238
Comments (17)
sorted by:
6
E-dantes 6 points ago +6 / -0

The problem lays with the politicians. They don't care about the price, they care about the results. However, if we get the MAGA crowd to obtain and hold office, the equation changes drastically.

4
residue69 4 points ago +4 / -0

The prices are high because getting gov't contracts requires kickbacks. You've got to hire lobbyists and pay them enough to give jackasses like Hunter Biden jobs.

4
TaterTurd 4 points ago +4 / -0

Doesn't have to be a millionaire that does this. It's a great idea. A small group of skilled and determined people could create a competing system. Probably very quickly.

4
PlateOwner [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

How sweet would the revenge be... They sued him for $1.3 billion. He started a competing company. He took away $130 billion of their business over x years.

  • no USB ports
  • no internet connectivity
  • no mass adjudication
  • no signature verification by 1 pt of similarity
  • no audit log deletion
  • no algorithms
  • no fractional voting
  • open source
  • national security experts approved
  • forensic audits

Many R states would buy!!

(This data sheet above is for only one state, Georgia, probably.)

0
marishiten 0 points ago +1 / -1

If you have an open source project, you cannot profit from that project. It's part of the GPL agreement.

Plus, open source tends to mean that people will be able to hack your shit far easier and election software is a BIG target for that.

2
teleomorph 2 points ago +2 / -0

"open source tends to mean that people will be able to hack your shit far easier"

That's not true. Systems striving for security depend on Linux over Microsoft for a reason. Since the code is open anyone can search for and repair bugs and backdoors. And it would be transparent too so we could at least look for hacks, unlike with these black box closed systems which wont even let you forensic audit.

"cannot profit"

So? That doesn't stop it from being the best service in a competition. As much funds can be raised and earned as necessary to benefit the project. Open source alternatives to major proprietary software are often competitive if not better (certainly cheaper if not free).

PACs, foundations, and other giant political operations are non-profit and still have huge effect.

Also, ancillary projects to open source projects are also often used to gain profit outside of, but connected to, the open source project itself.

1
c89631147e 1 point ago +1 / -0

You don’t have to open source under the GPL. 🤷🏼‍♂️

3
wildcat1020 3 points ago +3 / -0

The problem isn't making a fair machine. The problem is they don't want a fair machine.

2
ReallyReallyDun 2 points ago +2 / -0

BINGO

2
HanginChad 2 points ago +2 / -0

Politicians don't spend their own money. They spend your money. So why should they care. Besides Mike probably won't give them kickbacks.

2
c89631147e 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wouldn’t gain any traction because it wouldn’t be controlled by the Deep State. 🤷🏼‍♂️

2
rufrignkidnme 2 points ago +2 / -0

it would get no orders. They amount of money coming from the public funds for these contracts aren't for convenient and accurate elections.. they're paying for their preferred outcome, and then there are the kickbacks and jobs after office.

1
PlateOwner [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who needs Dominion? We've got Mike!

1
justwannasay 1 point ago +1 / -0

you can fight for open source voting systems... but I don't even want a mike lindell made system. Sorry, love him but he's clearly partisan and on our side. the optics alone would be terrible.

1
marishiten 1 point ago +1 / -0

30,000 units? I don't know about that man.

1
Kwdzr 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hi 👋

I have been posting about making a voting machine for some time now.

1
Robiscore98 1 point ago +1 / -0

Small investment from a certain based South African can help