BH) Why shouldn't we wish that elections were more hackable instead of
less? Hackers tend to be more libertarian than
the rest of society. Would hacked elections really be worse than the
outcomes currently being driven by the nanny state's hordes of
rent-seekers? [...] I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that
vote-selling -- the main theoretical problem with absentee ballots --
should be illegal. (BH
HH) How can you advocate vote-selling and hacking elections while you
run for Congress on the Libertarian party ticket? (HH
I did neither.
If vote-selling is a crime, then who's the victim? If it's criminal to
vote with a motive that you find distasteful, why not outlaw all the
voting motives that you don't approve of? These are serious questions
-- at least to people who value serious thought over manufactured
outrage. See e.g.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/11/should-we-let-p.html
HH) the 2004 Ohio election was obviously fraudulent and rigged in
several ways. The most visible was the distribution of voting
machines, causing waiting lines of up to 8 hours to vote in the
disenfranchised neighborhoods. (HH
I didn't ask whether anyone asserted it was "obvious" that an election
was rigged, or whether anyone had any gripes about an election. I asked
about falsifying vote counts. If you don't have any evidence of it,
just say so.
Regarding lines -- quel horreur! -- in 2004 we read: "Among the factors
thought to be at work were: the general increase in voter turnout; a
particular increase in first-time voters whose processing required more
time; and confusion about the providing of provisional ballots, which
many states had never used before."
