3 ms·

> And fixing this will be almost impossible post-Trump, because Democrats. Why exactly should Democrats block any attempts at improving election security? The

> And fixing this will be almost impossible post-Trump, because Democrats. Why exactly should Democrats block any attempts at improving election security? The Democrats even introduced several election security bills the last couple years that all got blocked by the GOP..

woofie11 6y ago
My experience is that the stance the Democrats take is the opposite of the stance the Republicans take, and vice-versa. If one party flips on an issue, the other almost immediately flops. At this point, the Republicans are mid-flop towards election security, while the Democrats have made statements which will be very hard to back out of, so I think we're seeing the fish flipping.... You can even see this in action, as every single one of these posts is trending toward negative infinite upvotes, where just a few months ago, they would have been trending towards upvotes. Even a mild pointer to a textbook on cryptography summarizing a cryptographic protocol is now at zero. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, though. Democrats will control both chambers and the presidency. If I see crypto-secure voting, I'll be delighted. I just don't see it. At this point, Democrats are firmly in the voting-is-secure-nothing-to-see-here camp. I understand why given the unpleasantness in DC, but it is, as a point of fact, not secure. That doesn't mean it's been rigged, but it does mean we should fix it.
- adamsea 6y ago
  > My experience is that the stance the Democrats take is the opposite of the stance the Republicans take, and vice-versa. If one party flips on an issue, the other almost immediately flops. I’m sorry but that is way too reductive. For one thing, there’s a bipartisan consensus (for better or worse) on a lot of foreign policy, which is a pretty huge area. And, your comment obscures the meaningful differences in ideology between the groups of people each party represents. And the different interests of those groups. The Democrats are far from perfect. But it’s not a “both sides equally bad” situation. Well, maybe it is when it comes to corporate money in politics. But even there you see bipartisan consensus on the fringes, I think, plus iirc the Republicans were basically all about Citizens United. But yeah money in politics is a big problem on both sides. To be fair, it’s been a big problem in all of politics throughout all recorded history. Which doesn’t mean we can’t (and haven’t) made some progress.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    I'm not actually sure it is too reductive. Game theory predicts almost exactly the behavior we see. My own observation is that we saw major progress with the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment, the Constitution, and so on. Progress slowed around a hundred years ago. From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equilibrium. 1970-2020, progress mostly stopped, and we've pushed hard to optimizing to game theory. Politicians who now get elected play a near-optimal game, and playing this game is overt. To make progress, we'd need significant reform of the system. I would argue, though, that a statement like "money in politics is a big problem on both sides. To be fair, it’s been a big problem in all of politics throughout all recorded history" is very reductionist. For most of history, it wasn't so much money as military might. If I had money and you had military, soon you'd have both. Money was a component of buying military, but it was just one component (see Rome v Carthage for an example, or Athens v Sparta). I'd much rather be controlled by someone corrupted by money than by a corrupt warlord where I'm a serf. Democracy is a big step up. We just need another step up right now... and pretending we don't is actively harmful.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      > From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equilibrium. 1970-2020, progress mostly stopped, Um if nothing else a LOT in the US happened with regards to women’s rights and feminism between 1970 and today. And LGBTQ rights. Oh yeah - Obama! First black President. Kind of a big deal when it comes to race and social justice. Also it’s just a hugely broad statement you are making. I’m not gonna speculate about the sweep of hisiory. Also your point doesn’t really address the specific points I mentioned - real, actual differences between the parties. [EDIT: For example if the Republican Party suddenly endorsed the Green New Deal (or other climate legislation) I don’t see the Democrats who already support such legislation flip-flopping. Same with gun control laws. And with more federal pandemic relief funds to individuals and states and cities. And the Affordable Care Act. And abortion. And so on. ]
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I think you have a misunderstanding on something here. Voting is mostly the province of the states, not the federal government. You will have to look at the actions of the individual state legislatures. Who is in control in DC isn’t going to have any effect on this.
sam_goody 6y ago
> The Democrats even introduced several election security bills the last couple years that all got blocked by the GOP.. I totally could believe that. But, be aware that just because you saw it in a left wing site (NYT, CNN, Vox etc), doesn't make it so. Unfortunately, the few times something got me upset enough to actually try to track down original sources, I found the sites to be representing falsehood, on both sides of the spectrum. Like, the complete and total opposite of the facts. Some twisted logic, omissions or half facts, but other times it seems they just said "facts be damned". So, would be curious if you actually have sources, and if you actually looked up the bills and the riders, and the deals.
- mikelward 6y ago
  https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482569-senate-gop-blocks-three-election-security-bills https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482569-senate-gop-blocks-... https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2722 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2722

