6 ms·

This is literally a non-story, in that no evidence is provided one way or the other, and it appears to be turning extremely traditional political posturing - fo

This is literally a non-story, in that no evidence is provided one way or the other, and it appears to be turning extremely traditional political posturing - forcing allegations of misdeeds to go through lawsuits and exhibit things like standing, harm, etc. - Anyway, that being said, the stock picture they used for the header is pure unadulterated gold. It's straight out of The Colbert Report.

ethbro 9y ago
Give the entire case is about access to evidence (which Kansas denied previous request for), I'm not sure how the story could have been written any other way. If election tampering were occurring, how would one discover that? How would one confirm it? If the answer to the above questions is "Trust us, vote tampering isn't happening," then election laws in that state probably need to be changed.
- smsm42 9y ago
  At least it could describe some evidence in why there is a reasonable suspicion exists that something is wrong. Saying "well, some woman thinks something's wrong and because she happens to be a statistician she must be onto a government conspiracy" is not very informative. The only thing the article gives is: > Clarkson has said her statistical analyses of elections over several years have shown discrepancies indicating vote tampering. What kind of discrepancies? Indicating how? What kind of tampering? No idea.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    >At least it could describe some evidence in why there is a reasonable suspicion exists that something is wrong. The burden should be on the state to demonstrate that voting is secure and accurate, especially given that they control the data and the processes, thereby making it more difficult for someone to present evidence. As it is, the state's position is circular: "we won't give you access to the information you need to prove something was amiss until you prove that something was amiss". But, even in the absence of someone questioning, the state should be able to show why there is no cause for concern in ways that allow the public and outside experts to verify for themselves. However, on the contrary, many precincts refuse to allow a paper trail/receipts and they continue to use machines that have demonstrated vulnerabilities, further obscuring the issue. It looks like this case may be prompting legislation that is moving in exactly this direction. That would be a positive outcome.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      > The burden should be on the state to demonstrate that voting is secure and accurate It doesn't work this way. It can't. It's like I am saying "you are a reptiloid alien from planet Nibiru planning the conquest of Earth" and now the burden is on you to prove that you are human and not an alien wearing human skin as a costume. Normal people do not behave this way, and if you claim the election has been tampered with, you need to present at least some evidence why you think so. Otherwise you're just running your mouth (or keyboard) and blowing hot air. > As it is, the state's position is circular: "we won't give you access to the information you need to prove something Not true. She does claim there's evidence that something is wrong and she can prove it statistically - we just don't know what it is because there's no reporting on it. So we can not verify whether she is onto something or her statistics is junk and she's just trolling, in which case the state is right to refuse to spend time on her. > the state should be able to show why there is no cause for concern in ways that allow the public and outside experts to verify for themselves How would that look like? The vote is secret, for a reason, and if you do not trust the state mechanisms that collect that vote, how would you become convinced that the vote is accurate without some trust in the process? How that mechanism would look like? > they continue to use machines that have demonstrated vulnerabilities It is true that the machines have vulnerabilities, as do about 100% of computer equipment. Given that, I am not sure what your proposal it - not using computers at all and count everything by hand? What is the counters are dishonest too? How paper trail would help - personalized vote log is highly private information, and non-personalized one can easily be faked - how do you know if the system didn't report your vote for D as R and vice versa if you are just looking at the stream of Ds and Rs on the tape and don't know which is which? How do you make the system that demonstrably can not be tampered with while you have zero trust in hardware, software or people dealing with it? I don't think it is possible. Of course, there are mechanisms to prevent election fraud, and they are being used, but each of them involves a degree of trust and can be questioned, and I don't think any of them can be scientifically verified without destroying the privacy of the vote in the process.
