401–410 of 501 posts
I don't care how much maths and encryption you use, you can't get out of the fact that things can be anonymous (no one can know how you voted) or verifiable (people can prove that you only voted once) but not both. - Switzerland usually gets around this by knowing where everyone lives and mailing them a piece of paper 'something you have' - South Africa gets around this by putting ink on your fingernail I've read qui…
I don't understand the need for e-voting. Germany's entirely paper-based system works fine! After voting closes, volunteers count the votes for a few hours and we get a result.
We vote 4 times a year and it's not always easy for Swiss citizens abroad to receive and mail ballots back in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As noted, the number of fraudulent votes are astonishingly small, given the amount of money spent on proving otherwise How would you even know? The fact that prosecutions for fraudulent voting are rare tells you nothing. Prosecutions for tax evasion are also rare. Does that mean nobody evades taxes? If you have a system that’s insecure, how would you even know when it’s been compromised?
There have been numerous efforts to scrutinize the voting. In 2020 there were 62 lawsuits; none of them succeeded. Tax evasion is rarely prosecuted because nobody is looking very hard. People looked very, very, very hard for fraud in 2020 and found zilch.
I don’t know how you can say people looked hard for fraud in 2020 when the lawsuits happened long after the ballots were counted. How would a lawsuit even reconstruct what happened in an election that happened months before where nobody was keeping detailed records?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been numerous efforts to scrutinize the voting. In 2020 there were 62 lawsuits; none of them succeeded. Tax evasion is rarely prosecuted because nobody is looking very hard. People looked very, very, very hard for fraud in 2020 and found zilch.
Most of those 62 lawsuits were thrown out on procedural grounds, such as lack of standing (which I think was a bad reason: if the losing candidate doesn't have standing to challenge an allegedly fraudulent voting system, then who does?). But that means they never reached the fact-finding stage, so citing those cases as meaning "there was no fraud" is not supported by the evidence. The cases thrown out on procedural g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. The process in my precinct is roughly... - Enter queue - A front of queue, show ID of some sort (various accepted) to volunteer - They scratch you from the list and hand you a paper scantron sheet - Go to private booth, fill out scantron - Go to exit, scan ballot (it scans and then drops into a locked box for manual tally later, if necessary) The "easy" ways to vote fraudulently are also easily caught... fake I…
> As noted, the number of fraudulent votes are astonishingly small, given the amount of money spent on proving otherwise How would you even know? The fact that prosecutions for fraudulent voting are rare tells you nothing. Prosecutions for tax evasion are also rare. Does that mean nobody evades taxes? If you have a system that’s insecure, how would you even know when it’s been compromised?
There's usually an immediate personal benefit from evading taxes and not getting caught. Fraudulent voting doesn't have that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you need to start with proposing how a person could fraudulently vote. If you show up to the polling place, you need to list the name and address of a registered voter in that district. How do you know this information? If you use a relative or acquaintance whose name and address you know they're registered at, when they show up to vote it will be noted that they have already voted. They can then put in their…
In Washington State, to register to vote you have to assert you are a citizen and a resident. But no verification is done on that.
The official website says they collect either a driver's license number, state ID number, or the last 4 digits of your Social Security number. With that it should be trivial to flag potentially fraudulent applications for further investigation.
Do you have a source that says they don't use that information for verification?
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/voter-registration/r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So all you need to do is know somebody's name for that voting station. And since we're not checking IDs, when the "right" person shows up, how do we know they're the right person? I have to show ID to get into my local zoo, but not to vote someone onto the board in charge of the zoo. That doesn't make sense.
> when the "right" person shows up, how do we know they're the right person? That prompts an investigation. The “right” person casts an affidavit ballot and the police and courts investigate. If the count is close, the loser usually sure to recount and verify, and any of these incidents then become political kindling. It doesn’t happen because it isn’t worth it individually and difficult to coördinate en masse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Washington State we get mailed ballots, which we fill in and mail in. But the ballots are not even printed on security paper. They don't have a serial number on them, either.
The filled out ballot is intended to be fully anonymous. It is then slipped into a security sleeve to make it harder to read within the envelope. The envelope is sealed and signed by the citizen. Security is provided by the envelope which is the attestation that the citizen cast their ballot. Offhand, the county voting office is likely required to retain the ballot as part of the state/federal records. I haven't chec…
Alas, the signature must reasonably match one on file (from somewhere ... presumably a state ID) or the ballot may be rejected. Since human signatures can vary wildly for reasons, this non-deterministic feature requires a human guess for -each- ballot. No mechanism to dispute that decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been a talking point specific to the voting system in the US, strangely no other country seems to think it's an issue and as soon as the topic changes no one in the US has an issue requiring IDs for things.
Voting is a civil right. We need to have a system that allows everyone who is allowed to vote, to vote. Many people don't have IDs and it is an onerous process to get one. Any system that requires IDs for voting suppresses these people's civil rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Washington State, to register to vote you have to assert you are a citizen and a resident. But no verification is done on that.
> But no verification is done on that The official website says they collect either a driver's license number, state ID number, or the last 4 digits of your Social Security number. With that it should be trivial to flag potentially fraudulent applications for further investigation. Do you have a source that says they don't use that information for verification? https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/voter-registrati…
https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/departments/auditor/electio...