Live data from Hacker News

They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

theguardian.com

191–200 of 200 posts

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#191
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not. The US is (well was...) dominated by a uni-party. They usually only really need to rig primaries.

I think you missed the point. Had HRC become president, she would have likely been impeached (in the House, not Senate) over emails. We have a criminal in office now who has made it 2 years without impeachment. There are two parties are a double standard. If the Republicans thought votes were being stolen by Democrats, there would be swift and strong action.

The RINO's as we call them are indistinguishable from the DINO's. The "criminal" you referred to terrifies them, and rightly so.

Jeb! was supposed to lose to Clinton. Bush Sr. referred to Bill as his son. They vacationed with the Bin Ladens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vALc-oU3Hqg

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should be more precise. The voting system we have in Cook County accounts for the possibility that someone observed your vote, and that you might later want to rescind that vote. It does so imperfectly, as you note. I will say that the system we have goes to some annoying lengths to try to maintain this particular kind of integrity. For instance, if you have vision problems and want your husband to help you read th…

I've monitored elections in Ireland and the Netherlands which both have an interesting problem. They each use Proportional Representation and ranked voting. Voters filling in their ballots mark each candidate with a number indicating their preference. There are routinely 10+ candidates in each constituency. That makes it easy to encode a highly-likely to be unique voter signature in the lower order numbers, which wou…

That's a fascinating degree of prevention.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think blockchain necessarily means anyone being able to make blocks.

So the important part is the visibility of the blockchain, not the distributed control? One could still verify whether tampering had occurred?

In my forum project, I use blockchain-like elements in the sense that when one replies to an existing comment, they include its hash in the reply text, which is then PGP-signed.

It is not a chain, however, more like a tree/web. And anyone can inspect the tree and re-verify its validity.

What is on the tree, however, is decided by me, the webmaster-operator. If there are troll comments that I want removed, they're gone. But I cannot forge something by another user, because I do not have their private key.

And anyone else can fork the forum and append to the tree in their own way, and I cannot stop them.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your point is that you'll eventually go to jail, after many years of warnings and chances to pay, I don't have an issue with this. There are many actions we require of citizens. You have to pay your taxes, you have to show up for jury duty, you have to sign up for the draft. Why is showing up to vote a less important civic responsibility than any of those things?

Not many. It's only a few, you could add duty to assist depending on where you live. Would you be forced vote in jail too? What about other people in jail? The point is it leads to logical absurdity. This is just one. Is silent protest to be criminalized?

Unlike the U.S., prisoners in Australia are allowed to vote, which seems like a meaningful - if symbolic - check on government tyranny.

But prisoners, like everyone else, can still lodge a blank ballot paper, or one with any kind of message on it, including a drawing of genitalia. So, no, silent protest is not criminalized.

It only leads to logical absurdity if you insist on taking it there for rhetorical purposes.

All laws ultimately come down to a level of reasonableness in their application, and this one is no different.

In practice, in Australia, it’s a moderate and balanced approach that helps to bring about what is one of the more well-functioning and harmonious democratic systems in the world. It’s no big deal.

Besides, people who hate the system enough to want to overthrow it should probably come up with a more robust course of action than merely staying home on polling day.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#195

It's a shame that neither party is interested in fixing this issue. These problems have been known for many years, but regardless of who's in power in the Congress, nothing gets done about it.

This is a lie. The Democrats have tried at least six times in the last fifteen years to get money out of elections and make elections more secure, such as by requiring paper backups. Every time they were blocked by Bush, or the Republican Filibuster, or Trump. Election security is not a "both sides" issue. Democrats want more of it, Republicans want less of it, and this is bourne out very clearly in their voting reco…

> The Democrats have tried at least six times in the last fifteen years to get money out of elections and make elections more secure, such as by requiring paper backups.

Couple of points. 1) "getting money out of elections" and "secure elections" are two entirely different problems. By grouping them into one, the Democrats make sure that there's a lot of opposition to it. And 2), for 2 years (2008-2010?) Democrats had full control of the Congress and Whitehouse. Why didn't they try then? I can tell you why: because then it would have become law! And then no more rallying your troops with the whole "elections are being stolen! elections are being stolen!!" cries.

I am mostly a Democrat, but I'm not willing to give them a free pass just because they're Democrats.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why aren't Democrats doing that? Because universal federal ID is unpopular and also potentially constitutionally problematic. Then Social Security numbers were introduced, there was a lot of opposition that had to be overcome, including two supreme court challenges that were decided by one vote. Whenever Republicans propose voter ID and Democrats attach universal ID to make it equitable, the bill dies because unive…

Can you give an example of a bill where Dems attached a universal free federal ID rider? I haven't heard of that before, and would like to research more. Most complaints about universal IDs in US are about a hypothetical mandatory ID, but you don't need it to be mandatory in this case; just make it available free to any citizen that requests one. So I'm curious if Dems added a mandatory clause there, or if not, then…

> Can you give an example of a bill where Dems attached a universal free federal ID rider?

Because IDs are a State thing? States issue IDs (except for Passports, which the Feds issue). The Feds can't make the States issue IDs to everyone.

One of the big oppositions to ID laws is that it unfairly hurts poor voters more than rich ones. If you look at the demographic without IDs, they're mostly poor, rural or a marginalized community like native Americans.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example of a bill where Dems attached a universal free federal ID rider? I haven't heard of that before, and would like to research more. Most complaints about universal IDs in US are about a hypothetical mandatory ID, but you don't need it to be mandatory in this case; just make it available free to any citizen that requests one. So I'm curious if Dems added a mandatory clause there, or if not, then…

> Can you give an example of a bill where Dems attached a universal free federal ID rider? Because IDs are a State thing? States issue IDs (except for Passports, which the Feds issue). The Feds can't make the States issue IDs to everyone. One of the big oppositions to ID laws is that it unfairly hurts poor voters more than rich ones. If you look at the demographic without IDs, they're mostly poor, rural or a marginal…

The feds can issue their own ID, and require that the states recognize it for the purposes of voter identification, at least for federal elections.

