US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies • Hacker News Board

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#261

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

karatestomp wrote: post #260

giantg2 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we don't have comprehensive audits, how do we know it is not a problem? Eg. How do you know your server is secure if you don't have an IDS? You can say it isn't a problem, but even the supreme court has acknowledged the longstanding and still relevant issue of voter fraud, which is why voter ID is still legal. I can't remember the source but one study said there are about 3 million extra people registered in the U…

> If we don't have comprehensive audits, how do we know it is not a problem? Eg. How do you know your server is secure if you don't have an IDS? A few politicians with strong motivations to find any evidence of significant election fraud they can, and holding positions that give them the authority and, indeed, responsibility, to go looking for it have done so, and so far as I know they've all found little enough that…

Actually, the investigation was not completed because most states would not reveal their voting data.

Yes, 500 votes in a couple precincts of a state.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#262

Post by salawat » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 7:58 PM UTC

nrclark wrote: post #213

salawat wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's a filibuster work when a surreptitiously orchestrated connection drop inevitably becomes ground for relinquishing the floor? Furthermore, part of getting everyone colocated with the apparata of government is to ensure unfettered access to staffers/resources. The Library of Congress isn't just there for decoration you know. It is actually there to be utilized. Furthermore, there is the potential for breach of hi…

Filibustering is an emergent property of profoundly broken processes in our Senate. If remote meetings force some procedural change, that's probably in everybody's best interest.

I hesitated on bringing it up. It's counterintuitive, but I'm always reluctant to do too much to speed things up when it comes to mass communication and building consensus. I realize that it is basically a legislative DDoS attack; but it is also a way to buy time to organize thoughts and filter information for both sides while also depriving the body of the benefit of an overly expeditious vote.

Would it be nice if everyone could just agree and move along? Yes, yes it would. Unfortunately, supermajorities are the realm of Walgreens advertising, and I still don't accept that there should not be mechanisms through which delay can be enforced.

Then again, I'm not terribly well read up on legislative procedure either, so I may be pulling postulates out of my arse. If anyone is better versed in it, and wouldn't mind some explanation, I'd be quite interested.

Then again, I could just read the damned rules. Is it strictly Robert's Rules of Order proper, or some specialized set of procedures?

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#263

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 8:01 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #196

giantg2 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget there are also tens of millions of felons who are not eligible to vote as well.

Which is a whole different problem altogether. I honestly have never understood what the purpose of even letting people out of prison was. Really, think about it. Here you are, you've been 'punished' for a time the state has deemed appropriate. Now you're out. Very little support. No real integration plans, at least not formal ones. No oversight to see whether or not you fall into patterns of behavior from before. Un…

Yep, and it seems like more and more felony crimes are added to the law books, or lower crimes elevated to felonies. I knew a guy that gave a 20 year old alchohol, got caught, got a felony for it. He killed himself due to some of the stuff you listed above.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#264

Post by karatestomp » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #259

giantg2 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just because they don't exercise those privileges/rights means they should be legally barred from doing so? If that is a valid argument, then you could use that same line of thinking against your position to say that who people who haven't voted impacted by the voter ID laws. Sure, there's opportunity cost to everything. Take the kid with you. What do you suggest we do about it? And not just on this issue, but fil…

I'm not against the idea of voter ID. But a well-intentioned voter ID law would make ID easier and cheaper to obtain. It would set up ID registration at banks, post offices, libraries, courthouses, city halls, senior centers, college campuses, churches or other religious/community centers, workplaces, school gyms, supermarkets and convenience stores, gas stations. Make it as easy as buying Girl Scout cookies. Heck, l…

In this case a common Republican position is that voter fraud is a big problem worth devoting serious resources to, and that a good solution to that problem is a voter ID program, and (leaving the Republican position now) very clearly the best and fairest solution for that is just to issue an official ID for every citizen (and god knows that'd make a ton of other stuff less prone to problems/fraud, more convenient to citizens, and cheaper), but they also really don't want a citizen ID program, so even if they were well-intentioned in their calls for voter ID they'd end up coming off as incoherent and disingenuous once you put those two positions together. And that's if.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#265

Post by malandrew » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

lozaning wrote: post #258

malandrew wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's peculiar about your response is that this is Hacker News and if I had posted a similar question on a topic about how to do some computing operation securely it would be upvoted. Somehow the moment we talk about voting, people throw out all concerns about security.

What's peculiar about your response is that you're the only person that interpreted my question as trying to shut down the discussion as opposed to starting it.

