31–40 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vox is just trying to delegitimize the election ahead of a potential loss. They did the same thing for the Supreme Court. Textbook fearmongering.
Further the article never mentions: ID, illegals, undocumented Complaining about fraud via electronic voting machines and ignoring the 20M+ that are potentially voting illegally is quite curious indeed.
Every election is rigged according to the loser, or the non-incumbent
If the system is already so rigged and/or fragile, why don't we explore the blockchain world more? If people could get private/public keys into their hands, they could vote using these and no one can change it. They could vote at home or at poling places.
Overall there isn’t a reason to have voting machines, and if you do, they should really just print a piece of paper with your vote so that you can make sure it’s what you picked.
You’ll sometimes hear finance and efficiency as a reason, but unless American licensing for government software/hardware is significantly different from every where else, it’ll always be cheaper to manually count the votes than to buy voting software/hardware.
I mean, we digitised part of the process like I said, but we did it to make citizens wait less not because it was cheaper. It’s actually really expensive compared to doing manual voter registration, but we pay the money because no one likes queues.
Blockchain isn’t really a suitable option. It could be, but in the real world it would never be truly decentralised because no government is ever going to trust that, and if it isn’t, it’s just as easy to change and manipulate as any other database structure. And you still wouldn’t know if the voting machine actually did what you told it to do.
You can never vote from home in a democracy, because people might force you to vote a way you didn’t want to. I don’t really think groups would show up at your house to force you to do anything, but we frequently get husbands ask if they can vote for their wives, and if they could do that from home, no one would be there to stop them.
I know we live in a time where we want to digitise everything, but the paper vote is probably the safest and most efficient way to run voting in a democracy.
I'm from India and every ejection since 1950s has been called rigged by the Opposition. The party which is in power now, has written a book on EVM tampering and the party which was in power for most of the time have rubbished EvM tampering. Now that roles have reversed, so have their claims. Coming to the point, isn't US using paperballots? All the papers in my nation say US holds elections via paperballots and not E…
I don’t think I’ve seen a paper ballot since I voted absentee in 2004. Why do electronic machines exist? The charitable interpretation is that they were chosen in the aftermath of the disastrous 2000 election because they remove ambiguity and error. The less charitable interpretation is that they’re used because they’re easier to screw with. Who verifies them? Mostly the companies who make them.
Democrats have been complaining about this for decades, but what did they do when they got majorities in 2008? Absolutely nothing. Like a lot of other things, I feel like Democrats like to keep these issues around as a rallying cause, instead of fixing them. Edit: I'll just address some of the comments here. This is not "partisan sniping", and I write this as a former Obama volunteer and a lifelong Democrat. Second:…
Elections are run by states, not by the federal government, and the most problematic voting situations in the US are usually where Republicans have control of state legislature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Further the article never mentions: ID, illegals, undocumented Complaining about fraud via electronic voting machines and ignoring the 20M+ that are potentially voting illegally is quite curious indeed.
There’s nothing curious about concentrating on the problems that actually happen.
Rasmussen Poll shows 54% of Democrats support giving illegals right to vote. I don't know why you are going against what the majority of your party openly wants?
My county of over 600k people has a Bureau of Elections staff of five, and none of them are really technical people, they just do basic work on the machines and train the temp staff hired for elections. They rely on a contractor to handle just about every aspect of the technology, including the pollbook system, and that company is a larger operation but still the kind of operation where I've heard the elections staff…
The upside inherent in fifty parallel and bespoke experiments in government is worth the extra complexity and cost. Ideas are tried out, and can bubble outward and upward if they work. Bad ideas directly impact only ~2% of the country.
Furthermore, having state and local control over elections has a direct impact on legitimacy. I don't have to believe that someone in Washington DC is doing things right. Instead, I can interact directly with our state's secretary of state and our local county elections office.
Decentralization with heterogeneous procedures makes election compromise a much greater logistical challenge for any nefarious actor. It is probably a lot easier to spend money on lobbying.
Edit: Finally -- if you want your local/state elections infrastructure to have more resources, your voice and your vote are your tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s nothing curious about concentrating on the problems that actually happen.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/18/texas-democ... Rasmussen Poll shows 54% of Democrats support giving illegals right to vote. I don't know why you are going against what the majority of your party openly wants?
What makes you think the Democrats are "my" party?
Every election is rigged according to the loser, or the non-incumbent
Trump started a voting security investigation, saying the voting system was rigged. He also won.