111–120 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. And some may argue that voting is a pretty bad "solution" by itself.
And some may argue that democracy is a pretty bad "solution" by itself. https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy posed by blatantly insecure endpoints, blatantly insecure company infrastructure, insecure network communications and devices (routers, etc.), private companies that often have a track record of insecure and sloppy programmin…
> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. That is incorrect. Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters. The slower the process is, the less representative it is. The fidelity of the loop is paramount, but the issue remains. EDIT: do the downvoters understand that there is setup involved in a paper process and getting results is not the end of the feedback loop (not race)? SMH
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. That is incorrect. Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters. The slower the process is, the less representative it is. The fidelity of the loop is paramount, but the issue remains. EDIT: do the downvoters understand that there is setup involved in a paper process and getting results is not the end of the feedback loop (not race)? SMH
This is only relevant if you propose to have weekly/monthly elections. For elections every few years even a week of counting would not be a problem.
If the process were extended over a week instead of a night, it becomes correspondingly harder to ensure that there was never an opportunity for someone to tamper.
I shall repeat it like a mantra: voting beeing slow inefficient is a side effect of it’s transparency. You want a voting system were a average voting helper can look at it and say: “There was nothing fishy there, I saw it”. This is because it is about trust and not only about secrecy and security. Your electronic voting system can be mathematically perfect, but if nobody average can say from the outside that everythi…
Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy posed by blatantly insecure endpoints, blatantly insecure company infrastructure, insecure network communications and devices (routers, etc.), private companies that often have a track record of insecure and sloppy programmin…
Voting today is a complex and costly process. Hence, it cannot be carried out frequently and hence the accountability/ feedback loop is slower.
Imagine if we could conduct voting in a day (even in large democracies). We would be able to remove bad representatives faster.
I shall repeat it like a mantra: voting beeing slow inefficient is a side effect of it’s transparency. You want a voting system were a average voting helper can look at it and say: “There was nothing fishy there, I saw it”. This is because it is about trust and not only about secrecy and security. Your electronic voting system can be mathematically perfect, but if nobody average can say from the outside that everythi…
Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy posed by blatantly insecure endpoints, blatantly insecure company infrastructure, insecure network communications and devices (routers, etc.), private companies that often have a track record of insecure and sloppy programmin…
You already accept the influence of corporate PACs, which arguably are a much bigger threat to democracy. Not saying you should add another vector, (electronic voting), just that the argument that there's a solid democratic system now is not quite true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paper ballots are vulnerable to systemic voter suppression of the kind that’s hard to eliminate. Voter ID laws. Complicated ballots. Overloaded polling stations. Worst, all these weaknesses are difficult to eliminate because they are both difficult to sincerely debate and difficult to generate the public interest necessary to generate enough activism. Electronic voting can reduce the friction enough to where we can a…
How does electronic voting solve any of those? - With electronic voting the identification problem is at least as hard as with paper ballots, so Voter ID is at least as hard (an honestly, I've never heard of any problem of this kind outside of the US) - Electronic ballots could be simpler than paper ballots, but they can also be a lot more complicated. Under the assumption that voter suppression is taking place we ha…
Although there are downsides to vote-by-smartphone, an advocate would argue you should compare it to vote-by-mail rather than vote-in-person, given that almost every election allows vote-by-mail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy posed by blatantly insecure endpoints, blatantly insecure company infrastructure, insecure network communications and devices (routers, etc.), private companies that often have a track record of insecure and sloppy programmin…
Electronic voting may be a harder to implement solution in terms of trust but the problem is not non-existent. Voting today is a complex and costly process. Hence, it cannot be carried out frequently and hence the accountability/ feedback loop is slower. Imagine if we could conduct voting in a day (even in large democracies). We would be able to remove bad representatives faster.
That would be horrible. "direct democracy" does not work (Switzerland is also a representative democracy), practical policy making requires some domain knowledge, patience and the ability to make compromises that the Internet mob could not possibly deliver. People are generally very good at judging the trustworthiness of other people, however, and at being critical about other people (rather themselves). Both traits work well for a representative democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. That is incorrect. Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters. The slower the process is, the less representative it is. The fidelity of the loop is paramount, but the issue remains. EDIT: do the downvoters understand that there is setup involved in a paper process and getting results is not the end of the feedback loop (not race)? SMH
I don't think I understand what feedback loop we are talking about? Everyone who wants to be on the ballot registers a few months in advance, which is usually a short enough time. Since people are usually voted into a job they have to do for 4-6 years you don't want hasty decisions anyways. Getting poll results while the voting stations are open is usually not a desired feature because of how it influences voters. Th…
I think their argument is precisely that that's too slow of a time to reflect what the voters want and that a faster turnaround time would allow referendums and more of a direct democracy, even when it comes to minor issues, since 'representatives' often don't quite represent.
Such a system does need informed voters, otherwise it opens up to reactionary activism, but that's a whole another debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you cannot observe it. You see that someone with a hash X has voted. How do you know whether it was a real person, a real person voting under boss supervision, a real person who actually didn't take part in elections, or just sysadmin inserting records into the database?
That question applies equally to a paper ballot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy posed by blatantly insecure endpoints, blatantly insecure company infrastructure, insecure network communications and devices (routers, etc.), private companies that often have a track record of insecure and sloppy programmin…
> Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy You already accept the influence of corporate PACs, which arguably are a much bigger threat to democracy. Not saying you should add another vector, (electronic voting), just that the argument that there's a solid democratic system now is not quite true.
This is leading astray but just to make this clear for anyone looking up this thread later: I do not accept the influence of corporate PACs at all, and believe (but IANAL) that where I live these would be illegal.