Slashdot Mirror
West Virginia To Introduce Mobile Phone Voting For Midterm Elections (cnn.com)
West Virginians serving overseas will be the first in the country to cast federal election ballots using a smartphone app, a move designed to make voting in November's election easier for troops living abroad. But election integrity and computer security experts expressed alarm at the prospect of voting by phone, and one went so far as to call it "a horrific idea." CNN: The state's decision to pioneer mobile voting comes even as the United States grapples with Russian interference in its elections. A recent federal indictment outlined Russia's attempts to hack US voting infrastructure during the 2016 presidential race, and US intelligence agencies have warned of Russian attempts to interfere with the upcoming midterm election. Still, West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner and Voatz, the Boston company that developed the app, insist it is secure. Anyone using it must first register by taking a photo of their government-issued identification and a selfie-style video of their face, then upload them via the app. Voatz says its facial recognition software will ensure the photo and video show the same person. Once approved, voters can cast their ballot using the Voatz app.
Now we don't even need to get influence from abroad, we can simply let them hack the devices and vote directly.
Cut out the middle man, it's the capitalist way!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
wins.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Thats an interesting start.
It allows any numbers and stats on the issued ID to get some deeper database work as the voters has given their data to the government.
The unique faces shows the US citizen exists and that their face is connected to presented photo ID.
This gets around the state trying to collected information about a voter. Trying to find out if they have voted many, many times in the same election.
The state ID proves citizenship.
That the ID has not been shared, is not fake.
That a real US citizen exists once as a voter with that issued ID.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Hacking aside.
The biggest issue I see, is it takes the privacy out of voting.
We should be able to vote without our pastor looking over our solders judging us, or a Union Rep who may decide that your department may be OK for a layoff so they can bring in other workers. A Boss who may just fire you on the spot...
Voting our conscious without direct personal repercussion is one of our basic rights. And one of our few powers that we have to actually change those who lead us.
So the question will be on voting day, how many Church Congregations, Union Meetings, will there be to show people how to use the app.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
and your boss can force you to vote there way in the office or your fired.
What a great name for an application, good job marketing team. I don't think they could've come up with anything more cringeworthy if they tried. Maybe the kyddez will like the name though. *Returns to yelling at kydz to stay off my lawn.
So now they should create an iOS, android, windows, blackberry, etc app so that you can vote? Or do they pick only the top 2 and screw everybody else?
If they want to move that way then just do it via web site. But you need to have the verification in place to prove that I cast my vote.
Does a drivers license even prove citizenship? My father in law has a drivers license but isn't a citizen.
I refuse to sign
Same with voting by mail here in Washington state. Twice my employer has asked for signed blank ballots.
vote there way in the office or your fired.
their*, you're*
I disagree with the harder to cheat part. My vote here in Washington has only counted once since we switched to voting by mail. It's a terrible system. On the other hand, it is nice to be able to track that.
One needs only to look 2016 election when we should have Hillary but instead got TRUMP.
Except the fact that there's zero evidence that the Russians were supporting any particular candidate, right?
Since Obama knew about the "hacks" but did nothing, by your reasoning, Barack Obama colluded with the Russians to get Trump elected.
See how stupid that sounds?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Same with voting by mail here in Washington state. Twice my employer has asked for signed blank ballots.
I'm pretty sure your boss is looking at time in a Federal institution if word ever gets out.
Seriously?
Have you reported them to the authorities? Pretty sure such electoral subversion is a felony.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think the idea is to so screw up elections, that they can't be trusted, so the government can just do away with them anyway. Until the people (sheeple) of this country get pissed off enough, hold an Article 5 convention of the states, and wrestle power back from government, crap like this will continue!
Therein lies the rub, doesn't it?
On the one hand, anonymous voting protects the voter from retaliation, but puts the entire process at risk of compromise.
"Named voting," conversely, puts the voter at risk but does a lot to secure the process.
Seems like paper ballots + presenting gov't issued photo ID to receive said ballot is a much better process in both ways.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I believe you, random person on the internet.
a "preference" does not translate into "supporting a particular candidate". The entire Russian operation, mostly after the election, was to sow discord and distrust by supporting both candidates and flaming both sides.
Not even the Russians believed that Trump would win and surely did not think that a few Facebook ads would be enough to swing the election. That is stupid.
And I suspect the country would move noticably to the left. Stuff like Medicare for all, tuition free college, ending the 8 wars we're in and legal pot all poll in the 60s and 70s but never seem to make it into law. The Dems have twice now won major elections by popular vote and lost due to how the votes are counted (losing the House is especially galling)
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This won't end well. Based on the news stories of how well most facial recognition works on African Americans it will probably only allow one black person to vote and ID the rest as the same person.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
2) Won't this dispel the notion that political voting is like MLB All-Star voting (you know, voting up to 35 times for the candidate of your choice)?
Especially since Obama was recorded telling him he'll have more flexibility after the election.
If you look even further back, the republican and democratic party have switched positions several times. What we need is open primaries so we can vote for the candidate and NOT the party. Both Party machines have become a plague on America, money and influence peddlers of the worst kind.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I ran for Congress recently. I bought lists of voter names, addresses, the past ten elections in which they voted, and for whom they voted.
