4 ms·

odd how not many people here care to comment.

rms 19y ago
There's not much to say. It's sobering to think that it is somewhat likely that the voting machines were rigged and that there is absolutely no way of confirming it.
- downer 19y ago
  "Somewhat" likely? Here's how normal paper ballots work: After the polls officially close, they count them up, in full view of whatever members of the public care to observe. In hotly-contested areas, this will usually include members of both/all the major political parties. This mutual distrust keeps everyone honest. Fraud is obviously not impossible, but is more difficult to get away with. Here's how electronic voting works: A private, for-profit corporation TELLS you what the numbers are, with no paper trail and using unauditable practices protected by "trade secret" (court ruling). What else do you need to know? People will scam other people for a buck, let alone control of the entire country. The burden of proof should be on the voting process to show that it's correct, not on those who challenge it; because the very lack of auditability is a virtual guarantor of fraud. It is not an accident when ATM companies produce voting machines with no receipts. In the 2004 election, exit polls tracked closely with the official counts in the paper ballot areas, but were way off the "official" totals in the electronic voting areas. E.g. http://www.nogw.com/images/exit_poll.jpg http://www.nogw.com/images/exit_poll.jpg Hackers make ZERO difference. Hack all the votes you want going in; the voting machine company is a black box, and it will produce whatever totals it wants as output. It's ESPECIALLY not going to announce if it were breached and is now completely untrustworthy; it's going to produce numbers that look plausible to save its own ass, leaving aside any nefarious reasons. Even if all their voting data was corrupted, they could just get the exit poll or pre-election survey numbers and tweak by a few percent in the desired direction in a few key areas and voila. How many people need to be in on this? One guy with root access.
  - rms 19y ago
    Alright, I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged, but I didn't want to sound like a crackpot. It's too bad there is no political process left in America.
    - downer 19y ago
      But who says it's a crackpot theory? Mainstream media, owned by... I think more generally this is exposing the problem with majority rule, whose time should come to an end anyway. What if there IS a legitimate >50% Idiocracy? Just look at the birth rate among different political groups and you can see which way we're heading. I didn't consent to be ruled by anyone, let alone the people "in charge" now. I didn't agree to all these rules, or all these laws, that claim to govern every aspect of my existence. The next step in human liberation is freedom from those who seek to control others. Given the scarcity of natural resources, but effectively infinite virtual resources, you can do whatever you want in your own virtual reality. It will be freedom for your mind.
matth 19y ago
I would assume this is partly because many of us have been upset with electronic voting machines since day one. Machines without paper trails are scary, and there's not much more for the hackers here to say. What's odd is that, seemingly, so few non-hackers are scared of the implications of these machines. Here's a scary combo: Ron Paul's tech savvy followers + no paper trails.
- rms 19y ago
  It scares me a lot less than existing system. Ron Paul and the Ron Paul followers are strongly in favor of a paper trail, by the way: without it, they fear being disenfranchised.
  - matth 19y ago
    Realistically, there isn't going to be a paper trail in November, or in the foreseeable future for that matter. At the risk of getting "too" political, I believe there's a contingent of Paul supporters who don't seem so... umm... ethically inclined. A goofy thing to say about the world of politics, no doubt. But combine that lack of ethics with technological ability...
edw519 19y ago
Maybe they don't think rigged presidential elections make any difference anyway. Be brutally honest with yourself. If any of the last 10 presidential elections had gone the other way, how would that have changed YOUR life? Personally, I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that I have other things I'd rather spend my mental energy on.

rms 19y ago

There's not much to say. It's sobering to think that it is somewhat likely that the voting machines were rigged and that there is absolutely no way of confirming it.

downer 19y ago
"Somewhat" likely? Here's how normal paper ballots work: After the polls officially close, they count them up, in full view of whatever members of the public care to observe. In hotly-contested areas, this will usually include members of both/all the major political parties. This mutual distrust keeps everyone honest. Fraud is obviously not impossible, but is more difficult to get away with. Here's how electronic voting works: A private, for-profit corporation TELLS you what the numbers are, with no paper trail and using unauditable practices protected by "trade secret" (court ruling). What else do you need to know? People will scam other people for a buck, let alone control of the entire country. The burden of proof should be on the voting process to show that it's correct, not on those who challenge it; because the very lack of auditability is a virtual guarantor of fraud. It is not an accident when ATM companies produce voting machines with no receipts. In the 2004 election, exit polls tracked closely with the official counts in the paper ballot areas, but were way off the "official" totals in the electronic voting areas. E.g. http://www.nogw.com/images/exit_poll.jpg http://www.nogw.com/images/exit_poll.jpg Hackers make ZERO difference. Hack all the votes you want going in; the voting machine company is a black box, and it will produce whatever totals it wants as output. It's ESPECIALLY not going to announce if it were breached and is now completely untrustworthy; it's going to produce numbers that look plausible to save its own ass, leaving aside any nefarious reasons. Even if all their voting data was corrupted, they could just get the exit poll or pre-election survey numbers and tweak by a few percent in the desired direction in a few key areas and voila. How many people need to be in on this? One guy with root access.
- rms 19y ago
  Alright, I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged, but I didn't want to sound like a crackpot. It's too bad there is no political process left in America.
  - downer 19y ago
    But who says it's a crackpot theory? Mainstream media, owned by... I think more generally this is exposing the problem with majority rule, whose time should come to an end anyway. What if there IS a legitimate >50% Idiocracy? Just look at the birth rate among different political groups and you can see which way we're heading. I didn't consent to be ruled by anyone, let alone the people "in charge" now. I didn't agree to all these rules, or all these laws, that claim to govern every aspect of my existence. The next step in human liberation is freedom from those who seek to control others. Given the scarcity of natural resources, but effectively infinite virtual resources, you can do whatever you want in your own virtual reality. It will be freedom for your mind.

matth 19y ago

I would assume this is partly because many of us have been upset with electronic voting machines since day one. Machines without paper trails are scary, and there's not much more for the hackers here to say. What's odd is that, seemingly, so few non-hackers are scared of the implications of these machines. Here's a scary combo: Ron Paul's tech savvy followers + no paper trails.

rms 19y ago
It scares me a lot less than existing system. Ron Paul and the Ron Paul followers are strongly in favor of a paper trail, by the way: without it, they fear being disenfranchised.
- matth 19y ago
  Realistically, there isn't going to be a paper trail in November, or in the foreseeable future for that matter. At the risk of getting "too" political, I believe there's a contingent of Paul supporters who don't seem so... umm... ethically inclined. A goofy thing to say about the world of politics, no doubt. But combine that lack of ethics with technological ability...

edw519 19y ago

Maybe they don't think rigged presidential elections make any difference anyway. Be brutally honest with yourself. If any of the last 10 presidential elections had gone the other way, how would that have changed YOUR life? Personally, I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that I have other things I'd rather spend my mental energy on.