4 ms·

Were the votes that were counted on paper (or even the electronic ones) then made available online for voters to check that their vote was recorded as cast? Wh

by nurple 3y ago

Were the votes that were counted on paper (or even the electronic ones) then made available online for voters to check that their vote was recorded as cast? Why does the IRS have the technology the positively identify a citizen remotely to allow them access to information that's arguably more sensitive than a vote and yet we can't use this tech for that purpose? Why is this the second time that a Dominion machine was found by a third party to fail under scrutiny by security experts and CISA _then_ comes in to investigate whether the exploits were, well, exploited amidst the well-documented "fortification"? Why doesn't Georgia want to update these vulnerable systems before the presidential election? Why aren't all elections given a third-party statistical forensic analysis? Why, if the machines _are_ flawed (as we found out in 2022), did Dominion win a slander case against Fox et al? Why in the ... is Dominon, a private company (and apparently a poor dev shop), the bastion of our democracy? I think the implications are pretty clear. “The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.” -JFK

drewmol 3y ago
Are you open to eliminating the secret ballot? I would be, I think the verifiably and integrity of election results would be greatly improved by making voting records public, I see no easy way to do the same while maintaining ballot secrecy. I’m open to the possibility there is a good transparent secret ballot system, but I haven’t heard of one that isn’t massively vulnerable to the possibility of fraudulent efforts by election administration officials.
- nurple 3y ago
  I'm not against it, coercion/bribery always seemed to be a bit of an underwhelming justification for it; I just have a difficult time seeing it being done at scale (at least at the same scale as mutating the records can apparently be done), and like you said, it seems to excessively complicate the task. Even thinking of the possibilty of self-auditing, it leaves a large hole in the conceptual capability of validating the aggregate numbers. What I'd like to see is a human-to-human system, even if electronic (a la "venmo me"), where groups of people gather, discuss the issues, and cast their votes to eachother in a tree. The recievers meet and transfer their counts to the root of their branch, and so on to the tree's root. Every group knows their aggregate count, and even if you made the values of each node in the tree public it may be possible to keep the actual votes private outside of the individuals that make up each of the leafs.
  - nurple 3y ago
    And while I'm at it, why not get even more revolutionary (pun intended): the concept of a representative democracy was formed in a time when the most efficent method of communication was to put either man or paper on a horse and make an arduous cross-country journey. IMO, our current method of deciding what we should do with our collective power to be hopelessly outmoded. After all, that's the whole point of the federal government, to coordinate the pool of our resources towards common goals greater than we, either individually or as a (US)state-sized entity, could accomplish alone. If we can effectively solve the problem of distributed consensus (hmmm, where have I heard that term), what purpose then do our "representatives" hold in a system where we can directly voice our will for the future direction of our union and the allocation of its resources? In a system where we can instantly share our desires on some motion, and can shed the pomp, circumstance, and huge machinations of a once every [insert term here] concensus ceremony, we coud directly drive towards executing on a daily basis if we so desired. This could even open up the possibility that individuals could delegate their opinion to one or a group of subject-matter experts they feel an alignment with under specific topics, forming subject-oriented representatives rather than popularity-oriented. The thing is that these are ideas(maybe good, maybe bad), ideas can be tested, and in a fast-moving system ideas can be iterated on quickly and driven by data. We've found this methodology to be extremely effective in so many facets in our lives that it astounds me we don't consider a similar approach to improving the lot of all humanity in this crazy world.
    - drewmol 3y ago
      I’m not ready to abandon representative democracy, but I agree technological advances have made a more direct democracy system sound feasible. I’m in the US where the design rules stated congressional representatives were never to exceed a 35,000:1 ratio, but the representatives removed that rule.