The State knows whose ballot is whose. The rest of us don't. I'm not currently engaged in a political campaign, so I don't either (although I can page through those lists when I'm canvassing for other candidates, since the law says I can only use them for campaign and election purposes).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
But is it illegal to let someone else tell you who to vote for?
We had a meeting yesterday where our CEO went over who to vote for. I think most people just did what they were told. Our ballots are due today. I think most people just did what they were told to since, for example, who is going to do the research to pick from 30 different senate primary candidates? Thirty!
"Named voting," conversely, puts the voter at risk but does a lot to secure the process.
Not really. A voter can always lie about the ballot not reflecting their vote. In theory, we all have random spot checks to show integrity because the 1% of folks who look will see the deviation; but can we believe them? What if only 1% of votes changed and swung the entire election?
Seems like paper ballots + presenting gov't issued photo ID to receive said ballot is a much better process in both ways.
All non-present voting has problems with integrity, as the public cannot observe the voting process. Paper mail-in ballots don't help this, and Internet voting can achieve greater security for complex reasons (it's not much: you can avoid coercion and vote buying through technical means, which you can't achieve with paper mail-in ballots).
All central voting can enjoy strong integrity guarantees, even with electronic voting machines. This requires strict handling procedures; everyone in this field is screwing it up.
At polling centers, the public can observe voting from beginning to end. They can observe an empty ballot box and a guaranteed untampered electronic voting machine. They can observe the count of ballots cast, and the tally of votes at the end. They can verify these votes from published figures later, and recount the election independently. All election integrity begins and ends at the ballot box.
Polling centers approach voter identity by restricting a voter to a particular polling center near their neighborhood. When you show up, they call your name loudly; if anyone around recognizes the name but not the person (neighbors), they're expected to raise issue. Polling centers notate who has come to vote as they come.
We've kept a lot of legacy before photo IDs were a thing. Today's photo IDs are still readily forged, and election staff are volunteers. We don't have professionals trained in spotting fake ID.
To put numbers to this: you have to be a registered voter before you can vote--we track your voter ID with votes, so we know who you are and for whom you voted (I have huge spreadsheets with hundreds of thousands of names, addresses, and elections because I was in a political campaign and pulled voter history from my state). A Kansas gubernatorial candidate was going on today about how they found 8,500 double-voters in a 21-state area in the United States, and 127 non-citizens in the state of Kansas who tried to register to vote (successfully or not, and most of whom didn't actually vote) in the past several years.
That's around 15,000 non-citizens potentially trying to register in the entire United States, projecting by population and adding a little plump (25%); and possibly 25,000 legal voters double-voting (a more reliable number than projecting from just Kansas). That's non-partisan: some voted Democrat, some voted Republican; some voted for the winner and some for the runner-up in their elections, which is more the point, as the overlap cancels itself out and leaves you with the smaller net effect.
I think we're doing rather well. Mind you, one of our local races here in the state of Maryland ended in a nine-vote victory, and recounted to a twenty-seven vote victory margin; I am not unsympathetic about the prospect of tilting a very slim race. 25,000 votes in a 2,000,000-vote margin is obviously not a problem, but what if you won a Presidency by 30,000 votes? Could you really say there aren't actually 40,000 false votes out there? (Of course that assumes a popular vote, not the EC). All of these concerns, while valid, do not change the fact that we've got an impressively-low fraud rate and low marginal impact of fraud, given the difficulty of the problem.
The trade-off is disenfranchisement. We accept these levels of fraud because not only will photo IDs only marginally reduce the problem, but because we would absolutely tamper with the v
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Politicians in West Virginia have never heard of hax0rz? Or are they deliberately trying to make elections hackable?
Everybody from West Virginia: write to WB Secretary of State Mac Warner, and tell him that this is stupid, stupid, stupid.
Exactly wth is wrong with the current absentee ballot system? Or are they trying to imply that the mail isn't routinely and reliably delivered/sent to and from military bases abroad?
Heck, the only way to even remotely make this phone app accurate and secure is to _mail_ the service men and women a unique passkey to log their vote with. But even then, it's data in a database connected to the bloody internet, not to mention that they'd have only the word of the service provider that there votes were credited anonymously and not tied to their identity.
But is it illegal to let someone else tell you who to vote for?
No: what's illegal is coercion, or attempts to intimidate or threaten a voter to vote a particular way. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
We had a meeting yesterday where our CEO went over who to vote for. I think most people just did what they were told. Our ballots are due today. I think most people just did what they were told to
That might be a grey area; since the CEO presumably has hiring and firing authority over the workers, so you could see it as maybe edging toward coercion. I'd say that, given a secret ballot, it's not coercion, since they can't actually tell whether you vote as they suggest or not. But, of course, a non-secret ballot makes coercion a lot more practical.
since, for example, who is going to do the research to pick from 30 different senate primary candidates? Thirty!
