Yes, no sense shutting the door after al the horses have ran out. But no sense getting horses if you don't have a door. I've seen things more stupid than that in IT (and elsewhere)
All it takes is a quick look at authoritarian regimes where a single (crappy) candidate gets 99% of the vote... do you really think that Comrade Kim would stand a chance if there was a secret ballot in North Korea?
Yes. They collect everyone's votes. Count the secret votes in secret rooms. The walk out and declare a 99% landslide. That's how secret voting works.
recountable and auditable are different. An audit is a re-examination to look for errors and correct them. When the error is that the ballot doesn't line up with the punch holes, and there's a "valid" ballot that doesn't represent the wishes of the voter, any "audit" that can't discover that error isn't an audit, it's a recount.
In many states, you will have committed a felony by doing so. It is, in many jurisdictions, illegal to record a conversation without informing the other party.
Not in any place I've ever lived. One party consent is the norm, not the exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... 7 states of 51 states (DC, counted as a state for this) are all-party-consent states. There are a few with some restrictions on one-party consent, making they a hybrid, but about 80% are pure one-party consent states.
The person doing the recording lost their job and pension in return for their mutual employer asking the DA not to press charges.
Talking in generalities, you are 80% wrong, and I'm only 20% wrong. Speaking of specifics, you should name the state. The most populous state that requires all-party consent is CA, so I should presume the state you are talking about CA.
There have been proven cases in the US of more votes cast than eligible voters. It didn't work out the way you assert. When you stuff with your ballots in an "enemy" box, they'll have to count your votes, or throw out valid votes for the "enemy". So either way you win. We are happy putting innocent people in prison, but not passing on counting a valid vote, regardless of how many invalid votes must be counted to ensure it.
And I've seen one of the edge cases where a person couldn't get "free ID" from the state because he didn't have a birth certificate. And the birth certificate was $100 to get. So there's a $100 poll tax in Texas.
When I say the process isn't hard, I mean it literally isn't hard
Sure, it's not hard to take two days off work to wait in line at the city to order a birth certificate (which, when I was a kid, was "print me John Doe's birth cert" "Sure, that'll be $1 printing fee", but now is very hard because of ID theft), then the next day go wait hours in line at the DMV for an ID.
I'm sure it's easy for the rich with driver's licenses and such to fill out a piece of paper. But how easy is it to vote when you don't have ID or a birth certificate?
Voter suppression is when someone goes to the poll to vote, but their vote is nullified by someone else who also casts a vote, but isn't eligible to do so.
True only if the second voter exists only based on your actions. If they would have voted anyway, then they didn't "nullify" any vote. They simply cast an invalid or fraudulent one.
You know what's NOT suppression? Asking you to prove who you are when, once every couple or four years, you walk up to play a part in influencing the legislature, the executive, various referenda, and maybe even local judges under which other people also have to live.
It is when the "proof" is onerous. Before the resurgence of conservative racism, your voter card (not legal ID) was sufficient for ID to vote. In fact, naming a single elligible voter who hasn't yet voted was considered sufficient ID, before the radical conservatives thought it a good idea to place hurdles and poll taxes on the voters to discourage the poor/minority vote. Deliberately acting in a manner to discourage voting (especially when targeting your "foes") is voter suppression. My first 20 year of voting in Texas didn't require any ID at all. Though now, if I were to go back to the city I was born in and try to vote, I'd be required to present ID. That was passed with the intention of suppressing votes.
There was less vote fraud with Open Voting in the USA before the Civil War than there is today. That's factual. That's a case. I'm sure you'll complain it's not supported with enough references. But it doesn't matter how many and of what kinds I presented, you'd still have the same complaint. Source? www.wikipedia.com. Oh, and reality. You should try believing in reality some time.
I'm assuming that ballots counted in a precinct came from that precinct. You don't need the exit polls, just the ballot count. I didn't mention asking anyone, including schizophrenic homeless voters, like your mom.
Thus, in any stable country, open voting is optimal. When abused, you can always go back, or just stop the abuses. The non-persecuted recognize they may be next on the list.
