eFNb3i9z64IuOjdX) offers, in my opinion, one of the best explanations of Condorcet elections—a perfect launchpad if you decide to take a deeper dive into these topics.
#Democracy #SocialChoiceTheory #VotingSystems #ArrowsTheorem #CondorcetMethod #PoliticalInnovation #CivicEngagement
-
I’d like to share some thoughts on a fascinating topic: why democracy—as a decision-making process—is, in a strict mathematical sense, impossible when you have more than one participant. This idea has been influentially formalized in Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which provides a set of criteria that any fair voting system should ideally meet. Unfortunately, Arrow’s work—and many subsequent proofs by scholars like Yu, Geanakoplos, and others—shows that no voting method can perfectly satisfy all these fairness criteria simultaneously when converting individual preferences into a collective decision.
In a nutshell, the theorem illustrates that when voters rank multiple options, trying to find a method that always reflects individual values, maintains consistency, and respects collective rationality leads to an inherent contradiction. For instance, one of the key issues is that any system must sometimes arbitrarily privilege one candidate over another based on small shifts in voter preferences. This phenomenon can even lead to paradoxical outcomes where, for example, a supposedly “more democratic” decision ends up being self-defeating.
These findings do not mean that democracy is unworkable—in fact, democratic systems have evolved to accommodate human imperfections. The mathematical impossibility points out a trade-off: all voting systems have built-in limitations, no matter how sophisticated they are. In our modern, high-information society, there’s a growing opportunity to refine our methods (think of innovations like ranked-choice voting, liquid democracy, or even sortition-based approaches) to better capture the complex voice of a diverse populace.
If you’re curious to delve deeper into these ideas, I highly recommend checking out the TED Talk by Alex Gendler, “Which Voting System Is the Best?” It offers a really approachable introduction to the subject. Additionally, there’s a treasure trove of academic work on Arrow’s theorem and its implications available through resources like this video https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk by Veritasium and various research papers (by Maskin, Sen, Black, and others) that explore the nuances of social choice theory.
Ultimately, while democracy might be “mathematically impossible” to perfect, engaging with these ideas can help us understand our systems better and inspire innovations that move us closer to fairer, more representative governance. It’s a reminder that striving for improvements—even in imperfect systems—is both necessary and worthwhile.Additionally, I recommend checking out the French-speaking channel Science4All, which has produced a great series exploring the theoretical and mathematical concepts behind democratic election systems. Their video “Le scrutin de Condorcet randomisé | Démocratie 5” (https://youtu.be/wKimU8jy2a8?list=PLtzmb84AoqRSmv5o-eFNb3i9z64IuOjdX) offers, in my opinion, one of the best explanations of Condorcet elections—a perfect launchpad if you decide to take a deeper dive into these topics.
#Democracy #SocialChoiceTheory #VotingSystems #ArrowsTheorem #CondorcetMethod #PoliticalInnovation #CivicEngagement
-
I’d like to share some thoughts on a fascinating topic: why democracy—as a decision-making process—is, in a strict mathematical sense, impossible when you have more than one participant. This idea has been influentially formalized in Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which provides a set of criteria that any fair voting system should ideally meet. Unfortunately, Arrow’s work—and many subsequent proofs by scholars like Yu, Geanakoplos, and others—shows that no voting method can perfectly satisfy all these fairness criteria simultaneously when converting individual preferences into a collective decision.
In a nutshell, the theorem illustrates that when voters rank multiple options, trying to find a method that always reflects individual values, maintains consistency, and respects collective rationality leads to an inherent contradiction. For instance, one of the key issues is that any system must sometimes arbitrarily privilege one candidate over another based on small shifts in voter preferences. This phenomenon can even lead to paradoxical outcomes where, for example, a supposedly “more democratic” decision ends up being self-defeating.
These findings do not mean that democracy is unworkable—in fact, democratic systems have evolved to accommodate human imperfections. The mathematical impossibility points out a trade-off: all voting systems have built-in limitations, no matter how sophisticated they are. In our modern, high-information society, there’s a growing opportunity to refine our methods (think of innovations like ranked-choice voting, liquid democracy, or even sortition-based approaches) to better capture the complex voice of a diverse populace.
If you’re curious to delve deeper into these ideas, I highly recommend checking out the TED Talk by Alex Gendler, “Which Voting System Is the Best?” It offers a really approachable introduction to the subject. Additionally, there’s a treasure trove of academic work on Arrow’s theorem and its implications available through resources like this video https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk by Veritasium and various research papers (by Maskin, Sen, Black, and others) that explore the nuances of social choice theory.
