this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2026
62 points (98.4% liked)

politics

31271 readers
2196 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Two Republicans on Georgia’s state election board Thursday criticized a proposal by their own party to address a flaw in Georgia’s voting equipment that can allow voters to be matched to their ballots after they have been cast.

The software vulnerability does not allow votes to be changed or cast doubt on election results, but it could let someone see how others voted. That’s important because ballot secrecy is a fundamental right under the state constitution and violations could create an opening for legal challenges.

A lack of ballot secrecy also can increase the danger of coercion to vote a certain way by family members or employers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TrackenDaKracken@lemmy.world 15 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Since this has been known since 2022, they should have fixed it by now. My guess is the fix is in the software and probably already exists. It was probably written as soon as the issue came to light, and is just waiting to be deployed.

Shuffling the ballots is also an easy fix, the excuses given not to do this are bogus.

Something fishy is going on. The point that this leaves the election open to legal challenges is the main issue, and perhaps the main intent.

[–] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

"Under the state’s system, ballots that display voters’ choices and electronic ballot images created by the scanners that read them are randomized. But the equipment’s software flaw allows them to be put back in the order they were cast"

If I had to guess, is date/time metadata. If you can put the ballots back in order and also have a list of when people finalized their ballot, you could cross reference with enough accuracy to be problematic.

And if you step out all the metadata, how do you prove that ballots weren't invented or changed?

Certifying changes to voting systems at the federal and then the state level can take years, so I'm not surprised this is taking a while.