4 ms·

It is important that the voting system have credibility for everyone - regardless of party. Has anyone done a ground up exercise of rethinking the process and t

It is important that the voting system have credibility for everyone - regardless of party. Has anyone done a ground up exercise of rethinking the process and the involved technologies from a cybersecurity standpoint? It would be great to offer voters verification of their votes while maintaining secrecy. But right now I feel like we are stuck, with one half the country having doubts about the process and the other half insisting that it is absolutely perfect. It isn’t enough for the process to be either correct or trustworthy. It has to be both.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Has anyone done a ground up exercise of rethinking the process and the involved technologies from a cybersecurity standpoint? Chesterton’s fence.
- sethammons 2y ago
  I take it that you mean that before you tear down this system, understand why it is the way it is. And, yeah, sure. I don't think that invalidates reimagining the solution from what may be new/updated first principles.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  This feels a lot like the people who simply tell others to become a poll worker when they start asking hard questions about the system. I get the wisdom in this but it can also be a waste of time. In other (non electoral) situations, many big improvements can and have happened without needing to endlessly understand existing things. In this case it is clear we don’t have verifiable elections - you don’t need to understand anything deeply to know this, since it is apparent with your own ballot. So instead let’s design for something better.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you don’t need to understand anything deeply to know this, since it is apparent with your own ballot Are you giving up the secret ballot in your scheme?
Timon3 2y ago
> But right now I feel like we are stuck, with one half the country having doubts about the process and the other half insisting that it is absolutely perfect. It's not correct that one half of the US insists that the election process is absolutely perfect. There have been countless investigations, inquiries etc. and the process is being continuously reviewed. One half of the US insists that the process shouldn't be changed to the detriment of minority groups without any actual evidence that problems exist (as the investigations etc. did not result in such evidence), yet the other half still insists that the problems occur and the evidence is just hidden too well, and the process must be changed without ensuring that minority groups aren't affected more than other groups. This is not a situation with two equal sides.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > One half of the US insists that the process shouldn't be changed to the detriment of minority groups This trope that minorities are affected by voter ID laws doesn’t pass the slightest scrutiny. It’s also just plainly offensive and racist to assume minorities can’t show the basic competency to obtain ID when you already need it for so many things. Where were these complaints when everyone, including minorities, had to show documentation around their vaccination status for various things? Why isn’t this issue in every other country that does require ID to vote in elections? > without any actual evidence that problems exist (as the investigations etc. did not result in such evidence) A system not designed to generate data for such investigations will not turn up evidence. Just like with poorly designed software systems.
  - Timon3 2y ago
    > This trope that minorities are affected by voter ID laws doesn’t pass the slightest scrutiny. It is well-supported by actual research (e.g. [1]) AND by simple logic. Every single point you brought up has a clear counter argument - why didn't you respond to any of them? Have you simply never heard anyone mention them? > It’s also just plainly offensive and racist to assume minorities can’t show the basic competency to obtain ID when you already need it for so many things. It's plainly offensive and racist to ignore studies (e.g. [2]) that prove a higher percentage of minorities owns government issued photo ID compared to non-minorities. I'm not assuming anything, I'm only looking at statistics, at real people and data. You're instead attempting to move the conversation away from data. > Where were these complaints when everyone, including minorities, had to show documentation around their vaccination status for various things? First, such complaints did exist back then as well. Second, both vaccination and frequent testing were subsidized by the government, with extra investments towards minorities. Why don't advocates of voter ID ever make similar suggestions? Why not propose a program that allows any minority to acquire a government ID without any downsides, and once that's done propose voter ID? > Why isn’t this issue in every other country that does require ID to vote in elections? Because in pretty much every other developed country: - there exist standardized, government issued IDs that are distributed to every citizen during normal government interactions (e.g. in Germany you must own government ID) - poor people (a group that minorities make up a disproportionately large part of) have more free time and are in far less precarious positions regarding job security, and consequently health care - poor people have a far easier time getting to government buildings (e.g. cities are less car-reliant, better public transport, better coverage of government buildings) The US is in a very different position compared to most other countries. It’s just plainly offensive and racist to introduce additional barriers to basic rights while fully aware that the average person from minority groups will have to spend more time and effort to clear them. I'm not going to spend time digging up research for every claim I've made unless you're willing to do the same for your positions. But since you've now been made aware that this "trope" does pass the slightest scrutiny, I'm looking forward to your response! Just to summarize, you'll have to explain how the disparate impact of additional barriers to voting isn't "plainly offensive and racist" given that: - non-minorities are much more likely to own a government ID than minorities - non-minorities on average have an easier time acquiring such ID - non-minorities on average face fewer potential repercussions regarding work and health care acquiring such ID [1] http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-identification-laws-and-suppression-minority-votes http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-identification-laws-and-... [2] https://www.voteriders.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CDCE_VoteRiders_ANES2020Report_Spring2023.pdf https://www.voteriders.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CDCE_V...
maxerickson 2y ago
Paper ballots are standard and the majority of states require ID to vote. There was someone using the Michigan voter file (which has a line in it for each change to the voters record, so repeats voters) to claim that someone was voting dozens of times. They weren't airing a legitimate concern about the voting system, they were sowing discord by lying about how it works. Your framing of the situation is reductive and cartoonish.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Has anyone done a ground up exercise of rethinking the process and the involved technologies from a cybersecurity standpoint? Chesterton’s fence.

