41–50 of 81 posts
I participated in the experimental deployment of digital ballot box in a rich north Italian region, during regional elections. The system worked, and worked well. But overall, it was a failure. Putting the digital in something as simple as voting, just increase the risks at all levels: security, deployment, rechecking, etc. Pen and paper it's just so much better: simple, cost-effective, safe and understandable by any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. No, you wouldn't. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the DNC hacks are all because the Democratic leadership is unwilling to accept responsibility for putting forward a bad candidate. Better blame the Russians, instead! If only the public didn't know the truth, we would have won!
You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attacks were targeting a specific party alone and seem to be motivated by foreign geopolitical interests, not in the American public's interest. There is a reason we want equal time laws for example, because if I constantly hear one side of the argument, it doesn't…
I participated in the experimental deployment of digital ballot box in a rich north Italian region, during regional elections. The system worked, and worked well. But overall, it was a failure. Putting the digital in something as simple as voting, just increase the risks at all levels: security, deployment, rechecking, etc. Pen and paper it's just so much better: simple, cost-effective, safe and understandable by any…
I develop software and devices used for data collection during clinical drug trials, and our single biggest "competitor" is the old paper diary. Despite evidence showing that electronic data collection for certain types of trials provides better data, people just don't "trust" anything but pen and paper (never mind the fact that patients could sit in their cars before an appointment and fill in a month's worth of dat…
Can someone eli5 how an entire country that includes (big-fat assumption here) n > 0 computer scientist(s) is "fearful of hacking." Are we really at this point giving up on technology and becoming luddites?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the press digs up dirt on a candidate, should they not publish it until they dig up some dirt on their opponent? What if it's a foreign newspaper? Should Deep Throat's leaks not been published, because they would influence the election? What if he were a card-holding Democrat? What if he were a reptilian agent? I hate Trump as much as the next person, but there was no shortage of actual dirt that was dug up on him…
The press "digging up dirt" is surely different than the illegal hacking and wholesale release of all private email correspondence. Deep Throat provided info on the current President's illegal actions to a journalist, not just "dirt". Even if we accept that it is better to know the info in the DNC leaks, it is still a big problem if a foreign government can wield its influence so easily through illegal computer intru…
Good news for us, though - both illegal leaks, and illegal hacks are illegal. We already have a mechanism to deal with bad behaviour in this space.
We only every needed technology to make sure ballots get encoded correctly. We could do that with open source software, commodity PCs and card punch machines and readers. Then validating that your choices were encoded correctly would be easier. So would counting. You could count at the voting location to get fast results and recount once the ballots arrive at the central office to confirm that the reported count was…
Democracy gives so much legitimacy to her government that it will be gamed if it's possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. No, you wouldn't. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the DNC hacks are all because the Democratic leadership is unwilling to accept responsibility for putting forward a bad candidate. Better blame the Russians, instead! If only the public didn't know the truth, we would have won!
You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attacks were targeting a specific party alone and seem to be motivated by foreign geopolitical interests, not in the American public's interest. There is a reason we want equal time laws for example, because if I constantly hear one side of the argument, it doesn't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. No, you wouldn't. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the DNC hacks are all because the Democratic leadership is unwilling to accept responsibility for putting forward a bad candidate. Better blame the Russians, instead! If only the public didn't know the truth, we would have won!
You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attacks were targeting a specific party alone and seem to be motivated by foreign geopolitical interests, not in the American public's interest. There is a reason we want equal time laws for example, because if I constantly hear one side of the argument, it doesn't…
In France we count all ballots by hand. As every ballot station count only his ballots, it's quick. For a presidential election, maybe 30 minutes. The counting is done by the citizens, so no (easy) frauds are possible. All ballots are visible, the process is transparent, no suspicion. I personally think that a 30min delay to get the election results is worth the wait.
How are the results transmitted and tabulated by hand?
Raw numbers of each station are available publicly. The people who did the counting can check if their numbers were transmitted correctly. Parties usually have preliminary results from their people at stations way before the centralised system processes & publicises them. They'd easily spot any issues. Paper ballots are stored in secured bags and can be recounted if there is a need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the press digs up dirt on a candidate, should they not publish it until they dig up some dirt on their opponent? What if it's a foreign newspaper? Should Deep Throat's leaks not been published, because they would influence the election? What if he were a card-holding Democrat? What if he were a reptilian agent? I hate Trump as much as the next person, but there was no shortage of actual dirt that was dug up on him…
The press "digging up dirt" is surely different than the illegal hacking and wholesale release of all private email correspondence. Deep Throat provided info on the current President's illegal actions to a journalist, not just "dirt". Even if we accept that it is better to know the info in the DNC leaks, it is still a big problem if a foreign government can wield its influence so easily through illegal computer intru…
Funny thing is this alleged hacking was [supposedly] one of the reasons for demanding recounts in the states narrowly won by Trump and the only actual hard evidence discovered was "pro-Clinton discrepancies" in Detroit at which point the recount in the state of Michigan was stopped :)