Hypothetically, let me grant you that point. But once the country is no longer stable, can we switch back to the other voting system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot#United_States The US switched from open (what the country was founded on, and operated on for about 100 years) to secret when the stability wasn't there. Though, they didn't do so during the open war, but after the civil war ended, and armed men would shoot you if you voted the wrong way in an open ballot (though they quickly moved to hangings, as bullets cost more than reusable rope). So secret ballots made them peek before killing you. And poll taxes were instituted to keep the poor from voting.
But even in a hypothetically "stable" country, honest law-abiding citizens may fight to keep their privacy, so that if and when the "watchers" become evil, they won't get control.
When you go for security clearance, being gay isn't disqualifying. Being a closeted gay is. Hiding the fact that you voted for Bush and lying about it is bad. Being proud of your vote, regardless of who for is good. When the information is open, it can't be used against you. Yes, I'm with 200,000,000 voters. You can pick out the ones you don't like, but do something large and sweeping against them, and in a stable (even if corrupt) country, the others will rise up. Hitler was the world's 9/11. No longer will (mostly) unarmed men hijack a plane. No longer will the social democrats sit idle while the Jews are lead away.
So the first 100 years of the USA was a dystopian regime? If so, then it's a history argument, not voting argument you are looking for. If not, then you need to go argue with reality first, and come back to me when you've completed your agrument with reality. Let me know if you manage to get reality to change to match your personal preference.
Are you a CA resident? I'm an Alaskan voter, but not an Alaskan resident. Voting gets complicated for some. And absentee isn't as "easy" as greenwow said.
It would be your word against theirs. How would you prove that they asked for your ID?
They can ask once. After that, I'll set my phone in my pocket to record before going in to a private meeting. That, and I've never seen anyone so brazen as to ask who didn't ask more than one person.
Just collect electronic votes with human-readable/machine-readable audit trails. The electronic tally can be used to provide instant results. The paper audit trail can be audited using random sampling to verify the integrity of the electronic tally.
And when the ballot box is stuffed with 10,000 ballots for Kang, what do you do? Throw out the box (picked because it was coming from a Kodos stronghold, benefiting Kang if you discard the whole box) or count them, benefiting Kang who stuffed it. In today's world, they count knowingly bad votes, to avoid not counting a valid one, so they'd count 10,000 votes in a 30 person precinct. That's standard practice to that common fraud.
Bullshit. All you have to do is drop the ballot in the mail.
Nope. You have to pre-register. Get a special ballot mailed to you. And if you are voting out of district, rather than absentee locally, you must justify your absentee status, as you should be voting locally, in most cases. So for an actual absentee person, you have to apply, get accepted into the "program", then request a ballot. Then vote and return the ballot. And take comfort in knowing that your ballot will literally not count if the margin is greater than the number of absentee votes.
And being accepted for an out-of-zone vote doesn't continue. So someone in college who votes at the home zone, rather than moving vote to college address (common and legal to do either), must re-apply every election.
It seems to be set up to be as onerous as possible without being illegal, unless you pick up an absentee ballot locally.
one is it maintains your privacy and that's good for you
This is asserted without historical proof. The open ballot worked fine in the US for 100 years. It's John Hancock, not Anonymous. It only changed when the country was in a civil war. In a stable country, open voting is better.
So the employer can demand your token, and you give it up. Would you give up your personal email password? Facebook password? The actions of the employer are illegal. Why aren't you reporting him?
Yes, someone who is willing to demonstrate their vote to someone will be more easily able to do it, but someone who is required against their will to report a vote will have no easier of a time.
Today, nearly all absentee voting will allow voting outside the view of poll employees. So the employer can fill out ballots for all employees, have them come in and sign them. Then the employer sends them in. Oh, and on election day, everyone has a double-shift with no breaks (no time to vote). At best, the voter can send in a second, spoiling one (or both) votes, but I've not seen any absentee system used in the US that would allow the voter to control his own vote in that situation. If the employer is so aggressive about ensuring votes for his preferred candidate, why aren't more doing this already?
It's not auditable. I can *never* know how my vote was cast. Even after going through the pre-readers that verify the ballot is valid, votes are sometimes thrown out. Was my vote thrown out? How can I ensure it was cast properly? I can't. Thus, not auditable.
The video is wrong (and stupid). It does what all the paper lovers do. It compares the best possible paper vote to the worst possible electronic vote.
