Discussion:
Blockchain. Could it eliminate voter fraud?
(too old to reply)
RichA
2020-07-04 07:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Sorry Dems.

https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
David Johnston
2020-07-04 16:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 16:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.

Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.

Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.

The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
Dimensional Traveler
2020-07-04 17:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
--
<to be filled in at a later date>
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 18:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
Huh? That's an advantage. That's why it's auditable.
suzeeq
2020-07-04 18:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
Huh? That's an advantage. That's why it's auditable.
Yeah, I think there was a hint of sarcasm in there.
Dimensional Traveler
2020-07-04 19:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
Huh? That's an advantage. That's why it's auditable.
Yeah, I think there was a hint of sarcasm in there.
If anyone can read the ballots, then anyone can audit them. Not just
the selected few who control the ballot boxes. ;)
--
<to be filled in at a later date>
David Johnston
2020-07-04 20:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
BTR1701
2020-07-04 20:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt. Expand that out to
ethnic enclaves where the local neighborhood big man does the same with the
frightened residents.
m***@gmail.com
2020-07-04 22:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt. Expand that out to
ethnic enclaves where the local neighborhood big man does the same with the
frightened residents.
Clutching at straws.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 22:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt. Expand that out to
ethnic enclaves where the local neighborhood big man does the same with the
frightened residents.
Clutching at straws.
Have you ever once put any thought into what you post to Usenet?

No, he's not clutching at straws. There is a potential for voter
intimidation with ANY method of absentee balloting. Anyone who would use
an electronic voting system as described would cast an absentee ballot.

With in-person voting and election judges enforcing secret ballot laws,
there can be some mitigation against voter intimidation, but even so,
the voter being intimidated could still be intimidated into having
ballot assistance from the person doing the intimidation; election
judges cannot prevent that.

In any event, suzeeq insists that D.T. whooshed me and he was being
sarcastic.
FPP
2020-07-05 04:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt. Expand that out to
ethnic enclaves where the local neighborhood big man does the same with the
frightened residents.
Clutching at straws.
Well, Thanny can't make a strawman without them, you know...
--
Nuts that spent the last twenty years prepping their bunker to survive
indefinitely in a nuclear winter are giving up after wearing a thin
cloth mask for three weeks. LOL -Matt Haughey

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
David Johnston
2020-07-04 23:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt.
Um...that's not how voting works.
BTR1701
2020-07-04 23:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt.
Um...that's not how voting works.
Um... it was in my last local election. The computer spit out a little slip
of paper that had a code on it and a website address. If you go to the
address and enter the code, it tells you the voter's name and the votes
cast.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 23:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt.
Um...that's not how voting works.
Um... it was in my last local election. The computer spit out a little slip
of paper that had a code on it and a website address. If you go to the
address and enter the code, it tells you the voter's name and the votes
cast.
You've turned a potential problem with absentee voting into a potential
problem with in-person voting?

Only in California...
Dimensional Traveler
2020-07-05 00:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt.
Um...that's not how voting works.
Um... it was in my last local election. The computer spit out a little slip
of paper that had a code on it and a website address. If you go to the
address and enter the code, it tells you the voter's name and the votes
cast.
You've turned a potential problem with absentee voting into a potential
problem with in-person voting?
Only in California...
I'm in California and my "receipt" was nothing like that. It was just a
little strip tear-off of the ballot indicating that I had voted.
--
<to be filled in at a later date>
BTR1701
2020-07-05 00:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt.
Um...that's not how voting works.
Um... it was in my last local election. The computer spit out a little slip
of paper that had a code on it and a website address. If you go to the
address and enter the code, it tells you the voter's name and the votes
cast.
You've turned a potential problem with absentee voting into a potential
problem with in-person voting?
Only in California...
Correction: entering the code doesn't give the voters name. It gives the ID
number the voter was assigned at the poll, so finding someone's lost or
discarded receipt doesn't expose a person's vote to some stranger, but it
would still be vulnerable to discovery by abusive spouses, etc.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-05 01:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain
exactly what the problem with creating a paper trail for
paper-based ballots is. At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt.
Um...that's not how voting works.
Um... it was in my last local election. The computer spit out a little slip
of paper that had a code on it and a website address. If you go to the
address and enter the code, it tells you the voter's name and the votes
cast.
You've turned a potential problem with absentee voting into a potential
problem with in-person voting?
Only in California...
Correction: entering the code doesn't give the voters name. It gives the ID
number the voter was assigned at the poll, so finding someone's lost or
discarded receipt doesn't expose a person's vote to some stranger, but it
would still be vulnerable to discovery by abusive spouses, etc.
Ballots must not have a serial number. That's outrageous. It's a
violation of ballot secrecy.
The Horny Goat
2020-07-05 07:26:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 01:59:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ballots must not have a serial number. That's outrageous. It's a
violation of ballot secrecy.
Our do BUT they're issued in books of 50 or 100 ballots to the staff
and are perforated so that when you show your ID and claim your ballot
from the clerk they record the number on the voters' list and tear
your ballot out of their book. The number is on the counterfoil which
is then torn off and the actual ballot that goes in the box has no ID
on it.

I've heard unused ballot books are verified that there actually ARE
the expected number of ballots in the books (e.g. nobody has
surreptitiously removed an extra ballot or two)

Since the marked up voters' lists are a public document they are
inspected by representatives of the parties as to WHO voted but there
is no way of indicating HOW they voted. If the number of votes cast
did not equal the number of people who voted I'm sure there would be a
hue and cry.
FPP
2020-07-05 04:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt.
Um...that's not how voting works.
Um... it was in my last local election. The computer spit out a little slip
of paper that had a code on it and a website address. If you go to the
address and enter the code, it tells you the voter's name and the votes
cast.
You've turned a potential problem with absentee voting into a potential
problem with in-person voting?
Only in California...
Correction: entering the code doesn't give the voters name. It gives the ID
number the voter was assigned at the poll, so finding someone's lost or
discarded receipt doesn't expose a person's vote to some stranger, but it
would still be vulnerable to discovery by abusive spouses, etc.
Yeah, a lot of abusive spouses are big political junkies who risk jail
time for ONE VOTE.

