Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 682 posts

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#591

Post by aesh2Xa1 »

ethbr1 wrote: post #530
pluto_modadic wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

scanned paper ballots. simple, fast, auditable. humans are WAY more error prone than computers at counting.

Seriously. The amount of suspicion for computerized scanning and counting systems here is surprising. I realize state of the art, modern, high-performance systems are incredibly complex... but that doesn't mean all systems have to be incredibly complex. Simple computerized systems are incredibly accurate and reliable, easily moreso than humans. And critically, it's feasible to perform attestation on electronic system…

> Simple computerized systems are incredibly accurate and reliable, easily moreso than humans.

Such systems are better enough that businesses handling cash use them to count paper money.

Next to voting, or perhaps ahead of it, people surely value reliable accuracy in their money. So why not ballots?

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#592

Post by mulmen »

_heimdall wrote: post #577
mulmen wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn’t “decide of his own accord to concede”. The US Supreme Court decided for him by ending any further path to count votes in Florida so Gore conceded when be had no other options.

Probably a technicality, but he did still decide to concede. The Supreme Court only ended his specific bid for a recount, they didn't call the election winner or end his campaign.

Definitely a technicality, and interesting only because he chose country over personal ambition. The Supreme Court slammed the door in his face. He could have kept fighting but every available path was even more ugly than what he and the country already endured.

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#593

Post by anon84873628 »

worstspotgain wrote: post #391
sethammons wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem stated was that the marker machine lies 1 out of 15 entries. The paper would contain an incorrect selection occasionally. So, yeah, it would require no one noticing during the act.

Indeed, and the math is the same. If out of 3 million voters, just 1000 double-check the printout, they will detect a 1/100 flip with probability 99.996%.

Of course it's important that enough people check their ballot and say, "hey this isn't what I meant" it triggers a formal audit. Not just letting those 1000 have a redo and chalk it up to human error.

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#594

Post by anon291 »

acdha wrote: post #531
anon291 wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and if you look at my comments, I agree that Biden won the race as run. I just question the entire legitimacy of counting any of the votes in a rogue election. I don't think rogue elections should happen. The moral hazard is too great, and it's a direct attack on democratic processes.

Yes, my point is that “rogue election” as a term is using the language of deniers. Every election has mistakes, and the pandemic especially created novel challenges, but that’s a strong term to use if the best you can say is that a statistically insignificant number of ballots were challenged with no evidence of misconduct.

Mistakes sure. This was intentionally done though.

It's a strong term but there is no denial. I'm not even sure why people are so against calling out the obvious. Biden probably would have won a legitimate contest

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#595

Post by anon291 »

gruez wrote: post #500
anon291 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, your line of questioning is a non-sequitur, because I don't question the election results. I question the election itself. There is no doubt in my mind that Joe Biden had enough votes in the contest as run. I just think the contest is not a legal election since they didn't follow the law. As I've said elsewhere, it's as if I put a ballot box outside my house, got enough votes based on my own rules, and then…

>As I've said elsewhere, it's as if I put a ballot box outside my house, got enough votes based on my own rules, and then declared whomever got enough votes in my contest the winner. That's great, but for it to be a legitimate election, the law has to be followed. >Again I'm hardly alone in this. Polling shows widespread bipartisan belief that the election was irregular. The implication here seems to be that because…

The irregularity is not following the written law when conducting the election and instead making up rules.

These were not mistakes. The secretaries of state announced that they were going to ignore election law. That should not be tolerated. It's an attack on democracy of the highest order.

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#596

Post by anon291 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #502
anon291 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. You're upset that America has made peace with Vietnam and treats its diplomats to courtesy state dinners and such? Who cares? The Cold War ended almost 30 years ago. I don't live in the past. I look forward to a glorious future, where we can even work with dirty commies. If the people of Vietnam don't like their government, they should feel free to overthrow it.

I’m not upset? It’s a factual example, that’s what ‘e.g.’ means… It’s not some fanfiction story I made up while reading a novel…

I don't care if America wines and dines commie Vietnamese.

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#597

Post by saagarjha »

gedy wrote: post #487
saagarjha wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is going to argue that non-citizens should be on the voter rolls. They are going to be upset if your method for taking them out is too coarse and removes legitimate voters, though.

> Nobody is going to argue that non-citizens should be on the voter rolls. There are plenty of folks who think illegal aliens* should be allowed to vote. * not sure what the political correct term is now tbh, double-plus-unnaturalized maybe, ha?

Those people think that they should be allowed to do so legally.

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#598

Post by anon84873628 »

ForHackernews wrote: post #471
pstrateman wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wide scale fraud isn't necessary when elections are decided by 10k votes.

If you know exactly which 10k votes you need to compromise, it would be easier to just campaign there.

Not if you have no hope of actually changing their vote.

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#599

Post by Palmik »

bdndndndbve wrote: post #490
saas_sam wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you find any website or document that validates that these "random audits" are done? By whom and on what cadence? I've not been able to find anything like this. Just hand-waving, assertions that "someone does something," and so on.

If you don't trust risk-limitjng audits, you're never gonna trust any voting system. Someone has to administer the system, do the counting, sum up the totals, etc.

Asking these kind of questions, and authorities being able to answer them clearly, is essential to build and maintain trust.

Re: Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak

#600

Post by dambi0 »

jonhohle wrote: post #567
dambi0 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only fun if you want people to know you voted. Not everyone does.

From a IS centric POV, are there communities where voting is looked down upon?

I was mostly thinking people in coercive relationships.

But in terms of communities it might be that voting is looked down upon for certain members of that community not the community as a whole.

In broader terms while marking people who have voted may not reveal who they voted for it does reveal that they did vote. This is less private than the election authorities maintaining the record of who has voted.

Post reply on HN