      - unclebucknasty 9y ago
        >It's like I am saying "you are a reptiloid alien from planet Nibiru planning the conquest of Earth" and now the burden is on you Your line of reasoning is valid--that a claimant cannot simply make an assertion and declare it true, simply because it cannot be disproven. But, what you're missing is that it's the state that is making the initial assertion: that voting is secure and accurate. So, they are the ones claiming the voters to be reptiloids. Pretty much the whole of your comment is undermined by this single misapplication of reasoning. But, I'll continue on a couple of other points... >Not true. She does claim there's evidence that something is wrong She's asserting statistical anomalies that can be clarified with additional information (i.e. a recount) that the state refuses to provide. But, that's not the point. Again, she's in this position based on a fallacious premise that you've accepted: the state's assertion of security without sufficient proof. >How would that look like? There are probably n technical solutions to this. A simple one would be paper-receipts with anonymous identifiers that tie votes to tallies published on-line. Anyone can look up their votes/results and/or download them to run analysis. Add a cryptographic hash to avoid forgeries. Speaking of hashes, there's also block-chain. >It is true that the machines have vulnerabilities, as do about 100% of computer equipment. Given that, I am not sure what your proposal is Your premise leads you to exactly the opposite of the conclusion that one would expect. That is, you acknowledge the problems, but conclude that it's acceptable for the approach to be trust in the system versus introducing corroborating processes or systems. I'm not sure if you know the degree to which vulns are a problem, but start by at least closing known vulnerabilities. Then, provide other validating factors that mitigate the shortcomings you acknowledge, whether via paper or otherwise. In any case, throwing our hands up and saying "it's hard, so let's stick with what we've got and declare it secure even in the face of challenges" is not the solution.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    > What kind of discrepancies? Indicating how? What kind of tampering? No idea. Granted. But in the paper's defense, most experimental scientists don't know how to use general statistics correctly. So I think it's a fair assumption their average reader would likely be unfamiliar with p-values.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      True, but you don't have to write a scientific paper for peer-review here - you can just mention the proof in accessible language, and then refer people that do know what p-values are to place where they can see the data and verify it. Otherwise, the article essentially boils down to "some person is claiming something is wrong with elections, be worried" with no tools to evaluate the claim or make any useful conclusion from it. TBH, that's not a unique occurrence - most of the reporting done in a way that prevents the reader from independently evaluating the information, since the goal of the modern reporting is to get the reader to prearranged conclusion (or prearranged feeling of righteous anger/fear/hate/etc.) and not to give information. This is just another brick in the wall.
      - ethbro 9y ago
        > most of the reporting done in a way that prevents the reader from independently evaluating the information, since the goal of the modern reporting is to get the reader to prearranged conclusion Never ascribe to malice, that which sloth also explains?
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
If theres nothing to hide why get all bunched about it brah?