President Bumblefuck made a better argument when he postulated roving
bands of children who break into mailboxes to steal ballots.
--
Nuts that spent the last twenty years prepping their bunker to survive
indefinitely in a nuclear winter are giving up after wearing a thin
cloth mask for three weeks. LOL -Matt Haughey

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-05 18:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
. . .
Um... it was in my last local election. The computer spit out a little slip
of paper that had a code on it and a website address. If you go to the
address and enter the code, it tells you the voter's name and the votes
cast.
You've turned a potential problem with absentee voting into a potential
problem with in-person voting?
Only in California...
Correction: entering the code doesn't give the voters name. It gives the ID
number the voter was assigned at the poll, so finding someone's lost or
discarded receipt doesn't expose a person's vote to some stranger, but it
would still be vulnerable to discovery by abusive spouses, etc.
I get that bit. The unintended consequence is serious indeed with
respect to a voter under pressure to vote a specific way.

At a polling site, voters are numbered as they apply to vote. It's just
an ordering, not a time stamp. Around here, paper ballots are marked
manually and do not have a serial number. Our new electronic touch
screens used by some voters print ballots. They replaced machines that
recorded votes electronic (with a paper log of each ballot cast).

With a serial number, there's highly likely to be a database with both
the serial number and date stamp. Comparing that to the order in which
voters entered the polling place would give someone the ability to
narrow down your ballot to a few voters and give someone the ability to
figure out which one you cast, knowing sufficient details about your
opinions. With logical assumptions, you'd have no longer cast your
ballot with privacy.
anim8rfsk
2020-07-05 19:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Blockchain. Could it eliminate voter fraud?
July 5, 2020 at 11:33:56 AM MST
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
. . .
Um... it was in my last local election. The computer spit out a little slip
of paper that had a code on it and a website address. If you go to the
address and enter the code, it tells you the voter's name and the votes
cast.
You've turned a potential problem with absentee voting into a potential
problem with in-person voting?
Only in California...
Correction: entering the code doesn't give the voters name. It gives the ID
number the voter was assigned at the poll, so finding someone's lost or
discarded receipt doesn't expose a person's vote to some stranger, but it
would still be vulnerable to discovery by abusive spouses, etc.
This is the same crap they pulled on us in high school, 50 years ago, when
they made us fill out a survey on how many drugs we took, which was totally
and absolutely confidential. Except that you wrote your name on the cover
sheet. Oh, don't worry, we rip those off. But there's also a code number on
the cover sheet, and ever page of the survey. Oh, don't worry, those are all
the same. No, they aren't, each one of these has it's own code number. Well,
we promise not to match them up. So I filled in that I took every drug there
was as often as possible, and they came back a couple weeks later and yelled
at me.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
BTR1701
2020-07-05 19:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Blockchain. Could it eliminate voter fraud?
July 5, 2020 at 11:33:56 AM MST
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
. . .
Um... it was in my last local election. The computer spit out a
little slip of paper that had a code on it and a website address.
If you go to the address and enter the code, it tells you the
voter's name and the votes cast.
You've turned a potential problem with absentee voting into a
potential problem with in-person voting?
Only in California...
Correction: entering the code doesn't give the voters name. It gives
the ID number the voter was assigned at the poll, so finding
someone's lost or discarded receipt doesn't expose a person's vote
to some stranger, but it would still be vulnerable to discovery by
abusive spouses, etc.
This is the same crap they pulled on us in high school, 50 years ago, when
they made us fill out a survey on how many drugs we took, which was totally
and absolutely confidential. Except that you wrote your name on the cover
sheet. Oh, don't worry, we rip those off. But there's also a code number on
the cover sheet, and ever page of the survey. Oh, don't worry, those are all
the same. No, they aren't, each one of these has it's own code number. Well,
we promise not to match them up. So I filled in that I took every drug there
was as often as possible, and they came back a couple weeks later and yelled
at me.
hee hee
The Horny Goat
2020-07-05 07:14:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 17:00:32 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt.
Um...that's not how voting works.
I think the poster was talking about a mail-in ballot situation where
there's no control over who gets to see a filled-in ballot.

In the classic balloting situation you are required to fold your
ballot so there's no identifying information on the outside of the
ballot before putting it through the slot into the ballot box.
FPP
2020-07-05 04:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt. Expand that out to
ethnic enclaves where the local neighborhood big man does the same with the
frightened residents.
You have proof this is a thing, do you?
--
Nuts that spent the last twenty years prepping their bunker to survive
indefinitely in a nuclear winter are giving up after wearing a thin
cloth mask for three weeks. LOL -Matt Haughey

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
trotsky
2020-07-05 12:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt. Expand that out to
ethnic enclaves where the local neighborhood big man does the same with the
frightened residents.
You have proof this is a thing, do you?
What the fuck, are you asking for another dropbox image?
FPP
2020-07-05 04:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt. Expand that out to
ethnic enclaves where the local neighborhood big man does the same with the
frightened residents.
Colorado.
Hawaii.
Oregon.
Washington.
Utah.

All conduct 100% mail-in voting.
None have had problems with the 'abusive husband vote'.
--
Nuts that spent the last twenty years prepping their bunker to survive
indefinitely in a nuclear winter are giving up after wearing a thin
cloth mask for three weeks. LOL -Matt Haughey

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
trotsky
2020-07-05 12:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
At first glance, I thought WCKD from The Maze Runner, but this predates
that.
Network security stinks, which has been a problem of current electronic
voting systems. The cartoonist failed to address that.
Did you read how this is biometric in combination with blockchain? In
the movies, they cut off people's hands. I can't think of anything
creepier than gubmint adding biometrics to the already vast storehouse
of knowledge they have on every single citizen.
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And how is that a problem?
Voter intimidation. Abusive husband requires his wife vote for who he says
to vote for and demands she bring him the receipt. Expand that out to
ethnic enclaves where the local neighborhood big man does the same with the
frightened residents.
Colorado.
Hawaii.
Oregon.
Washington.
Utah.
All conduct 100% mail-in voting.
None have had problems with the 'abusive husband vote'.
I've heard stories about cunty buttplug shoppe owners though.
m***@gmail.com
2020-07-04 20:34:46 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 1:33:47 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
And that's a bad thing?
The Horny Goat
2020-07-04 22:18:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 10:33:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The article is also truly terrible in that it fails to explain exactly
what the problem with creating a paper trail for paper-based ballots is.
At least those are auditable.
The problem with a paper ballot is that anyone can read it.
While I appreciate that Canada is not the only place in the world
using paper ballots, in our neck of the woods any marked ballot with
any sort of personally identifying mark (and they do have sample cards
at the ballot box illustrate what's invalid) is called a "spoiled
ballot"