      - nurple 3y ago
        Yeah, it’s an idea I think about sometimes but don’t really get to try on in words. I get frustrated when reps hide unpopular actions behind bureaucracies and unelected bureaucrats against the people’s voice or best interests, like your example or something like net neutrality. It’s getting more common to shift the system towards their ability to move unilaterally. In my home state, for example, this last legislative session they changed the referendum law to be non-compulsory on their part, with the argument that citizens are weaponizing it to stall land developers. That was the only political redress we had available as it is becoming more common for the capital-captured legislature to ok plans that are unhealthy for the continued thriving of our communities in the name of money. As an example, severely oversubscribed water shares in the face of ultra high density housing is becoming a serious problem that they conveniently ignore when approving developments. There are definitely more and lesser measures that would facilitate a shift back towards the citizenry, but it feels like less and less of a possibility every day our options get diluted in small ways.
AlexandrB 3y ago
> Were the votes that were counted on paper (or even the electronic ones) then made available online for voters to check that their vote was recorded as cast? This is the worst idea ever and would allow voter intimidation tactics from organized groups. "Show us who you voted for (and it better be the right person) or we ostracize you from our church/club/family." There's a reason the ballot is secret, and it's for the protection of the voter.
- nurple 3y ago
  Sorry, I don't buy the argument. Surely it's a more present danger that the will of the people not be done than someone continuing to associate with a group which would ostracize them for thinking differently than them. Sure, I get how divisive politics are, but I find it frankly pathetic the contributions that our own politicians and media have purposefully made in forming a view in the public's mind that someone who thinks different is a mortal enemy. Because of how it's become we're told that we either shouldn't or can't talk about such things in the places where we engage in the majority of our face-to-face human interaction: work and family. The problem of "protecting" the voter is not insoluable and I find the absolutist view of absolute secrecy as the only solution to be a cop out.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > Surely it's a more present danger that the will of the people not be done than someone continuing to associate with a group which would ostracize them for thinking differently than them. No? You are presenting a hypothetical danger to voting, whereas your idea would lead to many, many individual votes being manipulated. People could be paid for their vote, intimidated, beat up, killed and everything in between. The individual vote being secret is fundamental to democracy. You can't have a democracy without secret voting. Remember: it's not just about your immediate social circle. What if the government wants to make sure you vote/don't vote in the next election, since they know your last vote?
    - drewmol 3y ago
      On your last point, if you voted and in which elections is already public record. Government has a pretty good idea who you voted for and can and already does this to the extent they can get away with it. >You can’t have a democracy without secret voting You could before 1890 in the US, and plenty of other countries, what’s changed? About 25 percent of voters voted by mail in the 2020 election. Mandatory secrecy that couldn’t be enforced for a quarter of voters didn’t ruin our democracy. I’m not sure secrecy should be mandatory, maybe it should be optional.
nucleardog 3y ago
> Why, if the machines _are_ flawed (as we found out in 2022), did Dominion win a slander case against Fox et al? You're implying something not grounded in established fact, and then questioning why the rest of society has responded as if it's not true. The issue seems pretty apparent here, but it's not one anyone else can help you with.
- drewmol 3y ago
  What’s the implication being made, is it that Dominion won? As far as I’m aware: Fact: the machines are flawed Fact: Judge ruled Fox had made false statements which harmed Dominion, sent Fox’s level of culpability to be weighed by the jury but the case was settled before deliberations.
- nurple 3y ago
  I appreciate the thought provoking dialectic. I found, in particular, your insinuation regarding my irreparable mental deficiencies to be particularly helpful in solidifying your point of view.

