4 ms·

so its better to have manual counting that also can be tampered with?

by dustymcp 3y ago

CodesInChaos 3y ago
Tampering with manual counting at scale without being detected sounds very difficult.
- pydry 3y ago
  Tampering with electronic voting can be made impossible too - by allowing people to validate their vote. This solution is often rejected because it could theoretically lead to vote buying but in practice vote buying is ridiculously susceptible even to very halfhearted sting operations. Historically it has been a problem because it was tolerated, but literally as soon as it was cracked down upon it dried up completely. It only worked when it was de facto decriminalized. Paper is still better but IMHO I'd be happy with electronic voting with cryptographic after-election vote validation.
  - CodesInChaos 3y ago
    > vote buying is ridiculously susceptible even to very halfhearted sting operations. But what would you do after you detect it? Go back to paper elections?
    - pydry 3y ago
      Imprison the offender. Jail time tends to focus the mind. If it's impossible to achieve on a meaningful scale without wearing an orange jumpsuit people won't try.
      - CodesInChaos 3y ago
        What if it's an anonymous website that offers to pay anybody (via difficult to trace cryptocurrency) who uploads proof that they voted for a particular candidate/party?
        pydry 3y ago
        If you did it on a small scale you'd probably end up like Ross Ulbricht and if you did it on a large scale you'd definitely end up like Ross Ulbricht. That something is theorerically plausible and possible on a small scale doesnt make it practical on a large scale. In an unrelated note I can't understand why anonymous crypto hasnt been banned yet. Illegal money transfers are pretty much the only practical use case. Owning bitcoin is like owning shares in the underground economy.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        That sounds good, but let’s face it, the threat of prison only seems to be a deterrent for people who are unlikely to intentionally commit a crime in the first place.
- threatofrain 3y ago
  Like Texas / Florida did with mail-in voting, limiting ballot locations, etc? You don't need to literally go in and change someone's ballot, and only some voting districts are contentious. TX has also given its executive the authority to invalidate local election results.

so its better to have manual counting that also can be tampered with?

CodesInChaos 3y ago

Tampering with manual counting at scale without being detected sounds very difficult.

pydry 3y ago
Tampering with electronic voting can be made impossible too - by allowing people to validate their vote. This solution is often rejected because it could theoretically lead to vote buying but in practice vote buying is ridiculously susceptible even to very halfhearted sting operations. Historically it has been a problem because it was tolerated, but literally as soon as it was cracked down upon it dried up completely. It only worked when it was de facto decriminalized. Paper is still better but IMHO I'd be happy with electronic voting with cryptographic after-election vote validation.
- CodesInChaos 3y ago
  > vote buying is ridiculously susceptible even to very halfhearted sting operations. But what would you do after you detect it? Go back to paper elections?
  - pydry 3y ago
    Imprison the offender. Jail time tends to focus the mind. If it's impossible to achieve on a meaningful scale without wearing an orange jumpsuit people won't try.
    - CodesInChaos 3y ago
      What if it's an anonymous website that offers to pay anybody (via difficult to trace cryptocurrency) who uploads proof that they voted for a particular candidate/party?
      - pydry 3y ago
        If you did it on a small scale you'd probably end up like Ross Ulbricht and if you did it on a large scale you'd definitely end up like Ross Ulbricht. That something is theorerically plausible and possible on a small scale doesnt make it practical on a large scale. In an unrelated note I can't understand why anonymous crypto hasnt been banned yet. Illegal money transfers are pretty much the only practical use case. Owning bitcoin is like owning shares in the underground economy.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      That sounds good, but let’s face it, the threat of prison only seems to be a deterrent for people who are unlikely to intentionally commit a crime in the first place.
threatofrain 3y ago
Like Texas / Florida did with mail-in voting, limiting ballot locations, etc? You don't need to literally go in and change someone's ballot, and only some voting districts are contentious. TX has also given its executive the authority to invalidate local election results.