4 ms·

This article is not good. I, for one, applaud the NY Post for publishing the key. Back when we were all flipping out over electronic voting, I published a "how-

This article is not good. I, for one, applaud the NY Post for publishing the key. Back when we were all flipping out over electronic voting, I published a "how-to" on Ars for compromising various popular voting machines, complete with some codes and other instructions. It was so easy anyone could do it, and the piece was printed out and waved angrily at various hearings on CSPAN, and the end result was... Well, actually, the end result was that some counties went back to mechanical, and some didn't, and today it's all still a mess and it's impossible to have any confidence that your vote was correctly recorded. And now, in the digital age, voting is probably just this cargo cult ritual that we all do to summon this "democracy" thing that our ancestors once encountered. Anyway, my point is, just publish the key. That makes it harder for the people who are embarrassed by this and want to bury it to do so.

maxerickson 11y ago
And now, in the digital age, voting is probably just this cargo cult ritual that we all do to summon this "democracy" thing that our ancestors once encountered. If the current situation is a farce, what description does more than half of the population being disenfranchised deserve? States with paper ballots and electronic tabulators shouldn't have too much problems with election integrity, the electronic results may be tampered with, but the paper trail is much harder to mess with.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I think there's an important difference between outright prohibiting someone from voting, and allowing them to vote but not counting it. If you prohibit someone from voting, at least they know it happened. Paper trails are great, but are they checked frequently?
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Yeah, the stated election process and actual election outcome have to both be considered, but my point was more that there aren't any good ol' days to harken back to when it comes to evaluating how egalitarian US elections are in practice. Personally, I'm more concerned that parties have easier access to the ballot and that people are prevented from voting than I am with records tampering.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Agreed on both points. The potential for shenanigans with electronic voting machines is worrying, but it seems to be a mostly theoretical problem right now.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  How is the paper trail harder to mess with? A printing machine could do the trick simply enough
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Maybe start from the assumption that the people designing election systems have considered someone printing extra ballots? The system I'm familiar with has safeguards to ensure that the only ballots that get counted come from eligible voters.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      Unfortunately this is a false assumption to make. Yes, they may have considered it but ultimately there is increasingly very little that can be done to impede such fraud. Frank Abagnale explains how paper-based fraud is easier than it ever has been due to technological proliferation[1] [1]https://youtu.be/x0fEA0MsiV8?t=2266 https://youtu.be/x0fEA0MsiV8?t=2266
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        The authentic ballots are not just authenticated against themselves, they are kept secure. You need a conspiracy at every precinct where you replace or introduce ballots. I realize it isn't a perfect system, but you can't just fire up your laser printer and leave the extra ballots sitting outside the polling place.
        alanwatts 11y ago
        >You need a conspiracy at every precinct where you replace or introduce ballots. Indeed. I'm not sure if you watched some of the clip I linked to but that it one of the things Abagnale speaks to. With decreasing budgets, increasing corruption, or a simple lack of ethics it is easy enough to compromise an individual and thus the whole system which they administer. Any social engineer will tell you it is far easier to hack a person than to hack a system. This is why I would argue that a more automated electric system, one which relies on less human administrators, would would be more difficult for the average person to compromise than a paper-based system which relies on a higher number of human administrators.

maxerickson 11y ago

And now, in the digital age, voting is probably just this cargo cult ritual that we all do to summon this "democracy" thing that our ancestors once encountered. If the current situation is a farce, what description does more than half of the population being disenfranchised deserve? States with paper ballots and electronic tabulators shouldn't have too much problems with election integrity, the electronic results may be tampered with, but the paper trail is much harder to mess with.

mikeash 11y ago
I think there's an important difference between outright prohibiting someone from voting, and allowing them to vote but not counting it. If you prohibit someone from voting, at least they know it happened. Paper trails are great, but are they checked frequently?
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Yeah, the stated election process and actual election outcome have to both be considered, but my point was more that there aren't any good ol' days to harken back to when it comes to evaluating how egalitarian US elections are in practice. Personally, I'm more concerned that parties have easier access to the ballot and that people are prevented from voting than I am with records tampering.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Agreed on both points. The potential for shenanigans with electronic voting machines is worrying, but it seems to be a mostly theoretical problem right now.
alanwatts 11y ago
How is the paper trail harder to mess with? A printing machine could do the trick simply enough
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Maybe start from the assumption that the people designing election systems have considered someone printing extra ballots? The system I'm familiar with has safeguards to ensure that the only ballots that get counted come from eligible voters.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    Unfortunately this is a false assumption to make. Yes, they may have considered it but ultimately there is increasingly very little that can be done to impede such fraud. Frank Abagnale explains how paper-based fraud is easier than it ever has been due to technological proliferation[1] [1]https://youtu.be/x0fEA0MsiV8?t=2266 https://youtu.be/x0fEA0MsiV8?t=2266
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      The authentic ballots are not just authenticated against themselves, they are kept secure. You need a conspiracy at every precinct where you replace or introduce ballots. I realize it isn't a perfect system, but you can't just fire up your laser printer and leave the extra ballots sitting outside the polling place.
      - alanwatts 11y ago
        >You need a conspiracy at every precinct where you replace or introduce ballots. Indeed. I'm not sure if you watched some of the clip I linked to but that it one of the things Abagnale speaks to. With decreasing budgets, increasing corruption, or a simple lack of ethics it is easy enough to compromise an individual and thus the whole system which they administer. Any social engineer will tell you it is far easier to hack a person than to hack a system. This is why I would argue that a more automated electric system, one which relies on less human administrators, would would be more difficult for the average person to compromise than a paper-based system which relies on a higher number of human administrators.