ethbro 9y ago

Give the entire case is about access to evidence (which Kansas denied previous request for), I'm not sure how the story could have been written any other way. If election tampering were occurring, how would one discover that? How would one confirm it? If the answer to the above questions is "Trust us, vote tampering isn't happening," then election laws in that state probably need to be changed.

smsm42 9y ago
At least it could describe some evidence in why there is a reasonable suspicion exists that something is wrong. Saying "well, some woman thinks something's wrong and because she happens to be a statistician she must be onto a government conspiracy" is not very informative. The only thing the article gives is: > Clarkson has said her statistical analyses of elections over several years have shown discrepancies indicating vote tampering. What kind of discrepancies? Indicating how? What kind of tampering? No idea.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  >At least it could describe some evidence in why there is a reasonable suspicion exists that something is wrong. The burden should be on the state to demonstrate that voting is secure and accurate, especially given that they control the data and the processes, thereby making it more difficult for someone to present evidence. As it is, the state's position is circular: "we won't give you access to the information you need to prove something was amiss until you prove that something was amiss". But, even in the absence of someone questioning, the state should be able to show why there is no cause for concern in ways that allow the public and outside experts to verify for themselves. However, on the contrary, many precincts refuse to allow a paper trail/receipts and they continue to use machines that have demonstrated vulnerabilities, further obscuring the issue. It looks like this case may be prompting legislation that is moving in exactly this direction. That would be a positive outcome.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > The burden should be on the state to demonstrate that voting is secure and accurate It doesn't work this way. It can't. It's like I am saying "you are a reptiloid alien from planet Nibiru planning the conquest of Earth" and now the burden is on you to prove that you are human and not an alien wearing human skin as a costume. Normal people do not behave this way, and if you claim the election has been tampered with, you need to present at least some evidence why you think so. Otherwise you're just running your mouth (or keyboard) and blowing hot air. > As it is, the state's position is circular: "we won't give you access to the information you need to prove something Not true. She does claim there's evidence that something is wrong and she can prove it statistically - we just don't know what it is because there's no reporting on it. So we can not verify whether she is onto something or her statistics is junk and she's just trolling, in which case the state is right to refuse to spend time on her. > the state should be able to show why there is no cause for concern in ways that allow the public and outside experts to verify for themselves How would that look like? The vote is secret, for a reason, and if you do not trust the state mechanisms that collect that vote, how would you become convinced that the vote is accurate without some trust in the process? How that mechanism would look like? > they continue to use machines that have demonstrated vulnerabilities It is true that the machines have vulnerabilities, as do about 100% of computer equipment. Given that, I am not sure what your proposal it - not using computers at all and count everything by hand? What is the counters are dishonest too? How paper trail would help - personalized vote log is highly private information, and non-personalized one can easily be faked - how do you know if the system didn't report your vote for D as R and vice versa if you are just looking at the stream of Ds and Rs on the tape and don't know which is which? How do you make the system that demonstrably can not be tampered with while you have zero trust in hardware, software or people dealing with it? I don't think it is possible. Of course, there are mechanisms to prevent election fraud, and they are being used, but each of them involves a degree of trust and can be questioned, and I don't think any of them can be scientifically verified without destroying the privacy of the vote in the process.
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      >It's like I am saying "you are a reptiloid alien from planet Nibiru planning the conquest of Earth" and now the burden is on you Your line of reasoning is valid--that a claimant cannot simply make an assertion and declare it true, simply because it cannot be disproven. But, what you're missing is that it's the state that is making the initial assertion: that voting is secure and accurate. So, they are the ones claiming the voters to be reptiloids. Pretty much the whole of your comment is undermined by this single misapplication of reasoning. But, I'll continue on a couple of other points... >Not true. She does claim there's evidence that something is wrong She's asserting statistical anomalies that can be clarified with additional information (i.e. a recount) that the state refuses to provide. But, that's not the point. Again, she's in this position based on a fallacious premise that you've accepted: the state's assertion of security without sufficient proof. >How would that look like? There are probably n technical solutions to this. A simple one would be paper-receipts with anonymous identifiers that tie votes to tallies published on-line. Anyone can look up their votes/results and/or download them to run analysis. Add a cryptographic hash to avoid forgeries. Speaking of hashes, there's also block-chain. >It is true that the machines have vulnerabilities, as do about 100% of computer equipment. Given that, I am not sure what your proposal is Your premise leads you to exactly the opposite of the conclusion that one would expect. That is, you acknowledge the problems, but conclude that it's acceptable for the approach to be trust in the system versus introducing corroborating processes or systems. I'm not sure if you know the degree to which vulns are a problem, but start by at least closing known vulnerabilities. Then, provide other validating factors that mitigate the shortcomings you acknowledge, whether via paper or otherwise. In any case, throwing our hands up and saying "it's hard, so let's stick with what we've got and declare it secure even in the face of challenges" is not the solution.
- ethbro 9y ago
  > What kind of discrepancies? Indicating how? What kind of tampering? No idea. Granted. But in the paper's defense, most experimental scientists don't know how to use general statistics correctly. So I think it's a fair assumption their average reader would likely be unfamiliar with p-values.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    True, but you don't have to write a scientific paper for peer-review here - you can just mention the proof in accessible language, and then refer people that do know what p-values are to place where they can see the data and verify it. Otherwise, the article essentially boils down to "some person is claiming something is wrong with elections, be worried" with no tools to evaluate the claim or make any useful conclusion from it. TBH, that's not a unique occurrence - most of the reporting done in a way that prevents the reader from independently evaluating the information, since the goal of the modern reporting is to get the reader to prearranged conclusion (or prearranged feeling of righteous anger/fear/hate/etc.) and not to give information. This is just another brick in the wall.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      > most of the reporting done in a way that prevents the reader from independently evaluating the information, since the goal of the modern reporting is to get the reader to prearranged conclusion Never ascribe to malice, that which sloth also explains?

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

If theres nothing to hide why get all bunched about it brah?