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The entire Russian operation, mostly after the election, was to sow discord and distrust
Judging by this conversation, I'd say they succeeded.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's sad how many of my friends have said that happened to them. I had trouble believing that until my company asked us to bring our ballots to an all hands meeting. They put a filled out ballot up on the screen and suggested we copy what we saw on the screen. It was a really awkward meeting.
I'd be very interested in seeing somebody put this into print in a citeable source.
It's a good reason to restrict absentee ballots to only people who actually are absent, or physically can't vote in person.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Considering that phone companies stop pushing updated OS to their devices within 18 months, there will be a huge incentive to hack old phones. I mean there already is due to banking by phone. But this just adds an incentive for state actors. If they were able to get mobile operators to push security updates longer than the 18 months after release, then maybe consider it.
Just to be sure: Did you buy information on who they voted for or which party they registered for as voters?
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
So, when Trump wins 231% of the district, we cannot recount.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Stalin is reported to have said that "It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who COUNTS the votes".
iPhones are in a walled garden run by Apple. Google controls Android phones. Will ballots cast for Conservatives be lost "by mistake" while traveling through their system?
Apple and Google are even now massively censoring and/or blocking any political content on their platforms except that posted by the Extreme Left. When called out on it, the excuse is always a "mistake" but such mistakes are made too often for that to be an excuse any longer.
A member of SJW, BLM, AntiFa, CPAUSA, RCP, DSA, SPUSA - of which Ms Ocasio-Cortez is a member, which are essentially indistinguishable from the "Liberal" Democrats, can post a racists screed on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, or other forum controlled by Leftists with impunity. The same post re-posted by Conservatives but with changes to the race of the ridiculed target are immediately blocked by social media for violating "Term of Service", if they give any reason at all. Even death threats by the "Liberals" are allowed on those social media platforms. The Blatant bias is overwhelmingly obvious.
Maxine Waters proved the meaning of the world "Liberal" with her infamous slip of her slippery tongue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
when she declared "this Liberal would be all about nationalizing US oil". She's now demanding that the Extreme Left chase down and harass Conservatives if found in public places. Next they'll demand that Conservatives where gold stars in public to make them easier to identify.
A South American "Liberal" who ran for office and later declared he was a Marxist after he won, Chavez, nationalized oil in Venezuela, after whipping up a class envy storm lathered with the promise of lots of government freebies paid for by oil. Venezuela, once the richest nation in South America because of its oil reserves, is now a classic Marxist hell-hole run by the Marxist Murado who, like Chaves, is always blaming America for his problems, just the way "Liberal" politicians in the major US metropolitan ghettos are always blaming Conservatives for problems of their own making over the last 50+ years the "Liberals" have been in power in those places. The same Venezuelans who voted for the socialist freebies have lost an average of 10Kg due to starvation. They have eaten up all their pets, the local birds, and nearby wild animals and are now desperately trying to leave Venezuela for better places. If the Marxist gain power in the US then many Americans will be loosing 10Kg as well, not just the obese.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Since Obama knew about the "hacks" but did nothing, by your reasoning, Barack Obama colluded with the Russians to get Trump elected.
McConnell told Obama he'd deny the allegations if Obama went public, and given the pizzagate lunacy, the Republican base would have 100% believed him and Obama would look like he was manipulating the election himself. Other than dumping the data and thereby betraying god knows how many sources, how do you propose he should have bypassed McConnell and the party of puppets? It's the same logic that blames Obama for Gitmo when the Republicans actively passed measures to forbid him from spending a red cent to close the camp.
Come to California. We have non-party primaries with the general election being a runoff between the top two.
This space intentionally left blank
The same people who whine about "voting barriers" are now whining about the removal of a voting barrier?
I'm not whining about voting barriers.
I am whining about voting integrity.
http://votingintegrity.org/
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Same with voting by mail here in Washington state. Twice my employer has asked for signed blank ballots.
Wow, that is seriously illegal.
Next time it happens, document it and put their ass in jail.
Yeah, but according to some, a simple common sense solution like this is apparently "racist" these days.......
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Can't we just vote using Facebook? Blop-blip for your fave candidate? Let's keep the whole process in-house :D
Requiem for the American Dream
The State knows whose ballot is whose. The rest of us don't.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case in my district here in Ohio. Every ballot has a tear-off serial number on the end. They track which voter was issued which ballot, but you tear off the number before submitting the ballot for electronic scanning. I couldn't swear to it, but I've never noticed a barcode or anything other traceable on what I turned in.
Nope, no sig
The annual budget of the US government does not actually support that claim. Cheap, small government was abandoned to a small extent by Clinton, then ...
No. Reagan talked a great game about small government, but what he did was increase the size of government and greatly increase deficit spending.
Republicans only talk about how important it is to reduce government spending when they're not in power.
So what's stopping the Sergeant from watching his enlisted cast their vote for the "right people"? What stops someone selling their vote and allowing the person paying to watch them vote?
There are reasons we have voting booths.
I realize mail-in absentee ballots have the same issues, but this is a step towards allowing or requiring everyone to vote this way.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Wtf. How is traitor still a word? Get back to the cold war.
Requiem for the American Dream
Yeap; they succeeded three decades before they started. Russia ftw!