(Which ARE counted and reported in the report from each polling
station but not counted for any candidate - at least that's how they
did it when I was a poll clerk. And the number of ballot forms cast,
spoiled or unused WAS tallied with it being a really big deal if the
total did not match what that particular polling station had been
issued with before the vote)
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 22:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
While I appreciate that Canada is not the only place in the world
using paper ballots, in our neck of the woods any marked ballot with
any sort of personally identifying mark (and they do have sample cards
at the ballot box illustrate what's invalid) is called a "spoiled
ballot"
Same as in my state. Any extraneous mark on a paper ballot is presumed
to be a method of a voter identifying his ballot to a political party
official to prove he voted the way he was instructed to. It's been
against the law in the Election Code for decades.

Ballot scanners are programmed to reject ballots with such marks.

I was an election judge at the primary. Our idiot county clerk changed
to Sharpies, because they were cheaper than the markers purchased
previously. Sharpies had a tendancy to bleed through the paper. At the
end of the day, a number of paper ballots were rejected by the scanner
and we had to spoil them and re-mark fresh ballots. We saw that the
marks were bleed throughs and not illegal ballot identification.
Post by The Horny Goat
. . .
anim8rfsk
2020-07-05 01:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
While I appreciate that Canada is not the only place in the world
using paper ballots, in our neck of the woods any marked ballot with
any sort of personally identifying mark (and they do have sample cards
at the ballot box illustrate what's invalid) is called a "spoiled
ballot"
Same as in my state. Any extraneous mark on a paper ballot is presumed
to be a method of a voter identifying his ballot to a political party
official to prove he voted the way he was instructed to. It's been
against the law in the Election Code for decades.
I never heard of this. How would the official know about it? If the official
did see it, how would they connect it with the voter? Or are they supposed
to?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ballot scanners are programmed to reject ballots with such marks.
I was an election judge at the primary. Our idiot county clerk changed
to Sharpies, because they were cheaper than the markers purchased
previously. Sharpies had a tendancy to bleed through the paper. At the
end of the day, a number of paper ballots were rejected by the scanner
and we had to spoil them and re-mark fresh ballots. We saw that the
marks were bleed throughs and not illegal ballot identification.
Post by The Horny Goat
. . .
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-05 02:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
While I appreciate that Canada is not the only place in the world
using paper ballots, in our neck of the woods any marked ballot with
any sort of personally identifying mark (and they do have sample cards
at the ballot box illustrate what's invalid) is called a "spoiled
ballot"
Same as in my state. Any extraneous mark on a paper ballot is presumed
to be a method of a voter identifying his ballot to a political party
official to prove he voted the way he was instructed to. It's been
against the law in the Election Code for decades.
I never heard of this. How would the official know about it? If the official
did see it, how would they connect it with the voter? Or are they supposed
to?
In the bad old days, suppose a voter owed a favor because he had a
government contract or patronage job. He'd have been instructed to put a
mark on the ballot in a certain place -- maybe a smiley face -- that the
party representative "helping" the election judges sort through the
ballots at the end of the day would notice. He'd probably have a list of
symbols to make sure specific voters had voted as instructed.

It's illegal for anyone to handle a ballot except for an election judge
(and the voter while voting). Poll watchers are permitted to watch
judges process the ballots, but must not touch.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ballot scanners are programmed to reject ballots with such marks.
I was an election judge at the primary. Our idiot county clerk changed
to Sharpies, because they were cheaper than the markers purchased
previously. Sharpies had a tendancy to bleed through the paper. At the
end of the day, a number of paper ballots were rejected by the scanner
and we had to spoil them and re-mark fresh ballots. We saw that the
marks were bleed throughs and not illegal ballot identification.
Post by The Horny Goat
. . .
anim8rfsk
2020-07-05 03:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Blockchain. Could it eliminate voter fraud?
July 4, 2020 at 7:52:45 PM MST
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
While I appreciate that Canada is not the only place in the world
using paper ballots, in our neck of the woods any marked ballot with
any sort of personally identifying mark (and they do have sample cards
at the ballot box illustrate what's invalid) is called a "spoiled
ballot"
Same as in my state. Any extraneous mark on a paper ballot is presumed
to be a method of a voter identifying his ballot to a political party
official to prove he voted the way he was instructed to. It's been
against the law in the Election Code for decades.
I never heard of this. How would the official know about it? If the official
did see it, how would they connect it with the voter? Or are they supposed
to?
In the bad old days, suppose a voter owed a favor because he had a
government contract or patronage job. He'd have been instructed to put a
mark on the ballot in a certain place -- maybe a smiley face -- that the
party representative "helping" the election judges sort through the
ballots at the end of the day would notice. He'd probably have a list of
symbols to make sure specific voters had voted as instructed.
It's illegal for anyone to handle a ballot except for an election judge
(and the voter while voting). Poll watchers are permitted to watch
judges process the ballots, but must not touch.
Thanks!
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
The Horny Goat
2020-07-05 07:35:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 02:52:45 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's illegal for anyone to handle a ballot except for an election judge
(and the voter while voting). Poll watchers are permitted to watch
judges process the ballots, but must not touch.
40 years ago when I was a scrutineer (what you call a 'poll watcher')
the poll clerk passed each of us a stack of ballots and told to sort
them by candidate and when done record the number per candidate. When
the last person was done we were told to push our stack to the left
and have the next party's scrutineer tally up the votes in the stack.
When all the ballots had been counted by ALL the scrutineers the poll
clerk placed the stacks in front of them and we had to reveal our
counts. We were told if the numbers were not identical we would have
to count again. We had 6 ballot boxes to count and we didn't move on
to the next box unless each box had identical results by all counters.

Since we were all seated at a round table I'm skeptical anyone could
have pocketed 1 or more ballots without someone noticing.