What's peculiar about the way you started it was using the word "umbrage" even though there wasn't anything about how I originally phrased my question or qualified it that suggested offense or annoyance. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully and understand what they mean before you use them.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#266

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #203

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paper by mail voting should be our standard in the US. There is absolutely no need for real-time efficiency when it comes to potentially changing political office seats. There usually is a month or two before the successor takes office so we don't need to know that night, it could be a week later. Sometimes technology introduces more potential problems.

Postal voting undermines the secret ballot. People in your life with power over you can demand to see your ballot.

People have cell phones in their pockets 24/7. Someone could demand photographic proof of your ballot regardless of mail in or voting booth. Sure you could doctor the photo, but you can doctor paper too. Neither are such common skill sets that there's a real difference between mail in and a booth.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#267

Post by alasdair_ » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

bargl wrote: post #187

alasdair_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Everything on the news looks ironic I was born and grew up in Scotland. I remember the first time I watched Fox News after moving to the states - for almost fifteen minutes I genuinely thought I was watching some (honestly pretty funny) satire.

I get really frustrated when people only mention Fox News and not CNN/MSNBC in the same sentence. There are people on Fox who are good, I.E. Chris Wallace. I mean he's my only example, but Jon Stewart did a skit with him and the quote that got me was, "how many times have you seen your show on my show?" It was a nod to the fact that Chris Wallace does actual news not opinion pieces. I'd actually say he's better and l…

> I get really frustrated when people only mention Fox News and not CNN/MSNBC in the same sentence.

I was sharing a personal anecdote of something that happened to me. Why would I add “CNN/MSNBC” to the sentence when I didn’t watch those channels?

Nowadays, outside of a couple of notable exceptions (Fareed Zakaria’s GPS and Perhaps one or two others) all of the stations are absolute total garbage. They are only worth watching when a live, raw feed of a major event is occurring and I turn it off when the commentary starts.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#268

Post by karatestomp » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #261

karatestomp wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we don't have comprehensive audits, how do we know it is not a problem? Eg. How do you know your server is secure if you don't have an IDS? A few politicians with strong motivations to find any evidence of significant election fraud they can, and holding positions that give them the authority and, indeed, responsibility, to go looking for it have done so, and so far as I know they've all found little enough that…

Actually, the investigation was not completed because most states would not reveal their voting data. Yes, 500 votes in a couple precincts of a state.

I mean state level officials. IIRC Kobach was very serious about tracking down all the voter fraud he was sure existed in Kansas (and everywhere else, but that's where he could look), and came up with so little—and ~all of it accidental, not some kind of intentional scheme to change the outcome of elections—that it was, truly, comical. If others have gone on similar crusades and come up with contrary results I'd (honestly) be interested to know.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#269

Post by specialist » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 8:16 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #218

specialist wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My voter registration says "Mike Smith" and my driver's license says "Michael Smith". Would you let me vote? I got married and took my husband's name. I've got mix of paperwork during transition. Would you let me vote? I voted at the same polling location for 30 years. I've never driven a car. The only photo ID I have is my medical card from the VA. Would you let me vote? -- For the record, what The Left demands is m…

I agree we need modernization. Do you have any links to how we can provide vote tracking/verification and voter eligibility while maintaining anonymity? It seems this type of system would work well for some other subjects.

IIRC, Brookings Institute had a handful of studies. (I'll help you find some when I get back to my computer.)

My TLDR:

Ballots should be secret. It takes very specific procedures to protect voter privacy, especially with postal ballots.

Voter registration and participation (that you voted) are public records, by necessity, with some exceptions (judges, cops, victims, public figures).

Voter eligibility should be adjudicated as part of maintaining registration. The biggest flaws with our VRDBs would be fixed by simply adding an eligibility flag, with an audit log.

Currently, legally, VRDBs can only contain the most current record for eligible voters. No history. Leading to a lot of data quality problems. False negatives, false positives, purging, caging, and so forth.

Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies

#270

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 8:17 PM UTC

calvinmorrison wrote: post #108

rootusrootus wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The left doesn't support that, why? Because it's a transparent attempt to reduce the ability of some groups of people to vote. The right pushes for voter ID while simultaneously doing everything possible to reduce the availability of ID. Put the Federal Election Commission in charge of voter ID, make the cards free and make it the mission of the FEC to track down and ensure every qualified citizen has one. Then I s…

Do you think with 10+ million undocumented immigrants - a not insignificant portion of the population, but not citizenry - that people should not be concerned about ensuring only valid citizens can vote?

California already has vote by mail and a higher than normal share of undocumented immigrants. If this would be a problem nationwide, then there must be evidence that it's already a problem in CA (and other vote-by-mail states). I haven't seen any evidence that it's a problem. There's no need to speculate. So no, people shouldn't be concerned. There seems to be precedent for doing it right.