Requiem for the American Dream
Do you guys sit next to each other in the shill-farm?
Requiem for the American Dream
>and your boss can force you to vote there way in the office or your fired.
It also enables pay-for-votes (the de facto limiting factor has been the inability to confirm someone voted a certain way)
In big races, they already spend a few hundred dollars per voter in advertising. Direct payments would be a lot more effective.
How ironic considering that the 'authority' to determine what is or is not illegal, is derived from the promise-of or actual coercion.
Just icing on the cake of freedom really :D
Requiem for the American Dream
I know; it fills me with disgust. Let's go back to the old ways where your president is from a respectable family whose criminality has been veneered over by time and money.
Requiem for the American Dream
What we need is random selection of politicians the way jury selection works. Anyone with even a hint of interest in accepting the role should be excluded.
Requiem for the American Dream
The elephant in the room is that politicians aren't representing the will of the electorate. It makes no difference how they are chosen.
Requiem for the American Dream
and look at _how_ those industries maintain their stranglehold on American politics it isn't with arguments and advertisements so much as voter suppression. It just bugs me that we talk about democracy all over the world and then stopping people from voting is a central plank of our political system...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The party for which they voted. In the General election, that's a candidate; in the primary, well...in my district, that's 91% likely to be a particular candidate.
In one column, the voter is noted as registered Democrat/Republican/Independent. In another, the voter is noted for having voted a particular way. I have entries that say on a particular date in a primary or general election they were a registered Democrat and voted for a Republican (again: in the General, there is only one Republican).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The tear-off serial numbers are indeed for ballot tracking. They're used to count ballots to ensure the same number are cast as are given out.
I have a voter file from my State Board of Elections that tells me the date of an election, the Voter ID of the voter, their name, their registered voting address, their mailing address, their political party affiliation at the time of the election, and for what party they voted. In a Primary, those match; in a General, however, you can be a registered Democrat and vote for a Republican--who is exactly one specific candidate because there is only one candidate from each party. I actually categorized registered Democrats by whether they were base, reliable, or swing voters.
That means, yes, if you voted for Donald Trump in 2016, the State has a record that says you, personally, voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
While I used to like the Top-Two system, it isn't working as well as I would hope. It still has a preference for selecting "fringe" candidates-- you don't need to look any further than the next gubernatorial election to see that. I think instant-runoff is a more appropriate move for today, but it takes an informed electorate to work.
That ... just boggles my mind! Thanks for the reply.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
You'd be surprised at what's out there. Plenty of services will sell you voting history and voter research--some know everything you've purchased and considered purchasing, and will recommend things to say, issues to target, and what kind of money to ask for (politicians run on everyone else's money, and even a well-funded PAC can only donate $5,000) based on everything about your life.
The campaign services market is a very dark place. You can learn more about people than they know about themselves by trying to get their vote--and that's before you talk to them.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
In a Primary, those match; in a General, however, you can be a registered Democrat and vote for a Republican--who is exactly one specific candidate because there is only one candidate from each party.
Ah, in the primary! OK, that makes sense.
Nope, no sig
Gotta admit, any time the president tries to speak, I miss veneer. Presidents should pretend and put on the appearance of being intelligent and honest. Is that so much to ask?
Remember this issue next time in the debates, everyone. "Mister candidate, suppose you needed to tell a big lie, but it conflicts with the previous week's lie and you don't understand the issue well enough to keep the facts straight anyway. How would you go about deciding what to say?"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Just because Putin had a preference it doesn't mean that the government of Russia caused Trump to win. Believing that is just stupid.
If you want to know why he preferred Trump, read this: http://time.com/4422723/putin-....
And this: https://www.reuters.com/articl...
In the case of elections, I'm worried about people actually hacking elections, not merely stuff people claim to be worried about which are problems that doesn't actually exist.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I'd be very interested in seeing somebody put this into print in a citeable source.
Just repeat after me: "there is no vote fraud, there is no vote fraud...". If you click your heels together while saying that, you'll awake to find yourself in bed and Auntie Em applying a cold compress to your forehead.
I'm not sure what you are responding to here. I would like to have a citable source.
Repeat after me: an anecdote posted anonymously on slashdot is not a citable source. An anecdote posted anonymously on slashdot is not a citable source.
It's a good reason to restrict absentee ballots to only people who actually are absent, or physically can't vote in person.
You missed the point, I think. In Oregon, and apparently in Washington, EVERY ballot is an absentee ballot. They mail the things out to every registered voter. And by registering everyone who gets a driver's license, they're mailing them to a lot of people who don't care enough to even register to vote. What happens to a ballot that you throw away? Does some nice person "recycle" it for you -- you know, "reuse"?
Then they're clearly not restricting absentee ballots to only people who actually are absent, or physically can't vote in person.
And our nice progressive Senator Wyden wants EVERY state to do it that way. Did I mention, he's a Democrat?
As I said: absentee ballots are a flaw in the system. They are a flaw in the system regardless of which parties the senators proposing them belong to.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Polling centers approach voter identity by restricting a voter to a particular polling center near their neighborhood.