I did this in two elections and in both elections we counted roughly
1300-1500 ballots in 90 minutes, each ballot was handled and counted
by 4-5 people and the results were carefully tallied and signed off on
by the poll clerk who then signed the required form, put the counted
ballots in ballot box which was then sealed. We were told the box
would ONLY be opened in case of a recount or if no recount would be
dumped into the incinerator 3-4 weeks hence.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-05 09:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's illegal for anyone to handle a ballot except for an election judge
(and the voter while voting). Poll watchers are permitted to watch
judges process the ballots, but must not touch.
40 years ago when I was a scrutineer (what you call a 'poll watcher')
Not at all. A poll watcher may record who votes so other volunteers may
attempt to encourage their partisans (from having taken a canvas) to
vote later in the afternoon, and they may watch set up and take down to
ensure a fair process by election judges, but they DO NOT handle ballots
or any equipment by law.
Post by The Horny Goat
the poll clerk passed each of us a stack of ballots and told to sort
them by candidate and when done record the number per candidate. When
the last person was done we were told to push our stack to the left
and have the next party's scrutineer tally up the votes in the stack.
When all the ballots had been counted by ALL the scrutineers the poll
clerk placed the stacks in front of them and we had to reveal our
counts. We were told if the numbers were not identical we would have
to count again. We had 6 ballot boxes to count and we didn't move on
to the next box unless each box had identical results by all counters.
Since we were all seated at a round table I'm skeptical anyone could
have pocketed 1 or more ballots without someone noticing.
I did this in two elections and in both elections we counted roughly
1300-1500 ballots in 90 minutes, each ballot was handled and counted
by 4-5 people and the results were carefully tallied and signed off on
by the poll clerk who then signed the required form, put the counted
ballots in ballot box which was then sealed. We were told the box
would ONLY be opened in case of a recount or if no recount would be
dumped into the incinerator 3-4 weeks hence.
This sounds like an official canvassing process. A poll watcher might
observe such a process but not participate. A scrutineer isn't any kind
of poll watcher, but a special kind of election judge.
The Horny Goat
2020-07-05 16:21:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 09:07:13 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's illegal for anyone to handle a ballot except for an election judge
(and the voter while voting). Poll watchers are permitted to watch
judges process the ballots, but must not touch.
40 years ago when I was a scrutineer (what you call a 'poll watcher')
Not at all. A poll watcher may record who votes so other volunteers may
attempt to encourage their partisans (from having taken a canvas) to
vote later in the afternoon, and they may watch set up and take down to
ensure a fair process by election judges, but they DO NOT handle ballots
or any equipment by law.
Post by The Horny Goat
the poll clerk passed each of us a stack of ballots and told to sort
them by candidate and when done record the number per candidate. When
the last person was done we were told to push our stack to the left
and have the next party's scrutineer tally up the votes in the stack.
When all the ballots had been counted by ALL the scrutineers the poll
clerk placed the stacks in front of them and we had to reveal our
counts. We were told if the numbers were not identical we would have
to count again. We had 6 ballot boxes to count and we didn't move on
to the next box unless each box had identical results by all counters.
Since we were all seated at a round table I'm skeptical anyone could
have pocketed 1 or more ballots without someone noticing.
I did this in two elections and in both elections we counted roughly
1300-1500 ballots in 90 minutes, each ballot was handled and counted
by 4-5 people and the results were carefully tallied and signed off on
by the poll clerk who then signed the required form, put the counted
ballots in ballot box which was then sealed. We were told the box
would ONLY be opened in case of a recount or if no recount would be
dumped into the incinerator 3-4 weeks hence.
This sounds like an official canvassing process. A poll watcher might
observe such a process but not participate. A scrutineer isn't any kind
of poll watcher, but a special kind of election judge.
In Canada a scrutineer is a party volunteer and a party with a
candidate on the ballot is entitled to place one at each polling
station. (Typically in urban polling stations there are 4-6 polling
desks in a single polling station with the number depending on the
number of eligible voters. It is common to have 20-60 polling stations
plus advance poll in a single constituency. There were special
stations in places like hospitals and seniors care homes as well and
of course the absentee poll - they were and are quite diligent in
providing for voters in special situations)

There's a form you have to sign and an oath you have to make to be
admitted which I did not find unduly onerous. But definitely the
scrutineer function I took part in did not involve canvassing or other
direct contact with members of the public.

I'm well aware nomenclature may vary between regions.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-05 17:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's illegal for anyone to handle a ballot except for an election judge
(and the voter while voting). Poll watchers are permitted to watch
judges process the ballots, but must not touch.
40 years ago when I was a scrutineer (what you call a 'poll watcher')
Not at all. A poll watcher may record who votes so other volunteers may
attempt to encourage their partisans (from having taken a canvas) to
vote later in the afternoon, and they may watch set up and take down to
ensure a fair process by election judges, but they DO NOT handle ballots
or any equipment by law.
Post by The Horny Goat
the poll clerk passed each of us a stack of ballots and told to sort
them by candidate and when done record the number per candidate. When
the last person was done we were told to push our stack to the left
and have the next party's scrutineer tally up the votes in the stack.
When all the ballots had been counted by ALL the scrutineers the poll
clerk placed the stacks in front of them and we had to reveal our
counts. We were told if the numbers were not identical we would have
to count again. We had 6 ballot boxes to count and we didn't move on
to the next box unless each box had identical results by all counters.
Since we were all seated at a round table I'm skeptical anyone could
have pocketed 1 or more ballots without someone noticing.
I did this in two elections and in both elections we counted roughly
1300-1500 ballots in 90 minutes, each ballot was handled and counted
by 4-5 people and the results were carefully tallied and signed off on
by the poll clerk who then signed the required form, put the counted
ballots in ballot box which was then sealed. We were told the box
would ONLY be opened in case of a recount or if no recount would be
dumped into the incinerator 3-4 weeks hence.
This sounds like an official canvassing process. A poll watcher might
observe such a process but not participate. A scrutineer isn't any kind
of poll watcher, but a special kind of election judge.
In Canada a scrutineer is a party volunteer and a party with a
candidate on the ballot is entitled to place one at each polling
station.
In my state, election judges are partisan but cannot act in a prejudicial
manner, supposed to be appointed by the two parties. The parties
are supposed to give lists to the election authority listing them by
precinct. Three from one party, two from the other. The party getting
the third judge is based on the winner of the last election for governor
in that precinct. It's paid. As a practical matter, most judges sign up
directly with the election authority.

