Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect an even bigger problem is that there are powerful players who seem to have have an interest in the opposite - that is, reducing the number of potential voters who actually vote. I can't imagine them letting mandatory voting go without a real fight.
There is a whole alt-right idea of "Demographic shifting" as a tactic being used to suppress their opinion. Unfortunately Americans are really stupid and conspiracy theories have gotten a deep hold on society.
They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
151–160 of 200 posts
Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what would be the penalty for not voting. Me not voting is a vote of FU to the whole endeavor. Now police state thugs are going to what, no knock raid my house in the middle of night? Garnish my wages? Take away by constitutional rights? Oh or will it be tax by another name, you’ll get a tax credit with proof of voting. Its all too illiberal and un-American. Sure Australia requires voting but they also voted to r…
> And what would be the penalty for not voting. A ~US$1.3 (R$5) fine works very well in Brazil.
And if you don't pay?
Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
#153We need a Democrat to buy an election company. Then legislation for voting transparency will sail through the Senate.
This is 100% snark and 100% true, at the same time.
It's really not. The US is (well was...) dominated by a uni-party. They usually only really need to rig primaries.
Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we shouldn't attempt anything that could be overridden by illegal activities by employers?
We shouldn't attempt anything that'd make their illegal behaviour easier. Like mandatory armbands for your religion, a public record of your voting activities is a terrible and dangerous idea.
You could say the same thing about tax returns, credit reports, Facebook accounts, medical records, etc. For all these things an employer would benefit by coercing an employee to provide them to the employer. But the risk is worth the reward, so we still have these things. Why is a semi-anonymous voting database any different? I could think of some easy mitigations to your concerns with almost no thought. Make it so that only those who's vote hashes end in a certain number get their private key, so you have plausible deniability. Say 10%. A sample of that size should be enough to verify the vote.
Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not perfect - another potential flaw is late breaking information that might lead some people to change their votes. Still, compared to the mess where people don't vote because of long lines and taking time off work (most western countries vote on weekends) and so on... I think it's good. Now we just need more ranked choice voting.
I believe in Oregon you can change your vote right up until election day.
Nope.
> Can I change my mind after I've returned the ballot?
> No. Your ballot has been cast as soon as you deposit it in the mailbox or at a drop site. After that, you cannot receive a new ballot to re-vote.
Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
#156Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And what would be the penalty for not voting. A ~US$1.3 (R$5) fine works very well in Brazil.
And if you don't pay?
Then you'll be added to the government debitor's list, what is a huge problem if you have properties or move money around, or a buisance if you don't.
Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
#158The dichotomy between our pride in the power of the individual to cast their vote and be represented in government, and the facts of how voting and vote counting happens (the security of the systems and the conflicts of interest involved) is so stark a contrast that I can only assume there are forces at work which have achieved full capture.
Journalist Andrew Gumbel called this "America's recurring amnesia."
Steal This Vote [2005]
https://www.amazon.com/Steal-This-Vote-Elections-Democracy/d...
As an (burnt out) election integrity activist, I'd say not much has changed.
Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
#159It would be a lot easier to trust an electronic voting system if it was open-source, open-hardware, and votes were recorded on a public blockchain.
But such a system is incompatible with the secret ballot, and is therefore vulnerable to voter coercion. Didn't vote for the right candidate? You're fired "for performance reasons".
But people can always take a photo, it's illegal, but so is buying votes.
Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system
#160No machines are needed for voting. Votes should be counted manually. Several tiers if error correction ensure honest counting and no manipulation. Counters should be paid well and be recruited from all parts of society.
That was a large part of the "hanging chad" controversy in the year 2000 US elections, though...