6 ms·

Is there a solid argument for not having more regulation on these organizations? We have so much regulation on slot machines and casinos for example because we

Is there a solid argument for not having more regulation on these organizations? We have so much regulation on slot machines and casinos for example because we know that a lot of money passes through there and there's high potential for money laundering. Why not have strong regulations around voting systems too? We know that if voting systems are compromised the impact could be devastating to the entire country - far more critical to America's security and continuity than regulation in many other industries. I just don't get the opposition to that. It seems like it's in everyone's best interest (those that are honest and are looking for a fair foundation to build from that is).

maxxxxx 8y ago
I honestly think that a lot of people in the US think it's more important that their party wins than having fair elections. So I don't expect a big push coming from the people who are responsible for these purchases.
- 0x7265616374 8y ago
  when the "other side" leverages something controversial, it's a crime. when "our side" leverages something controversial, it's playing to win. the hypocrisy in US politics is strong at every level.
  - smolder 8y ago
    At the risk of sounding like a preacher (as a nonreligious person) I think a lack of moral guidance in modern life is a factor. What might've been controversial in the past, the idea that morality is an individual weakness rather than a communal strength, seems to be projected through all sorts of media.
- mark_l_watson 8y ago
  You are absolutely correct, and some evidence is gerrymandering.
- Spivak 8y ago
  I'm not sure why you see that as irrational? If I had a genie that made sure whoever I voted for won I wouldn't really hesitate to use it. It would be silly of me to refuse. The party in power is expected to lie cheat and steal to maintain their position and the opposition parties are supposed to keep them in check. Adversarial systems seem to work pretty well since the incentives align -- way better than I would expect an honor system to work at least.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    An adversarial system can only work if there are neutral referees in between that make sure certain rules are followed. In this case it would be election officials. If they are partisan themselves then the system is just corrupt.
    - Spivak 8y ago
      An adversarial system doesn't need a neutral party, it just requires that all interests are represented in the body of rule enforcers. Any system that depends on the existence of angels is pretty much doomed from the start.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        "it just requires that all interests are represented in the body of rule enforcers." What does this mean? Who are the rule enforcers?
        Spivak 8y ago
        I was going to say members of each party but I realized that there are many non-political party interests that need to be represented as well for ideal fairness. Largely what I'm getting at is that adversarial systems fail when somebody doesn't have an adversary. So in general it's not enough for them to be bipartisan, they need to be a group that collectively opossss every action someone takes. When all the dust settles the only things people will actually be able to do are the things permitted by the rules.
specialist 8y ago
The voting machine certification gauntlet is text book regulatory capture. Meaning the vendors themselves fund and run the testing labs (last time I checked). Further, since appropriations are (mostly) done locally, the "surface area" is quite big. Like the parable of the boy plugging the dyke with his fingers. For example, I was able to block the purchase and use of gear that added the voter's id to their ballot. In my jurisdiction alone. There are roughly 2,000 counties in the USA. So to protect everyone's secret ballot, that fight would have to recur many, many times. Alas, saving democracy doesn't pay very well, nor does it scale.
abtinf 8y ago
The only buyers for voting machines are governments, and they can use whatever purchase criteria they want. Thus, the market is effectively completely regulated in every aspect. The difficulty is that building a secure voting machine is a problem similar to building secure, spam-free email. No matter what trade off you make, you will trigger violently angry responses from some group.
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  Just because there's only 1 type of buyer doesn't mean the industry is regulated at all. It just means capitalism is at work. I'm not sure how you can conflate the two. The government is massive so you can't just say because the same entity as a whole is the one purchasing the machines that they're essentially also regulating it. To be even more clear there are almost no regulations in this space other than what the companies themselves say they regulate/control/test. That's not regulation, but government simply buying from the only options that are out there who currently poorly regulate things themselves. You're basically saying that building a perfect voting machine is impossible so they're all faulty so we should be okay with faulty ones. You seem to be an engineer from your twitter, which is somewhat shocking for me. In engineering (mechanical, electrical, software) if you said to your boss "hey, we can't make this thing perfect so we shouldn't even bother because someone will complain about it" I'd imagine your boss would fire you and find someone that wasn't so black and white who would actually try to implement something and then make it better. Also, your comparison to spam-free email doesn't actually help your case at all. If you went to google years ago before they created gmail and said 'I heard you were going to try and make a secure and spam-free email system, but that in doing so you'll make tradeoffs and some people will be angry with it' I imagine they'd laugh you out of the room. Moreso today if you said that to them since they have built that system and generally most people like it. Out of curiosity, where are the 'violently angry responses from some group' happening? All I see are people fighting regulation and the use of better systems and people who are dismayed by that and are trying to make things right.
- specialist 8y ago
  Please don't conflate a closed market with a well regulated market.

maxxxxx 8y ago

I honestly think that a lot of people in the US think it's more important that their party wins than having fair elections. So I don't expect a big push coming from the people who are responsible for these purchases.