The election authority is the county clerk plus city boards of election
commissioners in Chicago and various cities around the state, in which
case the county clerk is the election authority for the county outside
the city limits.
Post by The Horny Goat
(Typically in urban polling stations there are 4-6 polling
desks in a single polling station with the number depending on the
number of eligible voters. It is common to have 20-60 polling stations
plus advance poll in a single constituency. There were special
stations in places like hospitals and seniors care homes as well and
of course the absentee poll - they were and are quite diligent in
providing for voters in special situations)
There's a form you have to sign and an oath you have to make to be
admitted which I did not find unduly onerous. But definitely the
scrutineer function I took part in did not involve canvassing or other
direct contact with members of the public.
I'm still not following. Did you come in at the end of the day, or a week
later? In my state, we have one set of election judges per precinct who
set up the day before (plus training a month or so before that), come in an
hour early for set up that morning, work the 13 hours the polls are open,
plus another two hours closing, plus two judges take the voted ballots to
the receiving station. It's common for there to be two precincts sharing
a polling place, but sometimes, a precinct has its own polling place.

Your scrutineers sound like they perform official duties but after the
polls close, so they truly are nothing like poll watchers.

We also have an official canvass of ballots a week later for final
results as there are late-arriving absentee ballots. All voted ballots are
re-scanned. There are party representatives in this process who would
physically handle voted ballots.

In my county, we switched from a system in which some voters manually
marked ballots to be scanned while others voted on devices that recorded
votes electronically using an interactive touch screen (creating a running
tape showing how each anonymous voter voted), to a system in which the
electronic device interactive touch screen printed a physical ballot to
be scanned, plus manually-marked ballots. Long long ago we had punch
card voting although the final version of punch cards had a scan in
which a Florida problem was eliminated.
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm well aware nomenclature may vary between regions.
trotsky
2020-07-05 17:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
In Canada a scrutineer is a party volunteer and a party with a
candidate on the ballot is entitled to place one at each polling
station.
In my state,
Inebriation?
The Horny Goat
2020-07-05 21:09:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 17:21:24 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
There's a form you have to sign and an oath you have to make to be
admitted which I did not find unduly onerous. But definitely the
scrutineer function I took part in did not involve canvassing or other
direct contact with members of the public.
I'm still not following. Did you come in at the end of the day, or a week
later? In my state, we have one set of election judges per precinct who
set up the day before (plus training a month or so before that), come in an
hour early for set up that morning, work the 13 hours the polls are open,
plus another two hours closing, plus two judges take the voted ballots to
the receiving station. It's common for there to be two precincts sharing
a polling place, but sometimes, a precinct has its own polling place.
Our scrutineers COULD come in at the start or any part of the day (I
did the whole day but many didn't) but most were there only for the
count. At that time I was fresh out of university (teachers' college)
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Your scrutineers sound like they perform official duties but after the
polls close, so they truly are nothing like poll watchers.
We also have an official canvass of ballots a week later for final
results as there are late-arriving absentee ballots. All voted ballots are
re-scanned. There are party representatives in this process who would
physically handle voted ballots.
That sounds fairly sensible though am surprised the delay is as much
as a week.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
In my county, we switched from a system in which some voters manually
marked ballots to be scanned while others voted on devices that recorded
votes electronically using an interactive touch screen (creating a running
tape showing how each anonymous voter voted), to a system in which the
electronic device interactive touch screen printed a physical ballot to
be scanned, plus manually-marked ballots. Long long ago we had punch
card voting although the final version of punch cards had a scan in
which a Florida problem was eliminated.
Do you mean the infamous Florida "butterfly" problem or something
else?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm well aware nomenclature may vary between regions.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-05 22:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 17:21:24 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
There's a form you have to sign and an oath you have to make to be
admitted which I did not find unduly onerous. But definitely the
scrutineer function I took part in did not involve canvassing or other
direct contact with members of the public.
I'm still not following. Did you come in at the end of the day, or a week
later? In my state, we have one set of election judges per precinct who
set up the day before (plus training a month or so before that), come in an
hour early for set up that morning, work the 13 hours the polls are open,
plus another two hours closing, plus two judges take the voted ballots to
the receiving station. It's common for there to be two precincts sharing
a polling place, but sometimes, a precinct has its own polling place.
Our scrutineers COULD come in at the start or any part of the day (I
did the whole day but many didn't) but most were there only for the
count. At that time I was fresh out of university (teachers' college)
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Your scrutineers sound like they perform official duties but after the
polls close, so they truly are nothing like poll watchers.
We also have an official canvass of ballots a week later for final
results as there are late-arriving absentee ballots. All voted ballots are
re-scanned. There are party representatives in this process who would
physically handle voted ballots.
That sounds fairly sensible though am surprised the delay is as much
as a week.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
In my county, we switched from a system in which some voters manually
marked ballots to be scanned while others voted on devices that recorded
votes electronically using an interactive touch screen (creating a running
tape showing how each anonymous voter voted), to a system in which the
electronic device interactive touch screen printed a physical ballot to
be scanned, plus manually-marked ballots. Long long ago we had punch
card voting although the final version of punch cards had a scan in
which a Florida problem was eliminated.
Do you mean the infamous Florida "butterfly" problem or something
else?
Dimples and hanging chads
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm well aware nomenclature may vary between regions.
The Horny Goat
2020-07-07 03:01:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 22:22:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Do you mean the infamous Florida "butterfly" problem or something
else?
Dimples and hanging chads
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by The Horny Goat
I'm well aware nomenclature may vary between regions.
OK I'm pretty sure we're thinking of the same election.

I >DO< remember getting whacked by the missus for offering to 'dangle
my chad' in her presence around that time...

The Horny Goat
2020-07-05 07:12:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 22:34:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was an election judge at the primary. Our idiot county clerk changed
to Sharpies, because they were cheaper than the markers purchased
previously. Sharpies had a tendancy to bleed through the paper. At the
end of the day, a number of paper ballots were rejected by the scanner
and we had to spoil them and re-mark fresh ballots. We saw that the
marks were bleed throughs and not illegal ballot identification.
I use Sharpies all the time in my business and know exactly what you
mean and h ow idiotic their use would be in a polling situation where
you simply can't have a secret ballot if the ink is going through the
paper.