Ultimately, while democracy might be “mathematically impossible” to perfect, engaging with these ideas can help us understand our systems better and inspire innovations that move us closer to fairer, more representative governance. It’s a reminder that striving for improvements—even in imperfect systems—is both necessary and worthwhile.Additionally, I recommend checking out the French-speaking channel Science4All, which has produced a great series exploring the theoretical and mathematical concepts behind democratic election systems. Their video “Le scrutin de Condorcet randomisé | Démocratie 5” (https://youtu.be/wKimU8jy2a8?list=PLtzmb84AoqRSmv5o-eFNb3i9z64IuOjdX) offers, in my opinion, one of the best explanations of Condorcet elections—a perfect launchpad if you decide to take a deeper dive into these topics.
#Democracy #SocialChoiceTheory #VotingSystems #ArrowsTheorem #CondorcetMethod #PoliticalInnovation #CivicEngagement
-
I’d like to share some thoughts on a fascinating topic: why democracy—as a decision-making process—is, in a strict mathematical sense, impossible when you have more than one participant. This idea has been influentially formalized in Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which provides a set of criteria that any fair voting system should ideally meet. Unfortunately, Arrow’s work—and many subsequent proofs by scholars like Yu, Geanakoplos, and others—shows that no voting method can perfectly satisfy all these fairness criteria simultaneously when converting individual preferences into a collective decision.
In a nutshell, the theorem illustrates that when voters rank multiple options, trying to find a method that always reflects individual values, maintains consistency, and respects collective rationality leads to an inherent contradiction. For instance, one of the key issues is that any system must sometimes arbitrarily privilege one candidate over another based on small shifts in voter preferences. This phenomenon can even lead to paradoxical outcomes where, for example, a supposedly “more democratic” decision ends up being self-defeating.
These findings do not mean that democracy is unworkable—in fact, democratic systems have evolved to accommodate human imperfections. The mathematical impossibility points out a trade-off: all voting systems have built-in limitations, no matter how sophisticated they are. In our modern, high-information society, there’s a growing opportunity to refine our methods (think of innovations like ranked-choice voting, liquid democracy, or even sortition-based approaches) to better capture the complex voice of a diverse populace.
If you’re curious to delve deeper into these ideas, I highly recommend checking out the TED Talk by Alex Gendler, “Which Voting System Is the Best?” It offers a really approachable introduction to the subject. Additionally, there’s a treasure trove of academic work on Arrow’s theorem and its implications available through resources like this video https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk by Veritasium and various research papers (by Maskin, Sen, Black, and others) that explore the nuances of social choice theory.
Ultimately, while democracy might be “mathematically impossible” to perfect, engaging with these ideas can help us understand our systems better and inspire innovations that move us closer to fairer, more representative governance. It’s a reminder that striving for improvements—even in imperfect systems—is both necessary and worthwhile.Additionally, I recommend checking out the French-speaking channel Science4All, which has produced a great series exploring the theoretical and mathematical concepts behind democratic election systems. Their video “Le scrutin de Condorcet randomisé | Démocratie 5” (https://youtu.be/wKimU8jy2a8?list=PLtzmb84AoqRSmv5o-eFNb3i9z64IuOjdX) offers, in my opinion, one of the best explanations of Condorcet elections—a perfect launchpad if you decide to take a deeper dive into these topics.
#Democracy #SocialChoiceTheory #VotingSystems #ArrowsTheorem #CondorcetMethod #PoliticalInnovation #CivicEngagement
-
I’d like to share some thoughts on a fascinating topic: why democracy—as a decision-making process—is, in a strict mathematical sense, impossible when you have more than one participant. This idea has been influentially formalized in Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which provides a set of criteria that any fair voting system should ideally meet. Unfortunately, Arrow’s work—and many subsequent proofs by scholars like Yu, Geanakoplos, and others—shows that no voting method can perfectly satisfy all these fairness criteria simultaneously when converting individual preferences into a collective decision.
In a nutshell, the theorem illustrates that when voters rank multiple options, trying to find a method that always reflects individual values, maintains consistency, and respects collective rationality leads to an inherent contradiction. For instance, one of the key issues is that any system must sometimes arbitrarily privilege one candidate over another based on small shifts in voter preferences. This phenomenon can even lead to paradoxical outcomes where, for example, a supposedly “more democratic” decision ends up being self-defeating.
