4 ms·

The most successful attacks on democracy are gerrymandering (US especially) and misinformation (global problem, see Brexit thou specifically). Don't get me wron

The most successful attacks on democracy are gerrymandering (US especially) and misinformation (global problem, see Brexit thou specifically). Don't get me wrong, this sort of security is necessary but there's nothing wrong with tossing out the machines and using real paper ballots with a pencil (thus sidestepping the problem). You can even machine-read those for a machine count (which can be verified since the paper ballots are still around to rescan with different hardware/software for validation). How do you engineer around the misinformation vector thou? That's the hard problem.

jethro_tell 7y ago
Not only are paper ballots simple and effective, they can be mailed out 2 weeks ahead of time and people can vote with a laptop, at their leisure. Also, you don't have to store them for three months at a time with proof of custody, you can just scan them, or dump them once the election has been certified. Voting machines sound great but that it's solving a problem by doing things the same with tech.
- habnds 7y ago
  I think the laptops would defeat the purpose of the paper ballots?
  - abathur 7y ago
    I think GP just means with a laptop available (i.e., the ability to research a bond initiative they weren't already aware of).
    - habnds 7y ago
      yeah nice
- jfengel 7y ago
  Voting by mail has an even more massive security hole, in that ballots can be stolen, or people coerced (or paid). To my knowledge that hasn't happened yet, either in Oregon or in absentee voting, but with the level of discourse being what it is, I suspect it could easily become a problem.
  - jethro_tell 7y ago
    I hear this from time to time but a massive security hole is putting everything in one place on the internet. The coordination and effort required to go door to door stealing ballots out of mailboxes or taking van loads of ballots from a post office, in a day and age where every block has dozens of cameras. There is also a step where you get a code, and you can log in and see how that ballot voted. Think about the amount of money required to pay people to vote, say people will do it for $10, and everyone you ask that doesn't do it also keeps their mouth shut. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence state level elections and millions for country wide elections. The beauty of mail, is that while there are attack vectors, they are expensive, easily noticeable, and have a very high barrier to entry. On the other hand, say you have a perfect voting machine, I'm skeptical, but I'll give you that, it's certainly possible. Now, lets assume that they have to either be stored in a warehouse with armed guards, or reimaged every time they are used. There's a simple attack vector there of only one or two people you have to turn. This is the old crypto breaking with a pipe wrench vector, though cash money is probably just as easy. That is the same failure that paper has, but you have to go to hundreds of thousands of places to get that done. You can probably keep a couple people quite, but a few thousand? Paper by mail has a very high tamper barrier and is available now. States could do it in November
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Where I come from, the voting machines create a paper with the votes, which the voter gets to review. That seems to have all the advantages of the paper ballots, with the electronic advantage of rapid totals. I would like to see spot checks - pick a few precincts at random, and compare the electronic totals to the paper.
  - jethro_tell 7y ago
    the paper ballots via mail handle infrastructure and are counted by machine with spot checking. Also, you can go to the vote counting floor at any time and be part of the process. However you don't have to setup/store machines, and people can vote over a few days which means better access to everyone.
basch 7y ago
The premise of democracy, at least the American incarnation, is to allow people to believe whatever they want to believe. As a candidate, you have the freedom to say whatever you want. Even if everything they say is true, they can draw attention to the wrong issues, or stoke fear. To argue against misinformed voters is to argue against the foundation of the process. It's not just foreign countries dropping propaganda to disrupt sensible consensus, its the people themselves running who are propagating misinformation. "In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it." - pobedonostsev At the end of the day, whoever either spends the most money yelling out a megaphone, or gets the most attention yelling, gets elected. Except for times like Trump exploiting the modern news/press cycle for his own benefit, most election winners are the one who spends more money. I think the last time the lesser spend won a presidential election was Carter running against Ford. Goldwater got spanked as well, compared to spending.
- Beltiras 7y ago
  That's a problem as old as voting. I didn't say it invalidated democracy at it's core.
  - basch 7y ago
    fair enough, if the goal is to reduce it not prevent its possibility. makes sense.
    - Beltiras 7y ago
      In some sense it's very democratic for leaders to promise the moon. It's a bit worse for countries where coalition governments are the norm. Parties hide behind the coalition when they can't (inevitably) make everything happen they promised in the campaign for votes.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>How do you engineer around the misinformation vector thou? That's the hard problem. You can solve both with good education but public education will never teach people to think critically about government en-masse because the committees of bureaucrats that decide the curriculum and the teachers that teach it get a government paycheck at the end of the day. They're not gonna be inclined to go all out when it comes to teaching people about things like gerrymandering, propaganda, etc. This is not for any nefarious reason or the result of any conspiracy, people just tend to see the good but not the bad when it comes to their source of income. The incentive system is simply not set up in a way to produce voters who think critically.
- Beltiras 7y ago
  Not all schools are paid for by the public.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    But the publicly funded ones educate an overwhelming majority of the electorate.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

jethro_tell 7y ago

Not only are paper ballots simple and effective, they can be mailed out 2 weeks ahead of time and people can vote with a laptop, at their leisure. Also, you don't have to store them for three months at a time with proof of custody, you can just scan them, or dump them once the election has been certified. Voting machines sound great but that it's solving a problem by doing things the same with tech.