by nurple 3y ago

drewmol 3y ago

Are you open to eliminating the secret ballot? I would be, I think the verifiably and integrity of election results would be greatly improved by making voting records public, I see no easy way to do the same while maintaining ballot secrecy. I’m open to the possibility there is a good transparent secret ballot system, but I haven’t heard of one that isn’t massively vulnerable to the possibility of fraudulent efforts by election administration officials.

nurple 3y ago
I'm not against it, coercion/bribery always seemed to be a bit of an underwhelming justification for it; I just have a difficult time seeing it being done at scale (at least at the same scale as mutating the records can apparently be done), and like you said, it seems to excessively complicate the task. Even thinking of the possibilty of self-auditing, it leaves a large hole in the conceptual capability of validating the aggregate numbers. What I'd like to see is a human-to-human system, even if electronic (a la "venmo me"), where groups of people gather, discuss the issues, and cast their votes to eachother in a tree. The recievers meet and transfer their counts to the root of their branch, and so on to the tree's root. Every group knows their aggregate count, and even if you made the values of each node in the tree public it may be possible to keep the actual votes private outside of the individuals that make up each of the leafs.
- nurple 3y ago
  And while I'm at it, why not get even more revolutionary (pun intended): the concept of a representative democracy was formed in a time when the most efficent method of communication was to put either man or paper on a horse and make an arduous cross-country journey. IMO, our current method of deciding what we should do with our collective power to be hopelessly outmoded. After all, that's the whole point of the federal government, to coordinate the pool of our resources towards common goals greater than we, either individually or as a (US)state-sized entity, could accomplish alone. If we can effectively solve the problem of distributed consensus (hmmm, where have I heard that term), what purpose then do our "representatives" hold in a system where we can directly voice our will for the future direction of our union and the allocation of its resources? In a system where we can instantly share our desires on some motion, and can shed the pomp, circumstance, and huge machinations of a once every [insert term here] concensus ceremony, we coud directly drive towards executing on a daily basis if we so desired. This could even open up the possibility that individuals could delegate their opinion to one or a group of subject-matter experts they feel an alignment with under specific topics, forming subject-oriented representatives rather than popularity-oriented. The thing is that these are ideas(maybe good, maybe bad), ideas can be tested, and in a fast-moving system ideas can be iterated on quickly and driven by data. We've found this methodology to be extremely effective in so many facets in our lives that it astounds me we don't consider a similar approach to improving the lot of all humanity in this crazy world.
  - drewmol 3y ago
    I’m not ready to abandon representative democracy, but I agree technological advances have made a more direct democracy system sound feasible. I’m in the US where the design rules stated congressional representatives were never to exceed a 35,000:1 ratio, but the representatives removed that rule.
    - nurple 3y ago
      Yeah, it’s an idea I think about sometimes but don’t really get to try on in words. I get frustrated when reps hide unpopular actions behind bureaucracies and unelected bureaucrats against the people’s voice or best interests, like your example or something like net neutrality. It’s getting more common to shift the system towards their ability to move unilaterally. In my home state, for example, this last legislative session they changed the referendum law to be non-compulsory on their part, with the argument that citizens are weaponizing it to stall land developers. That was the only political redress we had available as it is becoming more common for the capital-captured legislature to ok plans that are unhealthy for the continued thriving of our communities in the name of money. As an example, severely oversubscribed water shares in the face of ultra high density housing is becoming a serious problem that they conveniently ignore when approving developments. There are definitely more and lesser measures that would facilitate a shift back towards the citizenry, but it feels like less and less of a possibility every day our options get diluted in small ways.

AlexandrB 3y ago

> Were the votes that were counted on paper (or even the electronic ones) then made available online for voters to check that their vote was recorded as cast? This is the worst idea ever and would allow voter intimidation tactics from organized groups. "Show us who you voted for (and it better be the right person) or we ostracize you from our church/club/family." There's a reason the ballot is secret, and it's for the protection of the voter.

nurple 3y ago
Sorry, I don't buy the argument. Surely it's a more present danger that the will of the people not be done than someone continuing to associate with a group which would ostracize them for thinking differently than them. Sure, I get how divisive politics are, but I find it frankly pathetic the contributions that our own politicians and media have purposefully made in forming a view in the public's mind that someone who thinks different is a mortal enemy. Because of how it's become we're told that we either shouldn't or can't talk about such things in the places where we engage in the majority of our face-to-face human interaction: work and family. The problem of "protecting" the voter is not insoluable and I find the absolutist view of absolute secrecy as the only solution to be a cop out.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Surely it's a more present danger that the will of the people not be done than someone continuing to associate with a group which would ostracize them for thinking differently than them. No? You are presenting a hypothetical danger to voting, whereas your idea would lead to many, many individual votes being manipulated. People could be paid for their vote, intimidated, beat up, killed and everything in between. The individual vote being secret is fundamental to democracy. You can't have a democracy without secret voting. Remember: it's not just about your immediate social circle. What if the government wants to make sure you vote/don't vote in the next election, since they know your last vote?
  - drewmol 3y ago
    On your last point, if you voted and in which elections is already public record. Government has a pretty good idea who you voted for and can and already does this to the extent they can get away with it. >You can’t have a democracy without secret voting You could before 1890 in the US, and plenty of other countries, what’s changed? About 25 percent of voters voted by mail in the 2020 election. Mandatory secrecy that couldn’t be enforced for a quarter of voters didn’t ruin our democracy. I’m not sure secrecy should be mandatory, maybe it should be optional.

nucleardog 3y ago

> Why, if the machines _are_ flawed (as we found out in 2022), did Dominion win a slander case against Fox et al? You're implying something not grounded in established fact, and then questioning why the rest of society has responded as if it's not true. The issue seems pretty apparent here, but it's not one anyone else can help you with.

drewmol 3y ago
What’s the implication being made, is it that Dominion won? As far as I’m aware: Fact: the machines are flawed Fact: Judge ruled Fox had made false statements which harmed Dominion, sent Fox’s level of culpability to be weighed by the jury but the case was settled before deliberations.
nurple 3y ago
I appreciate the thought provoking dialectic. I found, in particular, your insinuation regarding my irreparable mental deficiencies to be particularly helpful in solidifying your point of view.