sethammons 2y ago
I take it that you mean that before you tear down this system, understand why it is the way it is. And, yeah, sure. I don't think that invalidates reimagining the solution from what may be new/updated first principles.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
This feels a lot like the people who simply tell others to become a poll worker when they start asking hard questions about the system. I get the wisdom in this but it can also be a waste of time. In other (non electoral) situations, many big improvements can and have happened without needing to endlessly understand existing things. In this case it is clear we don’t have verifiable elections - you don’t need to understand anything deeply to know this, since it is apparent with your own ballot. So instead let’s design for something better.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you don’t need to understand anything deeply to know this, since it is apparent with your own ballot Are you giving up the secret ballot in your scheme?

Timon3 2y ago

> But right now I feel like we are stuck, with one half the country having doubts about the process and the other half insisting that it is absolutely perfect. It's not correct that one half of the US insists that the election process is absolutely perfect. There have been countless investigations, inquiries etc. and the process is being continuously reviewed. One half of the US insists that the process shouldn't be changed to the detriment of minority groups without any actual evidence that problems exist (as the investigations etc. did not result in such evidence), yet the other half still insists that the problems occur and the evidence is just hidden too well, and the process must be changed without ensuring that minority groups aren't affected more than other groups. This is not a situation with two equal sides.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> One half of the US insists that the process shouldn't be changed to the detriment of minority groups This trope that minorities are affected by voter ID laws doesn’t pass the slightest scrutiny. It’s also just plainly offensive and racist to assume minorities can’t show the basic competency to obtain ID when you already need it for so many things. Where were these complaints when everyone, including minorities, had to show documentation around their vaccination status for various things? Why isn’t this issue in every other country that does require ID to vote in elections? > without any actual evidence that problems exist (as the investigations etc. did not result in such evidence) A system not designed to generate data for such investigations will not turn up evidence. Just like with poorly designed software systems.
- Timon3 2y ago
  > This trope that minorities are affected by voter ID laws doesn’t pass the slightest scrutiny. It is well-supported by actual research (e.g. [1]) AND by simple logic. Every single point you brought up has a clear counter argument - why didn't you respond to any of them? Have you simply never heard anyone mention them? > It’s also just plainly offensive and racist to assume minorities can’t show the basic competency to obtain ID when you already need it for so many things. It's plainly offensive and racist to ignore studies (e.g. [2]) that prove a higher percentage of minorities owns government issued photo ID compared to non-minorities. I'm not assuming anything, I'm only looking at statistics, at real people and data. You're instead attempting to move the conversation away from data. > Where were these complaints when everyone, including minorities, had to show documentation around their vaccination status for various things? First, such complaints did exist back then as well. Second, both vaccination and frequent testing were subsidized by the government, with extra investments towards minorities. Why don't advocates of voter ID ever make similar suggestions? Why not propose a program that allows any minority to acquire a government ID without any downsides, and once that's done propose voter ID? > Why isn’t this issue in every other country that does require ID to vote in elections? Because in pretty much every other developed country: - there exist standardized, government issued IDs that are distributed to every citizen during normal government interactions (e.g. in Germany you must own government ID) - poor people (a group that minorities make up a disproportionately large part of) have more free time and are in far less precarious positions regarding job security, and consequently health care - poor people have a far easier time getting to government buildings (e.g. cities are less car-reliant, better public transport, better coverage of government buildings) The US is in a very different position compared to most other countries. It’s just plainly offensive and racist to introduce additional barriers to basic rights while fully aware that the average person from minority groups will have to spend more time and effort to clear them. I'm not going to spend time digging up research for every claim I've made unless you're willing to do the same for your positions. But since you've now been made aware that this "trope" does pass the slightest scrutiny, I'm looking forward to your response! Just to summarize, you'll have to explain how the disparate impact of additional barriers to voting isn't "plainly offensive and racist" given that: - non-minorities are much more likely to own a government ID than minorities - non-minorities on average have an easier time acquiring such ID - non-minorities on average face fewer potential repercussions regarding work and health care acquiring such ID [1] http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-identification-laws-and-suppression-minority-votes http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/voter-identification-laws-and-... [2] https://www.voteriders.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CDCE_VoteRiders_ANES2020Report_Spring2023.pdf https://www.voteriders.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CDCE_V...

maxerickson 2y ago

Paper ballots are standard and the majority of states require ID to vote. There was someone using the Michigan voter file (which has a line in it for each change to the voters record, so repeats voters) to claim that someone was voting dozens of times. They weren't airing a legitimate concern about the voting system, they were sowing discord by lying about how it works. Your framing of the situation is reductive and cartoonish.