191–200 of 501 posts
Stories like this probably scare some people off from electronic voting but I don't think this is that big of a deal. When we finish voting operations in my area we load the ballots up on someone's personal vehicle and they take them down, securely, to where they need to go. That vehicle could get blown up and those ballots could be gone, though I think we could still get a record of the results. That being said for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not even about understanding. It is about how easy it is to distrust it. Contrary to what nerds think, the goal of elections isn't to get bulletproof results by mathematical standards. The goal is to create agreeable consent among those who voted. A good election system is one where even sworn enemies can begrudgingly agree on the result. A paper ballot system has the advantage that it can be monitored by any g…
How about a machine voting system with paper fallback. You as a voter can review the paper protocol from your vote. If there is distrust, the justice system can review the paper trail as well.
The distance between the election and the taking of the office is often months. I just don't understand why electronics need to be involved at all in this system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license. Just under 9%, or 20.76 million people, who are U.S. citizens aged 18 or older do not have a non-expired driver’s license. Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non-expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name. Additionally, just over 1% of adult U.S. citizens do not have any form of gover…
If 10% of drivers lacked car insurance, would your solution be to remove the legal requirement to possess a valid insurance policy to operate a motor vehicle because it discriminates against the poor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the reason for electronic voting. The UK manages to tally up paper votes overnight, even from far-flung Scottish islands. Electronic voting is literally solving a problem that nobody has.
The UK is the world's 22nd most populated and 78th largest country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Voting is only from 9-4" and you have a real job. Let's not pretend this wouldn't immediately be taken advantage of in certain places where disenfranchisement is real.
Get an absentee ballot then. And I've never seen such limited hours in my lifetime. Usually it's 6am-6pm on election day. And many places now have early voting, you have 20-30 days to find a time to go vote.
This sounds made up but limiting access to “free” services is not unheard of. This topic has been litigated to death. There are no new arguments. If you are in favor of voter ID laws you are simply ignorant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not talking about same day registration. If you are on the rolls and proof of citizenship is not required to register, then how do you as a poll worker know the person on the rolls is a citizen?
You don't, but also you don't have to. Voter rolls are cross referenced with other sources of data to verify citizenship. ID is required to submit a non-provisional ballot even during early voting if you're not in your designated precinct. Also just generally it's a severe federal crime to vote illegally, so people who are here illegally aren't out en masse publicly tying their identity to federal felonies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Federal elections are all run by the individual states, so a state ID would be all you need.
If there is a federal law requiring proof of citizenship, as is currently being argued in Congress, a state ID would not be all you need since they are not proof of citizenship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current bill Trump is pushing for requires "documentary proof of citizenship ", this can actually be very hard. It means an original/certified birth certificate, as well as any subsequent name changes (mostly married women). This is completely unnecessary. We establish citizenship, very reliably, at time of registration. This is on of the main jobs of the registrar of voters. They have plenty of time to look up t…
Some states only require a piece of mail and checking a box saying you are legally allowed to vote to register. Then when you checkin to vote the workers are not permitted to ask for ID to prove you are the person you claim to be. At no point during that process is there presentation of proof of citizenship.
At that last part, Election Day identification, is not even that important, since the same person can't vote twice. So if you impersonate another person that will be quickly detected. It's not a useful strategy to alter the outcome of an election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should care how much maths and encryption you use [0][1], because this is not only possible, but there are multiple approaches. [0] https://satoss.uni.lu/members/jun/papers/CSR13.pdf [1] https://fc16.ifca.ai/voting/papers/ABBT16.pdf
More important than lack of voter fraud is proving to the population a lack of voter fraud.
Edit: But as a comment somewhere else in the tree noted ,,And if it could tell you that then a third party could force you to reveal that you voted "right" as agreed before.`` - I guess everything's trade-offs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The USA threads the needle by simply not having verifiable voting. And it turns out it works pretty well. Despite countless hours and lawsuits dedicated to finding people who voted more than once, only a handful of cases have actually turned up. It's not that there are no checks. You have to give your name, and they know if you've voted more than once at that station that day. To vote more than once you'd have to pre…
[flagged]