0x7265616374 8y ago
when the "other side" leverages something controversial, it's a crime. when "our side" leverages something controversial, it's playing to win. the hypocrisy in US politics is strong at every level.
- smolder 8y ago
  At the risk of sounding like a preacher (as a nonreligious person) I think a lack of moral guidance in modern life is a factor. What might've been controversial in the past, the idea that morality is an individual weakness rather than a communal strength, seems to be projected through all sorts of media.
mark_l_watson 8y ago
You are absolutely correct, and some evidence is gerrymandering.
Spivak 8y ago
I'm not sure why you see that as irrational? If I had a genie that made sure whoever I voted for won I wouldn't really hesitate to use it. It would be silly of me to refuse. The party in power is expected to lie cheat and steal to maintain their position and the opposition parties are supposed to keep them in check. Adversarial systems seem to work pretty well since the incentives align -- way better than I would expect an honor system to work at least.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  An adversarial system can only work if there are neutral referees in between that make sure certain rules are followed. In this case it would be election officials. If they are partisan themselves then the system is just corrupt.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    An adversarial system doesn't need a neutral party, it just requires that all interests are represented in the body of rule enforcers. Any system that depends on the existence of angels is pretty much doomed from the start.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      "it just requires that all interests are represented in the body of rule enforcers." What does this mean? Who are the rule enforcers?
      - Spivak 8y ago
        I was going to say members of each party but I realized that there are many non-political party interests that need to be represented as well for ideal fairness. Largely what I'm getting at is that adversarial systems fail when somebody doesn't have an adversary. So in general it's not enough for them to be bipartisan, they need to be a group that collectively opossss every action someone takes. When all the dust settles the only things people will actually be able to do are the things permitted by the rules.

specialist 8y ago

The voting machine certification gauntlet is text book regulatory capture. Meaning the vendors themselves fund and run the testing labs (last time I checked). Further, since appropriations are (mostly) done locally, the "surface area" is quite big. Like the parable of the boy plugging the dyke with his fingers. For example, I was able to block the purchase and use of gear that added the voter's id to their ballot. In my jurisdiction alone. There are roughly 2,000 counties in the USA. So to protect everyone's secret ballot, that fight would have to recur many, many times. Alas, saving democracy doesn't pay very well, nor does it scale.

abtinf 8y ago

The only buyers for voting machines are governments, and they can use whatever purchase criteria they want. Thus, the market is effectively completely regulated in every aspect. The difficulty is that building a secure voting machine is a problem similar to building secure, spam-free email. No matter what trade off you make, you will trigger violently angry responses from some group.

hnmonkey 8y ago
Just because there's only 1 type of buyer doesn't mean the industry is regulated at all. It just means capitalism is at work. I'm not sure how you can conflate the two. The government is massive so you can't just say because the same entity as a whole is the one purchasing the machines that they're essentially also regulating it. To be even more clear there are almost no regulations in this space other than what the companies themselves say they regulate/control/test. That's not regulation, but government simply buying from the only options that are out there who currently poorly regulate things themselves. You're basically saying that building a perfect voting machine is impossible so they're all faulty so we should be okay with faulty ones. You seem to be an engineer from your twitter, which is somewhat shocking for me. In engineering (mechanical, electrical, software) if you said to your boss "hey, we can't make this thing perfect so we shouldn't even bother because someone will complain about it" I'd imagine your boss would fire you and find someone that wasn't so black and white who would actually try to implement something and then make it better. Also, your comparison to spam-free email doesn't actually help your case at all. If you went to google years ago before they created gmail and said 'I heard you were going to try and make a secure and spam-free email system, but that in doing so you'll make tradeoffs and some people will be angry with it' I imagine they'd laugh you out of the room. Moreso today if you said that to them since they have built that system and generally most people like it. Out of curiosity, where are the 'violently angry responses from some group' happening? All I see are people fighting regulation and the use of better systems and people who are dismayed by that and are trying to make things right.
specialist 8y ago
Please don't conflate a closed market with a well regulated market.