No, not anymore. It's discriminatory to force someone to go to a polling place near where they live. They may work miles away and can't get to their own polling place. The solution is a provisional ballot. The voter swears he is registered in location X, and the poll workers at location Y write that data down along with his ballot and it goes to the central election office to be verified.
When you show up, they call your name loudly;
That has never happened in any polling place where I've voted.
To put numbers to this: you have to be a registered voter before you can vote--we track your voter ID with votes, so we know who you are and for whom you voted
Of course election offices keep track of who voted. They do NOT keep track of how anyone votes. You don't know "for whom you voted", unless you are a participant in vote fraud.
That's around 15,000 non-citizens potentially trying to register in the entire United States,
Your "Kansas gubernatorial candidate" does not have voting data for 21 states. Your extrapolation is flawed and likely biased, ignoring population differences. You claim you know it is "nonpartisan", except you don't.
All of these concerns, while valid, do not change the fact that we've got an impressively-low fraud rate
Your one-state gubernatorial candidate got his hands on some questionable numbers, and that proves an "impressively-low fraud rate". If HE could find THAT MANY attempts at fraud, then the real number is probably much, much higher. It's like someone standing on a ladder over an acre of clover and seeing one four-leaf clover, then multiplying the number of acres by ONE to guess at how many four-leaf clovers there are in the entire country. Mind boggling.
Yeah, but according to some, a simple common sense solution like this is apparently "racist" these days.......
Where "some" is a federal court.
Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.
Yeah, but according to some, a simple common sense solution like this is apparently "racist" these days.......
The irony being, of course, that claiming a certain race is incapable of getting a photo ID is, in itself, racist.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The elephant in the room is that politicians aren't representing the will of the electorate.
Understatement of the century, Bruh.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Fox News reports it differently.
The bottom line is that Russia meddled to help Trump beat Clinton. There is plenty of evidence that isn't even disputed by the conservative wing of the media, or the GOP for that matter.
Clearly, you are a troll that is either delusional or in it for lulz. Either way, generally a drag on intelligent conversation and debate.
here's the last comment riley made referring to Fox news, before this one:
Comment Fox News is a beacon of journalistic integrity?? (Score 4, Insightful) 104
by riley on Tuesday January 23, 2018 @12:30AM (#55982167) Attached to: Rupert Murdoch Pushes Facebook To Pay For News To Guarantee Quality
And we are supposed to believe that the owner of Fox News is the guardian of quality information presented in an unbiased format? Really?
I'm sorry, who's a delusional troll? My guess would be the one with inconsistent positions.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
With electronic voting you can't see the ballot box. How can you tell if the ballot box is tampered with if you can't see it? If you want to involve a computer, then at least have it print the ballot out so the voter can put it into the ballot box.
Try a little history... Go back further than your pathetic little life span and open your eyes. Both parties have switched positions several times. Do you even know what the Know nothing party was ...
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/5... Political Parties
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/5... Campaign and Elections
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Well, for example, here in Canada, where we've had voter ID requirements for a long time had a Conservative government, who took advice from the Republicans. They claimed that the ID laws weren't strict enough and greatly reduced the types of ID that were valid. Then they did some other trickery.
My wife has always voted under her maiden name, and all her ID is in her maiden name, and she is also of the wrong race. Last election, she was still registered under her maiden name according to the official voters registration web site, but upon showing up to vote, she was suddenly registered in her married name, with no ID under that name.
That's one example of strict ID laws disenfranchising people.
Another is my Son, he's ID wasn't good enough and didn't have time to travel the 50+ mile round trip to get better ID, which cost $75, so couldn't vote.
Then there were all the natives on reservations who don't have numbered addresses as required on the ID, the university students who hadn't bothered changing the address on their ID while attending university who were also disenfranchised.
Voter ID laws are good until someone decides to use them to disenfranchise people who can vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
As long as the photo ID is free and easily obtainable even on election day. The problem is most states requiring this pick their parties favorite ID's (gun permit, military ID, etc) while not allowing the other sides ID (College ID, welfare ID[even state ones]) . The fact is photo id would not even be necessary if voter registration included a photo and thumbprint as part of the registration process.
Depends on whether things are set up to make it hard for certain segments of society to get ID. Though it usually targets neighbourhoods rather then race.
Just put all the ID producing offices in the rich neighbourhoods with no transit there and short hours, and bang, you've made it hard for certain people to get ID.
Of course you can also get creative, minor typos on the ID or voter list of undesirables so that ID isn't good enough to use for voting.
The racism comes in when the people designing the ID requirements are racist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
AC most states can work with the very poor using support from a homeless shelter, nonprofit entity, faith based organization, other kind of shelter that will help US citizens. ...
With their documents that are acceptable as proof of residency, US citizenship. The "categories of people" that cant vote are illegal migrants AC
Everyone else as a US citizen can find the help and support to vote in their state as they always have.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
And also a lot more sensible. Let's be honest here, voting has been reduced to a dog-and-pony show anyway, if people at least got a few bucks out of it it would still serve a meaningful purpose.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hold on, I just re-read this and thing you're saying the opposite of what I thought on first pass. In a primary, when you have to take one ballot or the other, it makes sense that there would be a record of which ballot you took. But in a general, how would they know which party you voted for?