Our municipality has been using scanners for 3 elections now and the
ballot involves having to complete the line between left and right
marks next to your chosen candidates name.

When they put your ballot into the scanner the marked side goes
towards the poll clerk into a frosted plastic box (something like the
sort of shower stall they have on Big Brother that covers bodies from
knees to shoulders but leaves the part above and below visible.

The scanner has 2 lights red and green and if it's green it goes into
the received hopper and if red into the manual counting hopper.

Last time round they had tallied 30000 votes and had the results
posted on the municipal website within 1/2 hour of polls closing.
(With results tallied both by candidate and by candidate by polling
station - there were 23 of them) I was told by the municipal clerk
that most of the delay was due to the need to physically bring the
polling box from the general hospital station to city hall.

There is provision for an automatic recount if the results are within
1% and a candidate can ask for a recount any time up to 5% but they
have to put up a deposit which is only refunded if the result is
closer than the automatic count.

Candidates don't always request a recount - a couple of elections ago
our outgoing school board chair lost on election night by 1 vote but
requested no recount. (He had been expecting a stronger mandate and
when he didn't get it figured it was time to hang it up. (Most people
around here thought his loss was primarily due to his DUI 2 1/2 years
into his 4 year term...)
moviePig
2020-07-04 18:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.

Online-voting (as I think is possible):

1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)

2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.

3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.

I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 19:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.
1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)
2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.
3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.
I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
You're stupid. (I'm complying with your request to stop calling you an
idiot, to use a word with fewer syllables.)

In-person voter identification fraud is a nonsensical issue, a nearly
nonexistent problem that doesn't require solving and an impossible method
of stealing an election.

On line voting would of course be subject to massive wide scale voter
identification fraud and certainly could be used to steal an election.
moviePig just hand waives it away with (as I think is possible). Well,
moviePig, you put no thought into it whatsoever. At least the people
interviewed in the article did think about it.

How do you secure that massive biometric database? How do you make sure
that a specific set of biometrics are truly associated with the personal
record of the individual in question? How do you prevent it from being
used to create false evidence of a crime or tort or to commit identity
fraud when stealing valuables or to falsely identify one's self to a
computer?

When has government ever managed to perfectly secure a database ever?
BTR1701
2020-07-04 19:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.
1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)
2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.
3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.
I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
If you assume someone might be programming the system to cheat, why
wouldn't they program your hypothetical system so that a vote for Candidate
A generates a receipt for Candidate A but really adds one to the tally for
Candidate B? And further coding provides that should you look up your vote
online using your code, it displays your vote for Candidate A, even though
the system logged your vote to Candidate B.
moviePig
2020-07-04 20:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.
1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)
2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.
3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.
I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
If you assume someone might be programming the system to cheat, why
wouldn't they program your hypothetical system so that a vote for Candidate
A generates a receipt for Candidate A but really adds one to the tally for
Candidate B? And further coding provides that should you look up your vote
online using your code, it displays your vote for Candidate A, even though
the system logged your vote to Candidate B.
Because the computer system is actually two (or more) systems, each
built in a separate "clean-room" shop, according to specifications which
should be quite straightforward, delivering operational results that
match in every way. The chances of two (or more) sequestered developer
groups coordinating an identically behaving fraud is below minuscule.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 22:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.
1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)
2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.
3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.
I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
If you assume someone might be programming the system to cheat, why
wouldn't they program your hypothetical system so that a vote for Candidate
A generates a receipt for Candidate A but really adds one to the tally for
Candidate B? And further coding provides that should you look up your vote
online using your code, it displays your vote for Candidate A, even though
the system logged your vote to Candidate B.
Because the computer system is actually two (or more) systems, each
built in a separate "clean-room" shop, according to specifications which
should be quite straightforward, delivering operational results that
match in every way. The chances of two (or more) sequestered developer
groups coordinating an identically behaving fraud is below minuscule.
You're being a dolt. As you keep requesting words with fewer syllables,
I've stopped calling you idiot and moron, and using the term you prefer.