woofie11 6y ago

My experience is that the stance the Democrats take is the opposite of the stance the Republicans take, and vice-versa. If one party flips on an issue, the other almost immediately flops. At this point, the Republicans are mid-flop towards election security, while the Democrats have made statements which will be very hard to back out of, so I think we're seeing the fish flipping.... You can even see this in action, as every single one of these posts is trending toward negative infinite upvotes, where just a few months ago, they would have been trending towards upvotes. Even a mild pointer to a textbook on cryptography summarizing a cryptographic protocol is now at zero. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, though. Democrats will control both chambers and the presidency. If I see crypto-secure voting, I'll be delighted. I just don't see it. At this point, Democrats are firmly in the voting-is-secure-nothing-to-see-here camp. I understand why given the unpleasantness in DC, but it is, as a point of fact, not secure. That doesn't mean it's been rigged, but it does mean we should fix it.

adamsea 6y ago
> My experience is that the stance the Democrats take is the opposite of the stance the Republicans take, and vice-versa. If one party flips on an issue, the other almost immediately flops. I’m sorry but that is way too reductive. For one thing, there’s a bipartisan consensus (for better or worse) on a lot of foreign policy, which is a pretty huge area. And, your comment obscures the meaningful differences in ideology between the groups of people each party represents. And the different interests of those groups. The Democrats are far from perfect. But it’s not a “both sides equally bad” situation. Well, maybe it is when it comes to corporate money in politics. But even there you see bipartisan consensus on the fringes, I think, plus iirc the Republicans were basically all about Citizens United. But yeah money in politics is a big problem on both sides. To be fair, it’s been a big problem in all of politics throughout all recorded history. Which doesn’t mean we can’t (and haven’t) made some progress.
- woofie11 6y ago
  I'm not actually sure it is too reductive. Game theory predicts almost exactly the behavior we see. My own observation is that we saw major progress with the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment, the Constitution, and so on. Progress slowed around a hundred years ago. From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equilibrium. 1970-2020, progress mostly stopped, and we've pushed hard to optimizing to game theory. Politicians who now get elected play a near-optimal game, and playing this game is overt. To make progress, we'd need significant reform of the system. I would argue, though, that a statement like "money in politics is a big problem on both sides. To be fair, it’s been a big problem in all of politics throughout all recorded history" is very reductionist. For most of history, it wasn't so much money as military might. If I had money and you had military, soon you'd have both. Money was a component of buying military, but it was just one component (see Rome v Carthage for an example, or Athens v Sparta). I'd much rather be controlled by someone corrupted by money than by a corrupt warlord where I'm a serf. Democracy is a big step up. We just need another step up right now... and pretending we don't is actively harmful.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    > From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equilibrium. 1970-2020, progress mostly stopped, Um if nothing else a LOT in the US happened with regards to women’s rights and feminism between 1970 and today. And LGBTQ rights. Oh yeah - Obama! First black President. Kind of a big deal when it comes to race and social justice. Also it’s just a hugely broad statement you are making. I’m not gonna speculate about the sweep of hisiory. Also your point doesn’t really address the specific points I mentioned - real, actual differences between the parties. [EDIT: For example if the Republican Party suddenly endorsed the Green New Deal (or other climate legislation) I don’t see the Democrats who already support such legislation flip-flopping. Same with gun control laws. And with more federal pandemic relief funds to individuals and states and cities. And the Affordable Care Act. And abortion. And so on. ]
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I think you have a misunderstanding on something here. Voting is mostly the province of the states, not the federal government. You will have to look at the actions of the individual state legislatures. Who is in control in DC isn’t going to have any effect on this.

sam_goody 6y ago

> The Democrats even introduced several election security bills the last couple years that all got blocked by the GOP.. I totally could believe that. But, be aware that just because you saw it in a left wing site (NYT, CNN, Vox etc), doesn't make it so. Unfortunately, the few times something got me upset enough to actually try to track down original sources, I found the sites to be representing falsehood, on both sides of the spectrum. Like, the complete and total opposite of the facts. Some twisted logic, omissions or half facts, but other times it seems they just said "facts be damned". So, would be curious if you actually have sources, and if you actually looked up the bills and the riders, and the deals.

mikelward 6y ago
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482569-senate-gop-blocks-three-election-security-bills https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482569-senate-gop-blocks-... https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2722 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2722