Which takes less effort, rigging the voting machines or physically impersonating voters?
Which has greater risk, rigging the voting machines, which have no real audit trail, or physically impersonating voters, where the likelihood of getting cause increases drastically with every single vote?
Which has greater reward, rigging the voting machines, allowing you to control all of the votes, or paying someone at least minimum wage to vote and travel?
If meatbag impersonation is anywhere near the top of your list of electoral concerns, you need to take a goddamn remedial statistics class, and burn your fucking nerd card, because nobody with a functioning brain would use that kind of method alone. The machines you mentioned had bribery as their core mechanism, with voter fraud being occasionally used a supplement, only practical because they CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE ELECTION APPARATUS in the first place, and that was the important part.
Given that nobody ever bothers to ask anyone after an election if they did actually vote, so there will be little chance of detecting votes cast under someone else's name, it is highly effective. It is most effective at the local level, of course.
Let me put it this way. When you assess different methods of trying to sway the votes in an election, and compare the costs, risks, and benefits, any kind of fraud that involves getting meatbags into polling places is going to be dead last, including legitimate campaigning.
Mathematically, voter impersonation is the stupidest way to rig an election.
You just pointed out why voter impersonation doesn't work, you dingbat. You have to know with very high accuracy who isn't going to vote, or else there will be evidence to track you down.
That's why virtually all known incidents of voter impersonation were family members voting for other family members.
Meatbag fraud is the least effective fraud, but double-district voting is the most common method, and voter ID does nothing to stop it.
I'd say the best solution is for the problem to be handled as much as possible at engineering level. The best solution to the trolley problem is to design a safer trolley, and efforts put towards that are going to matter more than creating a formula to value life.
Thought experiments are useful, but they often represent extreme edge cases, so mundane choices can actually have a far greater impact.
Your example is not about customers, but sales, although they are largely interchangeable.
But you also have to keep in mind that you aren't just losing track of skilled workers, but also knowledge and experience. The lack of experienced employees can cause there to be a bottleneck for important skills proliferating.
While we can't know for sure, we do know that it aligns with the interests of shareholders and often CEO performance pay to get short-term profits. Cutting useful staff is a quick way to do that, and the CEO will have already made their money by the time consequences set in.
Also, Walmart in particularly sells a lot of "inferior goods," whose consumption increases as wages go down, so there is a perverse infrastructure to keep their employees impoverished.
The most popular politician in the country is Bernie Sanders, mostly because he talks about issues people care about. He's an angry old socialist Jew, so he's not really all that likable in a conventional way. Also, Trump actually ran a more policy-based campaign than Clinton.
Now, you stated that Clinton is a wonk, but you think that means she has intelligent policies, when instead they are doing horrible things in ways that theoretically sound okay, and sound exactly like the kind of rhetoric Americans have grown to distrust. She has policies that they'll like in the beltway, but not anywhere else. Compare her word-salad response on fracking to Sanders response, which was basically "Hell no, I ain't gonna frack."
There is a way to detect it that is already in universal usage: voter rolls. You have to know a person isn't going to vote, because if they vote twice, that's evidence. So, the chances that you are going to get caught goes up exponentially with each vote cast. That's why practically every recorded incidence of voter impersonation has been a family member or someone whose non-voting was known with great certainty. It's never a mass act, because it's a statistical nightmare for risk versus reward outside of the scale of a nuclear family.
he registered and voted at multiple precincts, though he tore up the ballot in all precincts except his real one to invalidate all his illegal votes
The problem with your anecdote is that is NOT voter impersonation and it would NOT be prevented by Voter ID laws. That is indeed a viable, largely unchecked method of electoral fraud, and the reason why is because those voter rolls I mentioned don't coordinate to prevent double precinct voting. Republicans have done nothing to actually combat this.
Wouldn't it be more productive to create positive channels for recycling the flash memory? There are plenty of usage cases where the reduced performance would be unimportant, and the reduced cost would be attractive. If you want to stop "shady recyclers," the obvious solution is to bring them into the sunlight.
Because voter impersonation is mathematically the dumbest way to rig an election. It's high risk for low reward, and the risk grows exponentially, so you couldn't rig an election for dogcatcher without getting caught. Any other method, including legitimate campaigns, would be a much more effective strategy.
Strictly speaking, employees are objects. Employees are a subset of humans, and humans are a subset of objects. In fact, many of the problems with employers come from failing to understand that employees are objects. A sensible employer wouldn't drive a drill press far outside of its safe operating specifications or attempt to use a drill press to perform sales, but they will make an employee work themselves to the bone and work any position, because they fail to realize that humans, like any objects, have limitations.
"market-based"
"rugged individualism"
Those are mutually exclusive. There's nothing ruggedly individualistic about swindling money from VCs, and corporations are incredibly dependent on some degree of collectivism.
Yes, people will die under Assad, but we're acting as the air force of ISIS, who also kills innocents. You know, those guys that were former members of the that other dictator we overthrew.
Unfortunately, most of the US does not have such a model, and tends to have duopoly competition between [monopoly phone company] and [monopoly cable company].
Slashdot Mirror
Which takes less effort, rigging the voting machines or physically impersonating voters?
Which has greater risk, rigging the voting machines, which have no real audit trail, or physically impersonating voters, where the likelihood of getting cause increases drastically with every single vote?
Which has greater reward, rigging the voting machines, allowing you to control all of the votes, or paying someone at least minimum wage to vote and travel?
