4 ms·

>Why is the standard of evidence for one different than the other? Because hacking one voting machine potentially allows one person or a small group of people

>Why is the standard of evidence for one different than the other? Because hacking one voting machine potentially allows one person or a small group of people to alter thousands of votes. That person (or persons) has no way to alter anyway near that many votes through in person voter fraud. The amount of effort it would take to alter the results of an election through in person voter fraud makes it extremely difficult to pull off--particularly without detection. Additionally there are downsides to voter id laws. The most troubling is demonstrably lower minority turn out. There are no similar downsides to methods like requiring paper receipts for voting machines. Basically the cost benefit analysis is in favor of hardening electronic voting, but not in favor of voter id laws.

im3w1l 6y ago
Detection is much more gnarly than you give it credit. A pretty likely scenario is that one side will claim that fraud was detected, and the other side will deny it. And both side will try to suppress and deplatform each other. Youtube, twitter, facebook will pick a side. And whoever loses will fume with resentment. Maybe they pick up weapons. If they are right that the election was stolen and that fact is suppressed, they will certainly be justified. If they are right - which is a big hypothetical. Because the detection will be drowned in noise.
- learc83 6y ago
  You're talking a coordinated conspiracy involving thousands of people. The FBI would have hard evidence during the recruiting phase. You can't involve that many people in something and keep it secret. Even in the best case were we don't find out until elections day, an enormous increase in double votes will be all over the news the same day, and arrests will start happening shortly after.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    What about an uncoordinated conspiracy involving thousands of people? Just a single troll with a large audience urging them to cheat?
    - learc83 6y ago
      It's a felony. A felony that requires you to commit it in person at a precinct is a pretty high bar for an internet troll to get people to jump. Assuming some people decide to take them up on it, they have to coordinate or they'll end up voting as people who have already voted. Double voting is very easy to spot and many of them will be arrested at the precinct. Plus you'd need an accurate list of close to 100k dead voters who haven't already been purged (more in a less tight election), and thousands of people willing to drive to the right precincts to match the list. And we didn't know which states would tip the election until election night in 2016, so you'd need to duplicate your efforts several fold. This idea is pure fantasy.
darawk 6y ago
It's difficult to pull off in a coordinated way. But coordination attacks are not the only thing that matters. It shouldn't be possible for a liberal kid's conservative parents who know he doesn't vote to vote for him. But it's trivially possible, right now. There is literally nothing stopping anyone from doing that.
- learc83 6y ago
  >There is literally nothing stopping anyone from doing that. Other than the fact that it's a serious felony. Additionally how are voter ID laws going to change this? It already requires some level of cooperation by the kid in that they don't show up and vote themselves. If you're talking about absentee ballots, whatever you're using to identify the kid, the parents likely have access to--copy of id, birth certificate etc... So voter ID isn't going to stop this either. >But coordination attacks are not the only thing that matters. Coordination of some kind is required to change the results of an election. If even a few thousand random parents around the country decide to risk jail time to vote for their kid, it isn't going to impact the results of the election, so hardening against this kind of attack is a very low priority. Particularly when there's no cost effective means to stop it.

im3w1l 6y ago

Detection is much more gnarly than you give it credit. A pretty likely scenario is that one side will claim that fraud was detected, and the other side will deny it. And both side will try to suppress and deplatform each other. Youtube, twitter, facebook will pick a side. And whoever loses will fume with resentment. Maybe they pick up weapons. If they are right that the election was stolen and that fact is suppressed, they will certainly be justified. If they are right - which is a big hypothetical. Because the detection will be drowned in noise.

learc83 6y ago
You're talking a coordinated conspiracy involving thousands of people. The FBI would have hard evidence during the recruiting phase. You can't involve that many people in something and keep it secret. Even in the best case were we don't find out until elections day, an enormous increase in double votes will be all over the news the same day, and arrests will start happening shortly after.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  What about an uncoordinated conspiracy involving thousands of people? Just a single troll with a large audience urging them to cheat?
  - learc83 6y ago
    It's a felony. A felony that requires you to commit it in person at a precinct is a pretty high bar for an internet troll to get people to jump. Assuming some people decide to take them up on it, they have to coordinate or they'll end up voting as people who have already voted. Double voting is very easy to spot and many of them will be arrested at the precinct. Plus you'd need an accurate list of close to 100k dead voters who haven't already been purged (more in a less tight election), and thousands of people willing to drive to the right precincts to match the list. And we didn't know which states would tip the election until election night in 2016, so you'd need to duplicate your efforts several fold. This idea is pure fantasy.

darawk 6y ago

It's difficult to pull off in a coordinated way. But coordination attacks are not the only thing that matters. It shouldn't be possible for a liberal kid's conservative parents who know he doesn't vote to vote for him. But it's trivially possible, right now. There is literally nothing stopping anyone from doing that.

learc83 6y ago
>There is literally nothing stopping anyone from doing that. Other than the fact that it's a serious felony. Additionally how are voter ID laws going to change this? It already requires some level of cooperation by the kid in that they don't show up and vote themselves. If you're talking about absentee ballots, whatever you're using to identify the kid, the parents likely have access to--copy of id, birth certificate etc... So voter ID isn't going to stop this either. >But coordination attacks are not the only thing that matters. Coordination of some kind is required to change the results of an election. If even a few thousand random parents around the country decide to risk jail time to vote for their kid, it isn't going to impact the results of the election, so hardening against this kind of attack is a very low priority. Particularly when there's no cost effective means to stop it.