Nope, no sig
One would assume the State collects record of your individual votes. They distribute information about the party for which you voted, which means they either store a reduced amount of information or they store detailed ballot information and provide political candidates with filtered information.
Amusingly, they know if you did not vote in a particular primary--that is: you got the Democratic ballot sheet because you are a registered Democrat, and you only voted in the Congressional and Delegate race but not for any State senator. You ask the Board of Elections about a particular race and they give you a particular pile of information about said race. Congressional District 7 may say a specific voter voted Democrat (in the Democratic Primary, yes...) while Legislative District 40 State Senate may say the same voter did not vote in the same election. Both races are on the same ballot sheet.
That means they have to know what you actually put on your ballot sheet, not simply which Primary ballot sheet you received.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
By today's standards, the Republicans of my grandfather's time (hint, pre-Roosevelt) were slightly more liberal than the Democrats. The Democrats were the racist, populist, demagogues, and the Republicans were actually still the party of Lincoln, for the most part. That' why my grandmother could never bring herself to vote Democratic, even after an obviously corrupt Nixon started to court the raci . . . excuse me, "Southern" vote. (No offense to people living in the South, but at the time more people in the South were overtly racist than in the North.)
However, times change, and now the Republicans are trying to out-populist the Democrats, principles be damned..
With electronic voting you can't see the ballot box.
The EVM is the ballot box.
How can you tell if the ballot box is tampered with if you can't see it?
Carefully-crafted handling procedures.
If you want to involve a computer, then at least have it print the ballot out so the voter can put it into the ballot box.
Which is then OCR scanned by a computer (that's how paper ballots are handled here) or hand-counted by election judges (which still produces errors in recounts--and an election judge can manipulate the error rate).
You can have a computer produce outputs which only reproduce from the exact same ballot set. If you can prove the EVM is untampered, you can prove the ballot set released is the same ballot set cast.
People place large amounts of faith in a paper trail that doesn't really provide auditability or verification simply because it's familiar and they can't imagine tampering with it invisibly. We're basically dealing with Peter Gutmann's Law of Best Practices: everybody says things are "best practice" because someone with no credentials whatsoever decided this was "best practice" and said so, in turn because everybody was doing it that way at the time. Encryption, password policy, and paper ballots.
It's a difficult problem because the authority is the attacker. People worry a lot about Russian hackers breaking into EVMs and changing votes, or about Diebold putting election-manipulation code into their software; they think the Board of Elections needs assurance that their voting hardware does what they want it to do. That's not right. The voters need assurance that the votes they cast are the votes the Board counts--and that the Board isn't tampering with the votes itself.
When you frame it in that sense, you realize the problem is extremely narrow: you have to prove the ballot box (EVM) is untampered when the polls open, and provide proof that the ballots taken from the ballot box are the same ballots counted. That means, again, that the EVM must provide information which can demonstrably prove a set of ballots published by the State is the same set of ballots cast on the EVM--before you put the ballot set at any risk of tampering. You have perfect, unhackable security for a ten-hour period while the EVM is in view of the public--and even that's questionable, just like the assumption that an election judge hasn't identified registered voters who don't vote and spent the day quietly slipping extra paper ballots into the ballot box while nobody's looking.
People put antivirus on EVMs and bring them into the polling center preloaded with software and data and everything. Ludicrous. How can the public verify that? Your ballot box is already tampered, and your election is compromised.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Wrong. What Reagan did was trust the Democrat controlled congress to abide by their promise lower spending, which they reneged on.
Nope. The reason the deficit increased under Reagan was primarily his huge increase in the military spending implemented simultaneously with tax cuts. The military budget-- at the Reagan peak, about half a trillion dollars a year--is the single largest component of the budget. That wasn't the "Democrats", that was Reagan. You simply can't increase the main portion of spending and at the same time decrease the revenue without going into a lot of debt, there just aren't enough places elsewhere to cut a half trillion dollars out of the budget. It is essentially like saying that you can upgrade the family car from a Volkswagen to a Ferrari, and pay for it by cutting down on your bubble gum spending.
True, but then again, those Republicans are never really in power, even when they technically are in office and have a majority in congress.
Wow, so Republicans aren't to be held to their rhetoric even when they're in power, because they're not "really" in power.
The solution is a provisional ballot. The voter swears he is registered in location X, and the poll workers at location Y write that data down along with his ballot and it goes to the central election office to be verified.
We count those separately. You know the marginal risk. If there isn't any chance of changing the results, we don't even count them.
That has never happened in any polling place where I've voted.
Then your election procedures suck and you need to take 1,000 of your friends to your State Board of Elections to complain. Loudly.
Of course election offices keep track of who voted. They do NOT keep track of how anyone votes. You don't know "for whom you voted", unless you are a participant in vote fraud.
I paid my State Board of Elections $75 for a voter file. The voter file includes the past ten years of elections. It includes Voter ID, name, registered address, mailing address, party affiliation, election date, district, type of race, and party for whom you voted.
