5 ms·

Ahhh yes, the famous, main stream media said everything was fine so I went back to work argument. To be fair, most of the problems we are currently having seem

Ahhh yes, the famous, main stream media said everything was fine so I went back to work argument. To be fair, most of the problems we are currently having seem to revolve around gerry mandering with potential issues arising in the future involving tampering with electronic voting. That doesn't mean voter supression, identity theft, and other forms of tampering aren't legitimate concerns though. For example, heres article from MSM that investigates people who have been dead for years are still voting: https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/amp/?client=ms-android-tmobile-us https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/2...

ivraatiems 10y ago
I didn't say "isn't a problem." I said "isn't a particularly big problem." In an electorate where millions of people vote every year, a few thousand votes in a non-swing state (using the example you mentioned), or even a few thousand fake votes in every state, is just not that high a rate of fraud. There is rhetoric now as though most or all voting is subject to this kind of fraud, that the fraud is massive. It just isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or shouldn't be stopped, but threats must be dealt with proportionally to the degree that they are threatening. Your reaction strikes me as disproportional.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  A small amount of fraud has the same effect as widescale fraud because it contaminates the entire process, seeding distrust.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    I think distrust based on a small amount of fraud is a problem of perception, not a problem with the system. That is, it's the same as fearing you'll get serious side effects with a vaccine because a very small number of people do. In both cases, the risk/reward is out of whack, but you might worry anyway.
  - specialist 10y ago
    Fraud is indistinguishable from error. Ignore intent and focus on prevention, like a QA/test person would. I'm kinda thick headed, so it took me too long to figure this out on my own.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      "Plan for the worst, hope for the best." It doesn't matter why something happens, only that it happens.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- tropo 10y ago
  It's an UNKNOWN problem because we refuse to effectively detect it. It could be huge, it could be tiny, and we just don't know. One side assumes the problem is huge, especially when they lose, and wants to take effective measures to prevent it. This side sees opposition to common-sense security as confirmation that fraud is actually occurring and is actively supported by the other side. The refusal to solidly secure things may or may not actually matter to the results, but it sure fuels suspicion. After all, why allow doubt about correctness unless you actually are doctoring the results? We'd be better off if we could clearly demonstrate to the losing side that the loss is legit. Our low-security situation encourages the loser to claim that victory was stolen from them. That isn't good for keeping things peaceful.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    > It's an UNKNOWN problem because we refuse to effectively detect it. It could be huge, it could be tiny, and we just don't know. The sources I provide clearly demonstrate that it is not an unknown problem. I would agree that it is a problem whose scope is not fully understood, but when you have something that doesn't seem like a big problem to most people, it's hard to argue that you should spend lots of time investigating it/divert resources to it. Since people's perceptions of the system are changing now, maybe that'll change, too. It would be one of the few good things to come of this election cycle if so, provided the money spent and time invested are reasonable/proportionate. > After all, why allow doubt about correctness unless you actually are doctoring the results? Like another poster said in this thread: Because you don't know better. Because you don't care. Because you don't think it's necessary. Because you can't afford to. Because it's not what the law says to do. Malice should be the last, not the first assumption. You use the term "refuse" a lot in your comment; I don't think this is a matter of "refusal," so much as it is a matter of "nothing/nobody is telling us to." The government doesn't do things unless the people force it to do things, or unless those things are absolutely and unquestionably in the best interest of the people in government (and even then, it doesn't always act until the law compels it to). Generally, I just think this issue is less sinister and more typical of the American political system than people think it is these days.
    - 10y ago
- rbcgerard 10y ago
  maybe not the presidential election, but given how many small municipalities (<25,000) there are...a few votes can make a big difference...

ivraatiems 10y ago

I didn't say "isn't a problem." I said "isn't a particularly big problem." In an electorate where millions of people vote every year, a few thousand votes in a non-swing state (using the example you mentioned), or even a few thousand fake votes in every state, is just not that high a rate of fraud. There is rhetoric now as though most or all voting is subject to this kind of fraud, that the fraud is massive. It just isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or shouldn't be stopped, but threats must be dealt with proportionally to the degree that they are threatening. Your reaction strikes me as disproportional.

wheelerwj 10y ago
A small amount of fraud has the same effect as widescale fraud because it contaminates the entire process, seeding distrust.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  I think distrust based on a small amount of fraud is a problem of perception, not a problem with the system. That is, it's the same as fearing you'll get serious side effects with a vaccine because a very small number of people do. In both cases, the risk/reward is out of whack, but you might worry anyway.
- specialist 10y ago
  Fraud is indistinguishable from error. Ignore intent and focus on prevention, like a QA/test person would. I'm kinda thick headed, so it took me too long to figure this out on my own.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    "Plan for the worst, hope for the best." It doesn't matter why something happens, only that it happens.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
tropo 10y ago
It's an UNKNOWN problem because we refuse to effectively detect it. It could be huge, it could be tiny, and we just don't know. One side assumes the problem is huge, especially when they lose, and wants to take effective measures to prevent it. This side sees opposition to common-sense security as confirmation that fraud is actually occurring and is actively supported by the other side. The refusal to solidly secure things may or may not actually matter to the results, but it sure fuels suspicion. After all, why allow doubt about correctness unless you actually are doctoring the results? We'd be better off if we could clearly demonstrate to the losing side that the loss is legit. Our low-security situation encourages the loser to claim that victory was stolen from them. That isn't good for keeping things peaceful.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  > It's an UNKNOWN problem because we refuse to effectively detect it. It could be huge, it could be tiny, and we just don't know. The sources I provide clearly demonstrate that it is not an unknown problem. I would agree that it is a problem whose scope is not fully understood, but when you have something that doesn't seem like a big problem to most people, it's hard to argue that you should spend lots of time investigating it/divert resources to it. Since people's perceptions of the system are changing now, maybe that'll change, too. It would be one of the few good things to come of this election cycle if so, provided the money spent and time invested are reasonable/proportionate. > After all, why allow doubt about correctness unless you actually are doctoring the results? Like another poster said in this thread: Because you don't know better. Because you don't care. Because you don't think it's necessary. Because you can't afford to. Because it's not what the law says to do. Malice should be the last, not the first assumption. You use the term "refuse" a lot in your comment; I don't think this is a matter of "refusal," so much as it is a matter of "nothing/nobody is telling us to." The government doesn't do things unless the people force it to do things, or unless those things are absolutely and unquestionably in the best interest of the people in government (and even then, it doesn't always act until the law compels it to). Generally, I just think this issue is less sinister and more typical of the American political system than people think it is these days.
  - 10y ago
rbcgerard 10y ago
maybe not the presidential election, but given how many small municipalities (<25,000) there are...a few votes can make a big difference...