Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
#2Good on Virginia. When I voted there they had pretty modern and well run machines in my county with some sort of printout to confirm that you vote was cast. Voting is a messy process, but really important, and really important to have the counting be transparent and beyond reproach.
Re: Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
#3Good on Virginia. When I voted there they had pretty modern and well run machines in my county with some sort of printout to confirm that you vote was cast. Voting is a messy process, but really important, and really important to have the counting be transparent and beyond reproach.
Paper receipts are crucial to voting.
Re: Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
#4Good on Virginia. When I voted there they had pretty modern and well run machines in my county with some sort of printout to confirm that you vote was cast. Voting is a messy process, but really important, and really important to have the counting be transparent and beyond reproach.
Paper receipts are crucial to voting.
I don't think you should leave with any proof of who you voted for. I'm worried that it could be used by people to influence elections by paying for receipts from certain candidates or by punishing people who are not able to produce the correct receipt.
I think we should return back to paper ballots. When there are witnesses to elections, I don't think any of them are qualified to judge if an election has been done in a honest fashion. This would require experts on the voting equipment where they can guarantee that it has not been tampered with and that is too high a burden and something that complex can not be trusted.
Re: Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
#5Why the fuck do we need to vote on machines, anyway? I don't understand this.
Many other countries use paper ballots, including highly developed ones (e.g., France, UK...)
Re: Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
#6Why the fuck do we need to vote on machines, anyway? I don't understand this. Many other countries use paper ballots, including highly developed ones (e.g., France, UK...)
Because we're becoming lazier with each passing day?
I do think we need paper -- a "hard copy" -- at some level, whether for the ballot itself or just a verifiable audit trail. I think 100% electronic voting would be fine so long as there's an audit trail that matches the (electronically) talkied results perfectly. I don't think dealing with millions of paper ballots would be any more advantageous than that -- you'd have to distribute and collect them (although that would happen at the centralized polling places), a few people would have to hand tally them (to ensure everyone's numbers match up), and then securely store them (via very strict "physical security" procedures/protocols) until, at some later point, they can be properly destroyed.
Logistically, electronic voting with a paper audit trail would be much easier, would require fewer people (i.e., election workers -- who are already in short supply), would give us results much quicker, and would be easier to verify/authenticate later (in the event of disputes).
Re: Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
#7Why the fuck do we need to vote on machines, anyway? I don't understand this. Many other countries use paper ballots, including highly developed ones (e.g., France, UK...)
Usually governor has a friend who just happens to own a company which makes and sells voting machines. All of the sudden the state "needs" voting machines.
Re: Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
#8Why the fuck do we need to vote on machines, anyway? I don't understand this. Many other countries use paper ballots, including highly developed ones (e.g., France, UK...)
Because we're becoming lazier with each passing day? I do think we need paper -- a "hard copy" -- at some level, whether for the ballot itself or just a verifiable audit trail. I think 100% electronic voting would be fine so long as there's an audit trail that matches the (electronically) talkied results perfectly. I don't think dealing with millions of paper ballots would be any more advantageous than that -- you'd…
Yeah sure there are some rube goldberg schemes you can concoct like printing a hard copy or whatever, where electronic voting might be secure.
But... why? What is the point of adding all this complexity? What problem is electronic voting solving?
Re: Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we're becoming lazier with each passing day? I do think we need paper -- a "hard copy" -- at some level, whether for the ballot itself or just a verifiable audit trail. I think 100% electronic voting would be fine so long as there's an audit trail that matches the (electronically) talkied results perfectly. I don't think dealing with millions of paper ballots would be any more advantageous than that -- you'd…
Yeah sure there are some rube goldberg schemes you can concoct like printing a hard copy or whatever, where electronic voting might be secure. But... why? What is the point of adding all this complexity? What problem is electronic voting solving?
Sorry, after posting my comment, I went back and elaborated a bit and just so happened to address the questions you asked in the meantime.
Re: Virginia has decertified its most hackable voting machines
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paper receipts are crucial to voting.
I don't think you should leave with any proof of who you voted for. I'm worried that it could be used by people to influence elections by paying for receipts from certain candidates or by punishing people who are not able to produce the correct receipt. I think we should return back to paper ballots. When there are witnesses to elections, I don't think any of them are qualified to judge if an election has been done i…
> I don't think you should leave with any proof of who you voted for.
I don't think you should leave without (at least seeing) proof that your votes were properly and accurately recorded.
If that means that you have to be given a "receipt" with the names of those you voted for on it, well, so be it. It isn't like your name and/or any other personally identifiable information would be on it -- just the minimal details needed to achieve the singlemost important purpose: verification.