4 ms·

I think that poster isn't disagreeing but merely saying that that doesn't necessarily mean such a system couldn't be compromised in a future election. (Unless e

I think that poster isn't disagreeing but merely saying that that doesn't necessarily mean such a system couldn't be compromised in a future election. (Unless every single polling station with machines does a recount by hand for all elections from now on. But then it might put into question why we have the machines at all.) This is similar to the common argument about voter fraud. Of course there was almost certainly basically no fraud to speak of in this election, like usual. (And that's important to emphasize, especially right now.) But the way this overall topic tends to be approached in general is very odd, to me: There's a routinely used argument that concern about voter fraud is ridiculous because there's essentially been no significant incidence of it in modern history. This isn't unreasonable to bring up, but I think by itself is a very poor approach to risk assessment that's reminiscent of early COVID predictions/warnings/guidance and 2016 election odds from many of the same people. Especially when some foreign intelligence agencies appear to be getting increasingly brazen, and when considering that for most of the recorded history, voting was a lot less digitized. There was almost no incidence of jets being deliberately flown into buildings as a form of WMD, until some people pulled out all their cards and exploited a "0-day", doing as much damage as they could in a single effort before a "patch" could be deployed. And sometimes it's simply a matter of no one making a serious, motivated attempt to do something until one day someone finally does.

enkid 6y ago
The problem is that the countermeasures people want to put in place strip people of their ability to vote legitimately. For example, voter id laws are put into place to prevent voter fraud, that you admit isn't happening, but strip ten of thousands of people of the right to vote. [0] Similar to poll taxes and literacy requirements in the 19th century, this was said to have a better electorate, but it was selectively enforced so that it disproportionately affected black voters. That's why you have to be careful with this rhetoric. When someone is fixing a problem that doesn't actually exist, they could (likely?) have ulterior motives. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-voter-id-laws/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-vote...
- meowface 6y ago
  I'm aware of this issue and agree with the concern, but there are additional ways of mitigating fraud, and I wasn't thinking about IDs or any specific solutions while writing the post. (But now that it's come up, in theory if this were to be implemented, I think there could possibly be ways of proactively providing as many people as possible with IDs without requiring them to spend money or time to obtain it; maybe this could be done over a years-long process before adding any requirements. I don't know all the nuances, though.) I was just trying to talk about this specific argument and how it's often used in isolation to create a certain way of seeing things that I think is based on shaky grounds. I'm not trying to take any ideological stance, but just discuss epistemology in general. (Though for the record, I've only ever voted and will very likely only ever vote Democrat. I promise I don't have any ulterior motives regarding this topic and am a strong supporter of voter enfranchisement. Risk assessment in general just is a component of my job and hobbies.)
  - enkid 6y ago
    I'm not accusing you of anything. I just want to make sure that it's clear why proactively preventing vote fraud when there historically has been much isn't as simple as it sounds. My parents are all about voter IDs and other measures because they have only heard one side of the argument, that it is possible. What they haven't heard about is the cost to these laws. Epistemologically, that's why I believe these discussions should be evidence based instead of theoretical or ideological. We don't do a good job of figuring out what is going to work and what is not going to work until we've tried some stuff out. And it needs to balanced. There will be a few people who will try to cheat the system. As long as they get caught and it doesn't affect the election, that's ok. There will be a price to pay in legitimate votes who are unable to cast a ballot because of whatever countermeasures we put in place. The question is, did we strike the right balance?
    - throwaway316943 6y ago
      I don’t think this is as hard of a problem as people make it out to be. Why not just take fingerprints, plain old ink on paper, in lieu of ID? Or a photograph of your face that is immediately printed and signed, they already do this at airports. You should have to leave some form of identification but there are lots of free, easy and instant ways to do this that don’t exclude anyone. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/320343-a-simple-just-fix-to-voter-fraud-take-fingerprints https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign...

enkid 6y ago

The problem is that the countermeasures people want to put in place strip people of their ability to vote legitimately. For example, voter id laws are put into place to prevent voter fraud, that you admit isn't happening, but strip ten of thousands of people of the right to vote. [0] Similar to poll taxes and literacy requirements in the 19th century, this was said to have a better electorate, but it was selectively enforced so that it disproportionately affected black voters. That's why you have to be careful with this rhetoric. When someone is fixing a problem that doesn't actually exist, they could (likely?) have ulterior motives. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-voter-id-laws/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-vote...

meowface 6y ago
I'm aware of this issue and agree with the concern, but there are additional ways of mitigating fraud, and I wasn't thinking about IDs or any specific solutions while writing the post. (But now that it's come up, in theory if this were to be implemented, I think there could possibly be ways of proactively providing as many people as possible with IDs without requiring them to spend money or time to obtain it; maybe this could be done over a years-long process before adding any requirements. I don't know all the nuances, though.) I was just trying to talk about this specific argument and how it's often used in isolation to create a certain way of seeing things that I think is based on shaky grounds. I'm not trying to take any ideological stance, but just discuss epistemology in general. (Though for the record, I've only ever voted and will very likely only ever vote Democrat. I promise I don't have any ulterior motives regarding this topic and am a strong supporter of voter enfranchisement. Risk assessment in general just is a component of my job and hobbies.)
- enkid 6y ago
  I'm not accusing you of anything. I just want to make sure that it's clear why proactively preventing vote fraud when there historically has been much isn't as simple as it sounds. My parents are all about voter IDs and other measures because they have only heard one side of the argument, that it is possible. What they haven't heard about is the cost to these laws. Epistemologically, that's why I believe these discussions should be evidence based instead of theoretical or ideological. We don't do a good job of figuring out what is going to work and what is not going to work until we've tried some stuff out. And it needs to balanced. There will be a few people who will try to cheat the system. As long as they get caught and it doesn't affect the election, that's ok. There will be a price to pay in legitimate votes who are unable to cast a ballot because of whatever countermeasures we put in place. The question is, did we strike the right balance?
  - throwaway316943 6y ago
    I don’t think this is as hard of a problem as people make it out to be. Why not just take fingerprints, plain old ink on paper, in lieu of ID? Or a photograph of your face that is immediately printed and signed, they already do this at airports. You should have to leave some form of identification but there are lots of free, easy and instant ways to do this that don’t exclude anyone. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/320343-a-simple-just-fix-to-voter-fraud-take-fingerprints https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign...