3 ms·

>our elections are unacceptably slow That is funny considering the primary benefit of electronic voting machines is speeding up the gathering of results. I'm

by slg 4y ago

>our elections are unacceptably slow That is funny considering the primary benefit of electronic voting machines is speeding up the gathering of results. I'm not sure how you expect us to manually count 150 million ballots quicker without using any hackable electronics. Otherwise, you are still falling into the same trap. You say we can just use "insider knowledge" to know where to commit the fraud, but that requires both insiders and the ability to actually execute the fraud in all those potentially close places. We are back to needing a widespread conspiracy that operates in several states and can attack in a variety of different ways.

ChickenNugger 4y ago
>I'm not sure how you expect us to manually count 150 million ballots quicker without using any hackable electronics. The solution to vote counting scales right along side the problem. You use more human counters. If it takes 2% of the population to count votes, then you just...keep using the same percentage, just more people. I reiterate: There is no good faith reason to use electronic voting machines. It injects an ability to scale up election fraud, and that is all it does.
- slg 4y ago
  >If it takes 2% of the population to count votes, then you just...keep using the same percentage, just more people. And if we build a team of 9 women, I bet they can produce a baby in a single month.
  - ChickenNugger 4y ago
    False analogy. You can split stacks of ballots to be counted and hand them to different people. I don't know why you're arguing so hard in favor of electronic voting when it's good for no one but voting machine companies and election thieves.
somenameforme 4y ago
You don't actually need insider knowledge. Results trickle in, and you can adjust dynamically as needed. It's not especially hard at all, which is why this is so dangerous. As for alternatives, the answer for a secure electronic system seems self evident. When you vote, you either choose or assigned a secret key. Your ballot and key are publicly posted. Suddenly you have a system where that is 100% confirmable at every single level. Observers can verify exactly the number of voters voted. Voters can verify their vote was counted and was for whom they chose. The only downside is that you could also prove to another third party that you voted some way or another. Yet this feels largely academic. Coercion/bribing schemes are already illegal and at any meaningful scale they would collapse instantly because this would actually require your "widespread conspiracy." Add in a large "finders fee" for outing said conspiracies and the entire notion of them as a threat becomes silly.
- slg 4y ago
  >Results trickle in, and you can adjust dynamically as needed. But you are still missing the point. You can't just act immediately. You need to lay the groundwork for acting. This group needs the ability to act in numerous states before they know which states to actually attack. That means even if they don't end up needing to change any votes in a given state, they still need the capability to change the votes. They can't just start the attack on election day. These systems have to already be compromised or at least have a confirmed way to compromise them. The hard work needs to be done before election day and any results are known. >Coercion/bribing schemes are already illegal And so is hacking a voting machine so I guess we don't have to worry about that either. > at any meaningful scale they would collapse instantly because this would actually require your "widespread conspiracy." But we aren't just worried about centralized conspiracies. A third party knowing how you vote creates new problems that we want to avoid. For example, now you have abusive partners demanding their significant other votes a certain way or an unethical boss demanding their employees vote for a specific candidate. The importance of individual ballots being secret goes beyond who wins the election. >Add in a large "finders fee" for outing said conspiracies and the entire notion of them as a threat becomes silly. Always smart to incentivize people to make stuff up for money. If this actually worked, why not just institute it for any election manipulation?

by slg 4y ago

ChickenNugger 4y ago

>I'm not sure how you expect us to manually count 150 million ballots quicker without using any hackable electronics. The solution to vote counting scales right along side the problem. You use more human counters. If it takes 2% of the population to count votes, then you just...keep using the same percentage, just more people. I reiterate: There is no good faith reason to use electronic voting machines. It injects an ability to scale up election fraud, and that is all it does.

slg 4y ago
>If it takes 2% of the population to count votes, then you just...keep using the same percentage, just more people. And if we build a team of 9 women, I bet they can produce a baby in a single month.
- ChickenNugger 4y ago
  False analogy. You can split stacks of ballots to be counted and hand them to different people. I don't know why you're arguing so hard in favor of electronic voting when it's good for no one but voting machine companies and election thieves.

somenameforme 4y ago

You don't actually need insider knowledge. Results trickle in, and you can adjust dynamically as needed. It's not especially hard at all, which is why this is so dangerous. As for alternatives, the answer for a secure electronic system seems self evident. When you vote, you either choose or assigned a secret key. Your ballot and key are publicly posted. Suddenly you have a system where that is 100% confirmable at every single level. Observers can verify exactly the number of voters voted. Voters can verify their vote was counted and was for whom they chose. The only downside is that you could also prove to another third party that you voted some way or another. Yet this feels largely academic. Coercion/bribing schemes are already illegal and at any meaningful scale they would collapse instantly because this would actually require your "widespread conspiracy." Add in a large "finders fee" for outing said conspiracies and the entire notion of them as a threat becomes silly.

slg 4y ago
>Results trickle in, and you can adjust dynamically as needed. But you are still missing the point. You can't just act immediately. You need to lay the groundwork for acting. This group needs the ability to act in numerous states before they know which states to actually attack. That means even if they don't end up needing to change any votes in a given state, they still need the capability to change the votes. They can't just start the attack on election day. These systems have to already be compromised or at least have a confirmed way to compromise them. The hard work needs to be done before election day and any results are known. >Coercion/bribing schemes are already illegal And so is hacking a voting machine so I guess we don't have to worry about that either. > at any meaningful scale they would collapse instantly because this would actually require your "widespread conspiracy." But we aren't just worried about centralized conspiracies. A third party knowing how you vote creates new problems that we want to avoid. For example, now you have abusive partners demanding their significant other votes a certain way or an unethical boss demanding their employees vote for a specific candidate. The importance of individual ballots being secret goes beyond who wins the election. >Add in a large "finders fee" for outing said conspiracies and the entire notion of them as a threat becomes silly. Always smart to incentivize people to make stuff up for money. If this actually worked, why not just institute it for any election manipulation?