These findings do not mean that democracy is unworkable—in fact, democratic systems have evolved to accommodate human imperfections. The mathematical impossibility points out a trade-off: all voting systems have built-in limitations, no matter how sophisticated they are. In our modern, high-information society, there’s a growing opportunity to refine our methods (think of innovations like ranked-choice voting, liquid democracy, or even sortition-based approaches) to better capture the complex voice of a diverse populace.
If you’re curious to delve deeper into these ideas, I highly recommend checking out the TED Talk by Alex Gendler, “Which Voting System Is the Best?” It offers a really approachable introduction to the subject. Additionally, there’s a treasure trove of academic work on Arrow’s theorem and its implications available through resources like this video https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk by Veritasium and various research papers (by Maskin, Sen, Black, and others) that explore the nuances of social choice theory.
Ultimately, while democracy might be “mathematically impossible” to perfect, engaging with these ideas can help us understand our systems better and inspire innovations that move us closer to fairer, more representative governance. It’s a reminder that striving for improvements—even in imperfect systems—is both necessary and worthwhile.Additionally, I recommend checking out the French-speaking channel Science4All, which has produced a great series exploring the theoretical and mathematical concepts behind democratic election systems. Their video “Le scrutin de Condorcet randomisé | Démocratie 5” (https://youtu.be/wKimU8jy2a8?list=PLtzmb84AoqRSmv5o-eFNb3i9z64IuOjdX) offers, in my opinion, one of the best explanations of Condorcet elections—a perfect launchpad if you decide to take a deeper dive into these topics.
#Democracy #SocialChoiceTheory #VotingSystems #ArrowsTheorem #CondorcetMethod #PoliticalInnovation #CivicEngagement
-
I was thinking about voting systems earlier: has there been research into a system where the probability of a decision being made is a monotonic function of its votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot is just this but with the function being the identity, but I wonder if others have been explored.
#voting #elections #democracy #socialchoice #votingsystems #electoralsystems #gametheory #probability
-
I was thinking about voting systems earlier: has there been research into a system where the probability of a decision being made is a monotonic function of its votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot is just this but with the function being the identity, but I wonder if others have been explored.
#voting #elections #democracy #socialchoice #votingsystems #electoralsystems #gametheory #probability
-
I was thinking about voting systems earlier: has there been research into a system where the probability of a decision being made is a monotonic function of its votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot is just this but with the function being the identity, but I wonder if others have been explored.
#voting #elections #democracy #socialchoice #votingsystems #electoralsystems #gametheory #probability
-
I was thinking about voting systems earlier: has there been research into a system where the probability of a decision being made is a monotonic function of its votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot is just this but with the function being the identity, but I wonder if others have been explored.
#voting #elections #democracy #socialchoice #votingsystems #electoralsystems #gametheory #probability
-
I was thinking about voting systems earlier: has there been research into a system where the probability of a decision being made is a monotonic function of its votes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot is just this but with the function being the identity, but I wonder if others have been explored.
#voting #elections #democracy #socialchoice #votingsystems #electoralsystems #gametheory #probability
-
Colorado voting system password leak investigation findings released
#votingsystems https://youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJxgLXuDw&si=Ki4EAAIixkhB2Eak -
Colorado voting system password leak investigation findings released
#votingsystems https://youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJxgLXuDw&si=Ki4EAAIixkhB2Eak -
Colorado voting system password leak investigation findings released
#votingsystems https://youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJxgLXuDw&si=Ki4EAAIixkhB2Eak -
Colorado voting system password leak investigation findings released
#votingsystems https://youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJxgLXuDw&si=Ki4EAAIixkhB2Eak -
Colorado voting system password leak investigation findings released
#votingsystems https://youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJxgLXuDw&si=Ki4EAAIixkhB2Eak -
#FreeSpeechForPeople : 'A group #ComputerSecurityExperts have written to Vice President #KamalaHArris to alert her to the fact that #votingsystems were breached by TRUMP ALLIES [capitalisation mine] in 2021 and 2022 and to urge her to seek recounts in key states to ensure election verification.'
#STOPTRUMP #handcount 2 of 3
-
#FreeSpeechForPeople : 'A group #ComputerSecurityExperts have written to Vice President #KamalaHArris to alert her to the fact that #votingsystems were breached by TRUMP ALLIES [capitalisation mine] in 2021 and 2022 and to urge her to seek recounts in key states to ensure election verification.'
#STOPTRUMP #handcount 2 of 3