In a Primary election, it will say you were a Democrat, voted Democrat for Congressional 5, voted Democrat for Legislative 14 Delegate, and did not vote for Legislative 14 Senate. Those races are all on one ballot (Primary election), which means they have to actually check what you actually voted on your ballot to know that you did vote in two races but did not vote in one.
In the General, it will tell me the same thing. That means if you're in Maryland Congressional 7 and it says you voted Democrat for Representative in Congress and Republican for President, I know you voted for Elijah Cummings and Donald Trump. I know where you live, too.
How do you suppose the State is able to supply me with this information going back as far as 1992?
Yes, I targeted voters as "Base" if they were Democrat and voted Democrat in the past 4 General elections, and "Swing" if they voted Democrat in the past 2 or 3 and Republican in no more than 1 race. I even counted who voted in every election even if they voted Republican half the time. I wanted to know who was ideologically biased, who was influenceable, who was a reliable voter, and who likely abstained because they didn't like the incumbent. I targeted people who voted for Vaughn once in a while--Democrats who voted for a Republican because they just didn't like Cummings.
You believe a lot of strange things.
Your "Kansas gubernatorial candidate" does not have voting data for 21 states. Your extrapolation is flawed and likely biased, ignoring population differences. You claim you know it is "nonpartisan", except you don't.
Kansas has 3 million people. The United States has 300 million. Kobach said his State had 127 non-citizens attempting to register (with many successful) and some fewer actually voting in the past several years--using as his authority the fact that he works in the office that tracks and prosecutes all this shit, and has been involved in some high-profile ongoing research into this very thing.
127 x 100 = 12,700. 15,000 is 25% more than 12,000, but I forgot these are small numbers--15,000 is only an 18% plump. My bad.
Kobach also did claim 8,500 incidents of double-voting by legally-registered citizens in a 21 state area. Kansas is 1/100 of the population of 50 states. A 21-state area is going to be closer to 40% of the population of 50 states, although coastal states do have higher population density. You can call it 20,000 (no population adjustment) or you can call it 40,000 (assuming these states are half as populous as the remaining states on average); it's still a drop in the bucket.
Your one-state gubernatorial candidate got his hands on some questionable numbers, and that proves an "impressively-low fraud rate". If HE could find THAT MANY attempts at fraud, then the real number is probably much,
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And the Earth is flat, the moon landing never happened, Castro was a CIA plant, and Putin is just the nicest guy ever.
An app could actually help you here. It could have a "duress mode" where it casts a fake ballot and records video with the camera, so when you boss is checking to make sure you voted the way they want it's also gathering evidence of their crime.
Of course the real app won't have that, but certainly will be riddled with security flaws. Place your bets now, I'll put five bucks on using HTTP to submit votes.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That means they have to know what you actually put on your ballot sheet, not simply which Primary ballot sheet you received.
Now I'm back to "What the fuck?" That's not supposed to be possible, from everything I've heard about voting since they started teaching it in grade school.
Nope, no sig
Shrug. I imagine this isn't captured by every state; and in any case, I can implement EVMs to pare down the data to just Voter ID and not attach to ballots, which would capture the usual public data only (that you voted on a particular date). I quite like that approach anyway.
When it comes to EVMs, I implement various configurable options by implementing them in separate assemblies, and then removing those assemblies performing non-necessary functions from a deployment image (i.e. the programming code to do a particular thing simply does not exist in the EVM). Can't use a function that doesn't exist. In this case, the class to store certain voter information would simply store less, and the option to capture more-detailed voter identifying data wouldn't appear because reflection would not find a class exposing such a thing.
Amusing to see Donald Trump's voting history. I'm pretty sure these are by registration at the time, and not by ballot votes.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
We count those separately.
They are counted, and they count in the total. They are, to the point, an example of how we do not force people to go to a local polling place.
Then your election procedures suck and you need to take 1,000 of your friends to your State Board of Elections to complain. Loudly.
Because nobody shouts my name when I walk into a polling place? Reminds me of "Cheers." "Norm!"
Sorry, makes no sense. My "polling place" is my house and nobody needs to shout anything when I walk in. Getting 1000 friends to parade to an election office won't change anything.
and party for whom you voted.
They can tell you what party you are registered for, but not who you voted for. If they can tell other people who you voted for, you need to take 1000 of your friends down to the Election Office and scream bloody murder about violation of the secret ballot process.
which means they have to actually check what you actually voted on your ballot to know that you did vote in two races but did not vote in one.
Of course your local election office needs to check what you voted on your ballot. They have to count up the votes. But reporting who voted for who to ANYONE is a violation of the entire concept of secret ballot. I guess you live in a state where "secret ballot" is obsolete.
127 x 100 = 12,700.
127 is not "21 states". 127 is how many were caught, for Kansas. You assume that the rate is correct for Kansas, and then assume the same rate applies to states with a lot more electoral votes. These are assumptions that are on their face unreasonable. Why would anyone waste a lot of time rigging Kansas elections for a measly 6 electoral votes? The same problem exists for your double-vote guess.
It claims to have examine 75 million voters in 21 states and found 8,400 cases of double voting. Comparisons identify duplicates by name, birthday, and part of their social security number, which is a decent attempt but has flaws.