But you're right, "federal" was an unnecessary qualifier. I would also be interested in any such bills on state level.

> One of the big oppositions to ID laws is that it unfairly hurts poor voters more than rich ones

That is only so because the voter ID laws you usually see in US are intentionally designed to do just that. But, as I wrote in my initial comment in this thread, most developed countries have some form of voter ID without those issues.

Hence why I don't buy the argument that voter ID is inherently discriminatory. And, logically, if your opposition to voter ID is on those grounds, then there should be a reasonable compromise here in form of implementing it, but in a non-discriminatory way. Hence my question about whether Dems have tried that anywhere.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not many. It's only a few, you could add duty to assist depending on where you live. Would you be forced vote in jail too? What about other people in jail? The point is it leads to logical absurdity. This is just one. Is silent protest to be criminalized?

Unlike the U.S., prisoners in Australia are allowed to vote, which seems like a meaningful - if symbolic - check on government tyranny. But prisoners, like everyone else, can still lodge a blank ballot paper, or one with any kind of message on it, including a drawing of genitalia. So, no, silent protest is not criminalized. It only leads to logical absurdity if you insist on taking it there for rhetorical purposes. A…

Australia don't have even the the most basic inalienable rights (speech for example), and you just got done arguing that a selective enforcement legal system is a good thing. Now you top it off with equating forced voting to silent protest, letting murders vote, and (cringe) suggesting something "more robust" than free speech.

Next thing you know Aus will outlaw random numbers.

Moderate and balanced are useless terms.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans have conflicted opinions about privacy, security, civil liberties. I, for one, opposed Real ID until I grokked the counterintuitive notion that encrypting demographic data at rest (PII) is only feasible by issuing and using GUIDs. That subtle realization only happened after working on privacy issues for years, and sadly is still difficult to explain to non geeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act Tr…

Yes, "poll tax" here refers to the narrow US meaning, same as OP. Why do you consider my point to be trolling? Yes, it's an argument often brought up in discussions of gun rights and reasonable gun regulation (long before this one guy you referenced mentioned it). That's because there's an obvious analogy here. Both are constitutional rights. In both cases, governments effectively do not allow to exercise those right…

Injecting the Second Amendment brouhaha into a discussion about election reform is a whataboutism troll.

Recall that you started this subthread with the thoroughly, repeatedly rebutted "Democrats oppose voter ID" talking point, which is also trolling.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the U.S., prisoners in Australia are allowed to vote, which seems like a meaningful - if symbolic - check on government tyranny. But prisoners, like everyone else, can still lodge a blank ballot paper, or one with any kind of message on it, including a drawing of genitalia. So, no, silent protest is not criminalized. It only leads to logical absurdity if you insist on taking it there for rhetorical purposes. A…

Australia don't have even the the most basic inalienable rights (speech for example), and you just got done arguing that a selective enforcement legal system is a good thing. Now you top it off with equating forced voting to silent protest, letting murders vote, and (cringe) suggesting something "more robust" than free speech. Next thing you know Aus will outlaw random numbers. Moderate and balanced are useless terms…

Given the mischaracterisations and both personal and nationalistic slurs in this comment, we're clearly beyond being able to have a respectful discussion on this topic.

But for the sake of setting some points straight, and correcting a mistake on my part:

- Australia's basic human rights are inherited from British common law, which is argued by some (generally conservatives from what I can see) as in some ways preferable than rights encoded in a constitution or bill of rights. Reasonable people can and do debate that, but for however much this counts, the (hardly left-wing) Cato Institute rates Australia as 4th in the world on its freedom index [1]).

- I don't support selective enforcement; the article I linked showed that the law was enforced, it's just not a heavy-handed enforcement, and thus the spectre of jail is overblown.

- You're not forced to vote; you can lodge a blank form. You are just required show up (or send in a vote by post), or pay a $20 fine. Which, I agree, initially seems like a heinous impingement on freedom, until you realise it's the best protection we have of a more important freedom: that everyone has the right to vote without interference by political operators who would seek to manipulate the system to arbitrarily prevent certain people from voting.

- I was slightly mistaken about prisoners voting; prisoners on sentences greater than 3 years can't vote. So, murderers or other serious violent offenders aren't voting. But the potential for governments to manipulate elections via excessive incarceration is vastly reduced, which seems like something that should be important to people who worry about government intrusions on freedom (of which I'm one).

- I'm with you on the profound importance on free speech; I just think people who want to send a strong protest to government would be better off finding another hill to die on.

- "Moderate" and "balanced" are important concepts in political decision-making, and "reasonable"-ness is a core concept in common law.

Ultimately, systems should be judged on their outcomes.

I was previously (indeed quite recently) of the ideological persuasion that saw things like compulsory voting as an unconscionable breach of civil liberties.

I now recognise that virtues can only be measured in relation to other virtues they either impede or promote, and that in practice it turns out that, this particular infringement of civil liberties leads to a far more important benefit: a democratic system in which nobody is denied their right to vote, and a society that is widely regarded as being as free and well-functioning as any.

Which is not to say I make great criticisms of the U.S. I like the U.S., and whether I do or not it's not for me to say it should change.

I'm just pointing out that the odious spectres people invoke whenever compulsory voting is raised, turn out not to be problems in practice in Australia.

[1] https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-i...

Post reply on HN