habnds 7y ago
I think the laptops would defeat the purpose of the paper ballots?
- abathur 7y ago
  I think GP just means with a laptop available (i.e., the ability to research a bond initiative they weren't already aware of).
  - habnds 7y ago
    yeah nice
jfengel 7y ago
Voting by mail has an even more massive security hole, in that ballots can be stolen, or people coerced (or paid). To my knowledge that hasn't happened yet, either in Oregon or in absentee voting, but with the level of discourse being what it is, I suspect it could easily become a problem.
- jethro_tell 7y ago
  I hear this from time to time but a massive security hole is putting everything in one place on the internet. The coordination and effort required to go door to door stealing ballots out of mailboxes or taking van loads of ballots from a post office, in a day and age where every block has dozens of cameras. There is also a step where you get a code, and you can log in and see how that ballot voted. Think about the amount of money required to pay people to vote, say people will do it for $10, and everyone you ask that doesn't do it also keeps their mouth shut. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence state level elections and millions for country wide elections. The beauty of mail, is that while there are attack vectors, they are expensive, easily noticeable, and have a very high barrier to entry. On the other hand, say you have a perfect voting machine, I'm skeptical, but I'll give you that, it's certainly possible. Now, lets assume that they have to either be stored in a warehouse with armed guards, or reimaged every time they are used. There's a simple attack vector there of only one or two people you have to turn. This is the old crypto breaking with a pipe wrench vector, though cash money is probably just as easy. That is the same failure that paper has, but you have to go to hundreds of thousands of places to get that done. You can probably keep a couple people quite, but a few thousand? Paper by mail has a very high tamper barrier and is available now. States could do it in November
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Where I come from, the voting machines create a paper with the votes, which the voter gets to review. That seems to have all the advantages of the paper ballots, with the electronic advantage of rapid totals. I would like to see spot checks - pick a few precincts at random, and compare the electronic totals to the paper.
- jethro_tell 7y ago
  the paper ballots via mail handle infrastructure and are counted by machine with spot checking. Also, you can go to the vote counting floor at any time and be part of the process. However you don't have to setup/store machines, and people can vote over a few days which means better access to everyone.

basch 7y ago

The premise of democracy, at least the American incarnation, is to allow people to believe whatever they want to believe. As a candidate, you have the freedom to say whatever you want. Even if everything they say is true, they can draw attention to the wrong issues, or stoke fear. To argue against misinformed voters is to argue against the foundation of the process. It's not just foreign countries dropping propaganda to disrupt sensible consensus, its the people themselves running who are propagating misinformation. "In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it." - pobedonostsev At the end of the day, whoever either spends the most money yelling out a megaphone, or gets the most attention yelling, gets elected. Except for times like Trump exploiting the modern news/press cycle for his own benefit, most election winners are the one who spends more money. I think the last time the lesser spend won a presidential election was Carter running against Ford. Goldwater got spanked as well, compared to spending.

Beltiras 7y ago
That's a problem as old as voting. I didn't say it invalidated democracy at it's core.
- basch 7y ago
  fair enough, if the goal is to reduce it not prevent its possibility. makes sense.
  - Beltiras 7y ago
    In some sense it's very democratic for leaders to promise the moon. It's a bit worse for countries where coalition governments are the norm. Parties hide behind the coalition when they can't (inevitably) make everything happen they promised in the campaign for votes.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>How do you engineer around the misinformation vector thou? That's the hard problem. You can solve both with good education but public education will never teach people to think critically about government en-masse because the committees of bureaucrats that decide the curriculum and the teachers that teach it get a government paycheck at the end of the day. They're not gonna be inclined to go all out when it comes to teaching people about things like gerrymandering, propaganda, etc. This is not for any nefarious reason or the result of any conspiracy, people just tend to see the good but not the bad when it comes to their source of income. The incentive system is simply not set up in a way to produce voters who think critically.

Beltiras 7y ago
Not all schools are paid for by the public.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  But the publicly funded ones educate an overwhelming majority of the electorate.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]