Some pretty obvious ones. How does this study catch the most common way someone can double vote (a favorite of the Daley machine), which is to show up at a polling place claiming to be a dead guy? Or someone they know won't be voting for some other reason? How does it catch the Oregon "double votes" that are as simple as pulling someone's discarded ballot out of the trash and sending it in? It doesn't. It cannot. The names won't match, but the person "double-voted". Or triple, or quadruple... how many polling places did the bus stop at on election day? How many ballots were pulled from waste baskets at the Post Office?
It's more like going over 950 million acres of clover with a bunch of Mars-rover-like devices designed to seek out four-leaf clovers,
No, that implies someone is doing a serious study and might find a correct number, and "the gubernatorial candidate" isn't that kind of study. It's not even as good as I analogized. The analogy is more like someone standing on a ladder over a corn field counting the number of four-leaf clovers. You know, looking in a place where it is unlikely to find any clovers and extrapolating that to the entire country.
Nobody is going to waste time rigging Kansas, at least not for a national election. Six electoral votes isn't a remarkable prize. It's pretty small, and not worth the effort. Finding 127 in Kansas is interesting, but can't be extrapolated to the entire country. The people in Chicago, for example, have a lot of experience in doing this kind of thing, so I'd say that you'd find 127 in just a one block area, probably. Maybe not. Certainly you'll find many times that 127 in a city with a population smaller than Kansas.
127 is not "21 states". 127 is how many were caught, for Kansas.
Yes. Kansas has 3 million people; the US has 300 million. 127 x 100. Think about it for a minute.
You assume that the rate is correct for Kansas, and then assume the same rate applies to states with a lot more electoral votes.
The rate would not change due to a factor of population change; other external factors would have to change the rate. Electoral votes aren't cast by registered voters, either, but by electoral delegates.
One of Trump's hand-picked candidates for Governor suggested this rate is probably correct, or close enough, and claimed this is "lots of evidence." You're claiming this isn't a lot of evidence for the same reasons I've stated: it's a tiny proportion.
Some pretty obvious ones. How does this study catch the most common way someone can double vote (a favorite of the Daley machine), which is to show up at a polling place claiming to be a dead guy? Or someone they know won't be voting for some other reason?
Near as I can tell, the rate for that is around the same as returned by the other study. Around 500 in California alone, fewer in other states, pretty much the same rate in localities that lean Republican and Democrat and among parties, and heavier by rate in population-dense areas. It's just barely tens of thousands, being charitable.
Then the problems start.
Judicial review finds large swaths of these being clerical errors (mistakes by polling personnel, such as by misreading "deceased" on the line above a particular voter's info on the roll), data matching errors (death certificate is erroneously matched to a voter registration), and what amounts to typographical errors (someone drew a stray line or filled the wrong bubble on some form, intending to notate something else). Half a percent come down to insufficient information, and you usually find zero dead voters in a state in a given year, or a single-digit count.
So you get pretty close to zero.
How does it catch the Oregon "double votes" that are as simple as pulling someone's discarded ballot out of the trash and sending it in? It doesn't.
Why are ballots in the wastebasket? Electronic voting solves this.
You missed the other side: this study will also see two different people and count them as one person, claiming a double vote. You seem kind of blind in that direction.
No, that implies someone is doing a serious study and might find a correct number, and "the gubernatorial candidate" isn't that kind of study.
"The gubernatorial candidate" was citing studies done by the Heritage Foundation and the Government Accountability Institute, both multi-million-dollar Conservative think tanks with huge biases toward inflating the amount of voter fraud and otherwise acting as mouthpieces for people like Paul Ryan. They poured millions of dollars into this research.
These are extremely-biased sources which want to support your own arguments, and they have enormous resources. It's like saying that Monsanto's research arm found minimal environmental damage and carcinogenicity for Round-Up, but they're not credible and couldn't possibly have done a "serious study" because they would have found even less if they did. They have a manifest conflict of interest to find zero; and GAI and Heritage have millions of dollars and a manifest conflict of interest to find lots of voter fraud and invent additional when they can't find any and they still can't find any.
The people in Chicago, for example, have a lot of experience in doing this kind of thing, so I'd say that you'd find 127 in just a one block area, probably. Maybe not. Certainly you'll find many times that 127 in a city with a population
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I'm pretty sure voter turnout -- absentee -- is very high in local nursing homes.
I wonder if the voters know how they voted. Or that they "voted".
In St. Louis City (not part of St. Louis County) election anomalies got an election's result voided and, IIRC, criminal charges filed. The guy who nearly got screwed over by those "anomalies" got elected to the state legislature. Oopsie!
Which reminds me, I've been meaning to compare the absentee vote in St. Louis County with the "presentee" vote. I suspect they'll not match very closely, for some unexplained reason.
If for some inexplicable reason you want to try to beat me to it, here are the links to the absentee numbers and the final unofficial numbers.
http://electionresults.stlouisco.com/el180807/EL45_ABS.HTM
http://electionresults.stlouisco.com/el180807/EL45_4.HTM
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.