You've strung words together into random thoughts, none of which
describe a system that perfectly allows the votes the voter wishes to
cast to be the votes actually cast. You haven't explained how it would
be audited nor how votes would be canvassed for the official result.
moviePig
2020-07-04 23:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.
1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)
2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.
3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.
I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
If you assume someone might be programming the system to cheat, why
wouldn't they program your hypothetical system so that a vote for Candidate
A generates a receipt for Candidate A but really adds one to the tally for
Candidate B? And further coding provides that should you look up your vote
online using your code, it displays your vote for Candidate A, even though
the system logged your vote to Candidate B.
Because the computer system is actually two (or more) systems, each
built in a separate "clean-room" shop, according to specifications which
should be quite straightforward, delivering operational results that
match in every way. The chances of two (or more) sequestered developer
groups coordinating an identically behaving fraud is below minuscule.
You're being a dolt. As you keep requesting words with fewer syllables,
I've stopped calling you idiot and moron, and using the term you prefer.
You've strung words together into random thoughts, none of which
describe a system that perfectly allows the votes the voter wishes to
cast to be the votes actually cast. You haven't explained how it would
be audited nor how votes would be canvassed for the official result.
Actually, I did describe such a system. And it's still right up there
to be examined, and simple enough to be well understood ...well enough,
anyway, to stimulate replies more coherent than "random thoughts". But,
then, coherence is never even your goal, much less your achievement...
Dimensional Traveler
2020-07-04 23:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.
1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)
2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.
3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.
I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
If you assume someone might be programming the system to cheat, why
wouldn't they program your hypothetical system so that a vote for Candidate
A generates a receipt for Candidate A but really adds one to the tally for
Candidate B? And further coding provides that should you look up your vote
online using your code, it displays your vote for Candidate A, even though
the system logged your vote to Candidate B.
Because the computer system is actually two (or more) systems, each
built in a separate "clean-room" shop, according to specifications which
should be quite straightforward, delivering operational results that
match in every way. The chances of two (or more) sequestered developer
groups coordinating an identically behaving fraud is below minuscule.
The chances of getting two sequestered developer groups to develop two
systems that behave in identical ways AT ALL is ZERO. The only way to
do that is to use the exact same hardware running the exact same
software and even then you can't guarantee identical results and
performance.
--
<to be filled in at a later date>
moviePig
2020-07-05 02:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.
    1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)
    2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.
    3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.
I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
If you assume someone might be programming the system to cheat, why
wouldn't they program your hypothetical system so that a vote for Candidate
A generates a receipt for Candidate A but really adds one to the tally for
Candidate B? And further coding provides that should you look up your vote
online using your code, it displays your vote for Candidate A, even though
the system logged your vote to Candidate B.
Because the computer system is actually two (or more) systems, each
built in a separate "clean-room" shop, according to specifications which
should be quite straightforward, delivering operational results that
match in every way.  The chances of two (or more) sequestered developer
groups coordinating an identically behaving fraud is below minuscule.
The chances of getting two sequestered developer groups to develop two
systems that behave in identical ways AT ALL is ZERO.  The only way to
do that is to use the exact same hardware running the exact same
software and even then you can't guarantee identical results and
performance.
I see the practical nature of the objection, but in this instance the
range of acceptable inputs is small and well-defined, and the nature of
the computation (i.e., tallying) is elementary. As long as neither
system's capacity is taxed, the two digital results should be identical
(...which would itself confirm the success of both implementations).
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-05 03:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
. . .
I see the practical nature of the objection, but in this instance the
range of acceptable inputs is small and well-defined, and the nature of
the computation (i.e., tallying) is elementary. As long as neither
system's capacity is taxed, the two digital results should be identical
(...which would itself confirm the success of both implementations).
Oh my gawd If it's that simple, then come up with the perfect system
yourself.
moviePig
2020-07-05 14:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I see the practical nature of the objection, but in this instance the
range of acceptable inputs is small and well-defined, and the nature of
the computation (i.e., tallying) is elementary. As long as neither
system's capacity is taxed, the two digital results should be identical
(...which would itself confirm the success of both implementations).
Oh my gawd If it's that simple, then come up with the perfect system
yourself.
Your objection seems poorly conceived. Consider abstinence...
trotsky
2020-07-05 17:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I see the practical nature of the objection, but in this instance the
range of acceptable inputs is small and well-defined, and the nature of
the computation (i.e., tallying) is elementary.  As long as neither
system's capacity is taxed, the two digital results should be identical
(...which would itself confirm the success of both implementations).
Oh my gawd If it's that simple, then come up with the perfect system
yourself.
Your objection seems poorly conceived.  Consider abstinence...
Are you familiar with Verman's work?
moviePig
2020-07-05 19:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I see the practical nature of the objection, but in this instance the
range of acceptable inputs is small and well-defined, and the nature of
the computation (i.e., tallying) is elementary.  As long as neither
system's capacity is taxed, the two digital results should be identical
(...which would itself confirm the success of both implementations).
Oh my gawd If it's that simple, then come up with the perfect system
yourself.
Your objection seems poorly conceived.  Consider abstinence...
Are you familiar with Verman's work?
Unavoidably.
Rhino
2020-07-05 00:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.
1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)
2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.
3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.
I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
If you assume someone might be programming the system to cheat, why
wouldn't they program your hypothetical system so that a vote for Candidate
A generates a receipt for Candidate A but really adds one to the tally for
Candidate B? And further coding provides that should you look up your vote
online using your code, it displays your vote for Candidate A, even though
the system logged your vote to Candidate B.
I remember reading a novel once in which there was a contentious issue
that had to be decided by all citizens in the EU via a yes/no
referendum. The election organizers really wanted it to go one way but
it was clear that public sentiment was leaning strongly the other day.
The election organizers tabulated millions of votes exactly accurately
and then simply flipped the result that they found. For instance if 60%
voted no and 40% voted yes, they simply inverted the result and
announced that 60% voted yes and only 40% were opposed. They got their
unpopular measure approved with that one simple trick.

The code is simplicity itself:

if (total_yes > total_no) report actual results
else report inverted results

Either way, the organizers had things their way regardless of voter
preferences.

The stakes from most major elections are so big that there is tremendous
incentive to cheat. Motivated people will find any number of ingenious
ways to skew the results in their favour. Protecting the election
against that kind of thing is always going to be a game of catch-up
where every counter-measure just inspires further ingenuity on the part
of the cheats to come up with ever cleverer methods of cheating.

The sheer number of ways you could cheat is so staggering it might
require huge expenditures to give most people reasonable confidence that
the result was honest.

It's essentially the same problem the Olympics has with preventing
performance-enhancing drugs. For every test they come up with to detect
one drug, the bad guys develop two or three new drugs that aren't
detected in that test. Or mess with the test results. Or bribe officials
to mis-report results in their favour. Etc. etc.

The problem here is that if there is significant distrust of the
election result, the entire system starts to unravel as more and more
people believe that the results don't mirror what people actually voted
and suspect others - sometimes rightfully, sometimes not - of cheating.
That's a formula for eventual civil war or maybe discarding democracy
altogether.

This is a huge problem and calls for everyone who buys into the concept
of genuine democracy to pull together and find ways to cast votes that
the vast majority of people agree honestly reports the results. And then
whoever loses has to abide by the result if they can't prove any
malfeasance in determining the result. Then we all abide by the result
until the next election.

I know there will also be some conspiracy theorists that think a result
that went against them was obtained crookedly so we can't set the
standard at absolutely everyone believing the result but we should set
it pretty high despite that. Basically, if most of the skeptics
grudgingly admit that they can't figure out how someone could have
cheated in arriving at the official result, then we have a valid
election that everyone needs to abide by.

