3 ms·

We might not be ready right this instant but that's not a reason to not research the problem and make attempts to move forward. Something just seems wrong about

We might not be ready right this instant but that's not a reason to not research the problem and make attempts to move forward. Something just seems wrong about sticking to paper forever. In my lifetime I should be able to vote from my phone in the middle of the ocean with satellite internet.

wpietri 6y ago
I understand you have a vaguely positive feeling toward the current signifiers of technical progress. But I have no idea why you think that weighs much compared with voter confidence in the democratic process that undergirds our society.
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  Voter confidence in technology can improve over time and progress has to happen. Like I said, I understand if it can't happen today, but it should be on the roadmap.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    "Progress" does not in fact have to happen, and it's not at all clear to me that online voting constitutes progress.
    - jimmaswell 6y ago
      The year is 2400AD. Tens of thousands of seasonal miners on Mars are disenfranchised because it takes too long to send a paper ballot back and forth. Pens and paper would no longer be manufactured were it not for paper ballots. Every legal function is carried out entirely electronically, including congressional sessions, except voting on paper. Neuralinks allow perfect biometric verification and haven't had a security breach in 200 years, but still aren't good enough for voting because progress does not in fact have to happen. If this situation sounds completely A-OK to you then I don't know what to say.
      - wpietri 6y ago
        I'm not sure what your point is. I'm a software developer. Of course I think actual progress is pretty swell. But your quasi-teleological approach to is tantamount to religion. And justifying it through your fantasies of what might happen 400 years from now is unrelated to the practical weighing of benefits and costs that underlies actual progress.

wpietri 6y ago

I understand you have a vaguely positive feeling toward the current signifiers of technical progress. But I have no idea why you think that weighs much compared with voter confidence in the democratic process that undergirds our society.

jimmaswell 6y ago
Voter confidence in technology can improve over time and progress has to happen. Like I said, I understand if it can't happen today, but it should be on the roadmap.
- wpietri 6y ago
  "Progress" does not in fact have to happen, and it's not at all clear to me that online voting constitutes progress.
  - jimmaswell 6y ago
    The year is 2400AD. Tens of thousands of seasonal miners on Mars are disenfranchised because it takes too long to send a paper ballot back and forth. Pens and paper would no longer be manufactured were it not for paper ballots. Every legal function is carried out entirely electronically, including congressional sessions, except voting on paper. Neuralinks allow perfect biometric verification and haven't had a security breach in 200 years, but still aren't good enough for voting because progress does not in fact have to happen. If this situation sounds completely A-OK to you then I don't know what to say.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is. I'm a software developer. Of course I think actual progress is pretty swell. But your quasi-teleological approach to is tantamount to religion. And justifying it through your fantasies of what might happen 400 years from now is unrelated to the practical weighing of benefits and costs that underlies actual progress.