If meatbag impersonation is anywhere near the top of your list of electoral concerns, you need to take a goddamn remedial statistics class, and burn your fucking nerd card, because nobody with a functioning brain would use that kind of method alone. The machines you mentioned had bribery as their core mechanism, with voter fraud being occasionally used a supplement, only practical because they CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE ELECTION APPARATUS in the first place, and that was the important part.
Let me put it this way. When you assess different methods of trying to sway the votes in an election, and compare the costs, risks, and benefits, any kind of fraud that involves getting meatbags into polling places is going to be dead last, including legitimate campaigning.
Mathematically, voter impersonation is the stupidest way to rig an election.
You just pointed out why voter impersonation doesn't work, you dingbat. You have to know with very high accuracy who isn't going to vote, or else there will be evidence to track you down.
That's why virtually all known incidents of voter impersonation were family members voting for other family members.
Meatbag fraud is the least effective fraud, but double-district voting is the most common method, and voter ID does nothing to stop it.
I'd say the best solution is for the problem to be handled as much as possible at engineering level. The best solution to the trolley problem is to design a safer trolley, and efforts put towards that are going to matter more than creating a formula to value life.
Thought experiments are useful, but they often represent extreme edge cases, so mundane choices can actually have a far greater impact.
Your example is not about customers, but sales, although they are largely interchangeable.
But you also have to keep in mind that you aren't just losing track of skilled workers, but also knowledge and experience. The lack of experienced employees can cause there to be a bottleneck for important skills proliferating.
While we can't know for sure, we do know that it aligns with the interests of shareholders and often CEO performance pay to get short-term profits. Cutting useful staff is a quick way to do that, and the CEO will have already made their money by the time consequences set in.
Also, Walmart in particularly sells a lot of "inferior goods," whose consumption increases as wages go down, so there is a perverse infrastructure to keep their employees impoverished.
It's also what many employers feel as well.
Who is saying that Putin is a nice guy? He's a dictator. That doesn't change the fact that the US is causing far more trouble on the global stage.
The most popular politician in the country is Bernie Sanders, mostly because he talks about issues people care about. He's an angry old socialist Jew, so he's not really all that likable in a conventional way. Also, Trump actually ran a more policy-based campaign than Clinton.
Now, you stated that Clinton is a wonk, but you think that means she has intelligent policies, when instead they are doing horrible things in ways that theoretically sound okay, and sound exactly like the kind of rhetoric Americans have grown to distrust. She has policies that they'll like in the beltway, but not anywhere else. Compare her word-salad response on fracking to Sanders response, which was basically "Hell no, I ain't gonna frack."
So, why couldn't the Clinton campaign counter that by, I don't know, having policies that people liked and cared about?
There is a way to detect it that is already in universal usage: voter rolls. You have to know a person isn't going to vote, because if they vote twice, that's evidence. So, the chances that you are going to get caught goes up exponentially with each vote cast. That's why practically every recorded incidence of voter impersonation has been a family member or someone whose non-voting was known with great certainty. It's never a mass act, because it's a statistical nightmare for risk versus reward outside of the scale of a nuclear family.
The problem with your anecdote is that is NOT voter impersonation and it would NOT be prevented by Voter ID laws. That is indeed a viable, largely unchecked method of electoral fraud, and the reason why is because those voter rolls I mentioned don't coordinate to prevent double precinct voting. Republicans have done nothing to actually combat this.
Wouldn't it be more productive to create positive channels for recycling the flash memory? There are plenty of usage cases where the reduced performance would be unimportant, and the reduced cost would be attractive. If you want to stop "shady recyclers," the obvious solution is to bring them into the sunlight.
Because voter impersonation is mathematically the dumbest way to rig an election. It's high risk for low reward, and the risk grows exponentially, so you couldn't rig an election for dogcatcher without getting caught. Any other method, including legitimate campaigns, would be a much more effective strategy.
Or, perhaps the parameters are just more complex. Say, people with economic anxiety who WEREN'T minorities, and thus demonized by the GOP.
Strictly speaking, employees are objects. Employees are a subset of humans, and humans are a subset of objects. In fact, many of the problems with employers come from failing to understand that employees are objects. A sensible employer wouldn't drive a drill press far outside of its safe operating specifications or attempt to use a drill press to perform sales, but they will make an employee work themselves to the bone and work any position, because they fail to realize that humans, like any objects, have limitations.
Yeah, it would be really scary if Ma Bell were to be regulated under the laws that used to regulate Ma Bell.
Yeah, haven't you heard of Arduino nanoassemblers?
"market-based"
"rugged individualism"
Those are mutually exclusive. There's nothing ruggedly individualistic about swindling money from VCs, and corporations are incredibly dependent on some degree of collectivism.
Tequila
For example: Our entire business model.
Yes, people will die under Assad, but we're acting as the air force of ISIS, who also kills innocents. You know, those guys that were former members of the that other dictator we overthrew.
Unfortunately, most of the US does not have such a model, and tends to have duopoly competition between [monopoly phone company] and [monopoly cable company].
Because staying in Syria kills people, and allows the big bad Rooskies to attack our expensive drones.
He's got a funny way of showing it, bombing on of their most important strategic allies.
If this is such a concern, I've got a strategy the US can use to combat this: Get the hell out of Syria.
It's ridiculous to be offended/upset that someone is using countermeasures against the drones being used against them or their allies.
I think it's more of some variant of Poe's law where a well-written mockery ends up being more compelling than the arguments of sincere proponents.
To me, the concern is that our news organizations not only failed to vet the statements of this man, but even his very existence.