It also means we need to look as thoroughly as we can at every aspect of
the election we can to ensure that opportunities for cheating are as few
as they possibly can be. And maybe we need really harsh penalties
against anyone who cheated - and the party on whose behalf they cheated.
If someone added code of the kind I mentioned above in an election
tabulation program to the benefit of Party A, the individuals who
slipped the crooked code into the program need to know they're facing 30
years in the slam and the party that put them up to it need to know that
their vote totals will be adjusted to zero in any district where they
cheated. That MIGHT encourage everyone involved to behave.
--
Rhino
FPP
2020-07-05 04:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Yes, software is unreliable in implementation, but very reliable in
performance.
1. You vote and get a "receipt" (...a big random-looking number)
2. At any time, you can submit your receipt to see your vote.
3. Votes are tallied by redundant, separately-built systems.
I see neither holes nor technical challenges in such a proposal...
If you assume someone might be programming the system to cheat, why
wouldn't they program your hypothetical system so that a vote for Candidate
A generates a receipt for Candidate A but really adds one to the tally for
Candidate B? And further coding provides that should you look up your vote
online using your code, it displays your vote for Candidate A, even though
the system logged your vote to Candidate B.
Like that can't happen now, especially in states with electronic (no
paper trail) balloting?
This wouldn't present any more of a problem than already exists.
--
Nuts that spent the last twenty years prepping their bunker to survive
indefinitely in a nuclear winter are giving up after wearing a thin
cloth mask for three weeks. LOL -Matt Haughey

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
m***@gmail.com
2020-07-04 16:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
There is no voter fraud, but there is voter suppression.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 16:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
There is no voter fraud, but there is voter suppression.
Don't be a moron constantly ignoring the topic of discussion because you
just have to make your own irrelevant point, even though it's been
addressed.

Of course there's voter identification fraud. It's just a miniscule issue.
This is just a proposal by someone who believes that changes in the law
that result in fewer people being eligible to vote due to identification
issues would be eliminated with biometrics.

I don't advocate this.

Some changes in state election codes for voter suppression purposes have
been to prevent voters already identified from voting, because the
burden has been imposed on them to re-identify themselves by obtaining
all new documents.

This proposes one massive biometric database creating a link between
identification of the individual and all personal information about the
individual contained in every government database.

Problem solved. No biometrics? You're a stateless person. Sounds like
complete life suppression to me.
RichA
2020-07-04 20:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
There is no voter fraud, but there is voter suppression.
Don't be a moron constantly ignoring the topic of discussion because you
just have to make your own irrelevant point, even though it's been
addressed.
Of course there's voter identification fraud. It's just a miniscule issue.
How can it be minor issue when some places don't even require you to have ANY I.D. to vote?


NEW YORK Voter ID Information
Home Get Your Voter ID NEW YORK Voter ID Information
New York does NOT require registered voters to present ID at the polls or when voting by mail, except for some first-time voters.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-04 22:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
There is no voter fraud, but there is voter suppression.
Don't be a moron constantly ignoring the topic of discussion because you
just have to make your own irrelevant point, even though it's been
addressed.
Of course there's voter identification fraud. It's just a miniscule issue.
How can it be minor issue when some places don't even require you to have ANY I.D. to vote?
You've really got your fingers in your ears on this one.
Post by RichA
NEW YORK Voter ID Information
Home Get Your Voter ID NEW YORK Voter ID Information
New York does NOT require registered voters to present ID at the polls
or when voting by mail, except for some first-time voters.
That's minimal compliance with federal law, Motor Voter, almost 3
decades old. The voters who would show ID when voting in person had
registered to vote by mail. Only a handful of states require voter ID at
the polling place when voting in person, and even these states don't
require voter ID to vote by mail. Indiana requires voter ID to vote in
person. I don't know what other states do.

I've explained why this isn't a viable method of stealing an election
any number of times but you've got your fingers in your ear. You've made
a bizarre assumption that a successful conspiracy could take place
involving hundreds of people somehow fraudulently identifying themselves
at different polling places around a state, claiming to be someone whom
none of the election judges nor pollwatchers ever met. And they'll all
keep it perfectly secret.

You've drunk the Kool-Aid on this one, Rich.
RichA
2020-07-05 00:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
There is no voter fraud, but there is voter suppression.
Don't be a moron constantly ignoring the topic of discussion because you
just have to make your own irrelevant point, even though it's been
addressed.
Of course there's voter identification fraud. It's just a miniscule issue.
How can it be minor issue when some places don't even require you to
have ANY I.D. to vote?
You've really got your fingers in your ears on this one.
Post by RichA
NEW YORK Voter ID Information
Home Get Your Voter ID NEW YORK Voter ID Information
New York does NOT require registered voters to present ID at the polls
or when voting by mail, except for some first-time voters.
That's minimal compliance with federal law, Motor Voter, almost 3
decades old. The voters who would show ID when voting in person had
registered to vote by mail. Only a handful of states require voter ID at
the polling place when voting in person, and even these states don't
require voter ID to vote by mail. Indiana requires voter ID to vote in
person. I don't know what other states do.
I've explained why this isn't a viable method of stealing an election
any number of times but you've got your fingers in your ear. You've made
a bizarre assumption that a successful conspiracy could take place
involving hundreds of people somehow fraudulently identifying themselves
at different polling places around a state, claiming to be someone whom
none of the election judges nor pollwatchers ever met. And they'll all
keep it perfectly secret.
You've drunk the Kool-Aid on this one, Rich.
People without personal I.D. should not be allowed to vote, PERIOD.
suzeeq
2020-07-05 01:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by RichA
Sorry Dems.
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-blockchain-stronger-option-american-election.html
There is no voter fraud, but there is voter suppression.
Don't be a moron constantly ignoring the topic of discussion because you
just have to make your own irrelevant point, even though it's been
addressed.
Of course there's voter identification fraud. It's just a miniscule issue.
How can it be minor issue when some places don't even require you to
have ANY I.D. to vote?
You've really got your fingers in your ears on this one.
Post by RichA
NEW YORK Voter ID Information
Home Get Your Voter ID NEW YORK Voter ID Information
New York does NOT require registered voters to present ID at the polls
or when voting by mail, except for some first-time voters.
That's minimal compliance with federal law, Motor Voter, almost 3
decades old. The voters who would show ID when voting in person had
registered to vote by mail. Only a handful of states require voter ID at
the polling place when voting in person, and even these states don't
require voter ID to vote by mail. Indiana requires voter ID to vote in
person. I don't know what other states do.
I've explained why this isn't a viable method of stealing an election
any number of times but you've got your fingers in your ear. You've made
a bizarre assumption that a successful conspiracy could take place
involving hundreds of people somehow fraudulently identifying themselves
at different polling places around a state, claiming to be someone whom
none of the election judges nor pollwatchers ever met. And they'll all
keep it perfectly secret.
You've drunk the Kool-Aid on this one, Rich.
Well, he's canadian. He doesn't know the procedures here.
Loading...