The paper vote hasn't solved "ballot stuffing" despite centuries of defending against all means of fraud.
Open voting is the best system in any stable area. It worked much better in the first 100 years of the US than anonymous voting worked after, but it was abandoned when the Union was at war. Anonymous didn't work any better in war. The poll workers would check every ballot, and spoil any that didn't meet their "standards". Often encouraging the voter to not vote again.
Anonymous voting is so poor, it shouldn't be used. We wouldn't allow that for Congress, so why should we allow it to elect Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, no sense shutting the door after al the horses have ran out. But no sense getting horses if you don't have a door. I've seen things more stupid than that in IT (and elsewhere)
All it takes is a quick look at authoritarian regimes where a single (crappy) candidate gets 99% of the vote... do you really think that Comrade Kim would stand a chance if there was a secret ballot in North Korea?
Yes. They collect everyone's votes. Count the secret votes in secret rooms. The walk out and declare a 99% landslide. That's how secret voting works.
recountable and auditable are different. An audit is a re-examination to look for errors and correct them. When the error is that the ballot doesn't line up with the punch holes, and there's a "valid" ballot that doesn't represent the wishes of the voter, any "audit" that can't discover that error isn't an audit, it's a recount.
In many states, you will have committed a felony by doing so. It is, in many jurisdictions, illegal to record a conversation without informing the other party.
Not in any place I've ever lived. One party consent is the norm, not the exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... 7 states of 51 states (DC, counted as a state for this) are all-party-consent states. There are a few with some restrictions on one-party consent, making they a hybrid, but about 80% are pure one-party consent states.
The person doing the recording lost their job and pension in return for their mutual employer asking the DA not to press charges.
Talking in generalities, you are 80% wrong, and I'm only 20% wrong. Speaking of specifics, you should name the state. The most populous state that requires all-party consent is CA, so I should presume the state you are talking about CA.
And you've presented nothing to contradict my factual statements. So you don't meet your own minimum standards.
There have been proven cases in the US of more votes cast than eligible voters. It didn't work out the way you assert. When you stuff with your ballots in an "enemy" box, they'll have to count your votes, or throw out valid votes for the "enemy". So either way you win. We are happy putting innocent people in prison, but not passing on counting a valid vote, regardless of how many invalid votes must be counted to ensure it.
So the gangs just go into the polls with you, and you show them the ballot before you cast it. Closed voting isn't any more secure.
It was selected by the US Founding Fathers and used for 100 years, until the Civil War. Worked great until there was significant domestic conflict.
When I say the process isn't hard, I mean it literally isn't hard
Sure, it's not hard to take two days off work to wait in line at the city to order a birth certificate (which, when I was a kid, was "print me John Doe's birth cert" "Sure, that'll be $1 printing fee", but now is very hard because of ID theft), then the next day go wait hours in line at the DMV for an ID.
I'm sure it's easy for the rich with driver's licenses and such to fill out a piece of paper. But how easy is it to vote when you don't have ID or a birth certificate?
Voter suppression is when someone goes to the poll to vote, but their vote is nullified by someone else who also casts a vote, but isn't eligible to do so.
True only if the second voter exists only based on your actions. If they would have voted anyway, then they didn't "nullify" any vote. They simply cast an invalid or fraudulent one.
You know what's NOT suppression? Asking you to prove who you are when, once every couple or four years, you walk up to play a part in influencing the legislature, the executive, various referenda, and maybe even local judges under which other people also have to live.
It is when the "proof" is onerous. Before the resurgence of conservative racism, your voter card (not legal ID) was sufficient for ID to vote. In fact, naming a single elligible voter who hasn't yet voted was considered sufficient ID, before the radical conservatives thought it a good idea to place hurdles and poll taxes on the voters to discourage the poor/minority vote. Deliberately acting in a manner to discourage voting (especially when targeting your "foes") is voter suppression. My first 20 year of voting in Texas didn't require any ID at all. Though now, if I were to go back to the city I was born in and try to vote, I'd be required to present ID. That was passed with the intention of suppressing votes.
There was less vote fraud with Open Voting in the USA before the Civil War than there is today. That's factual. That's a case. I'm sure you'll complain it's not supported with enough references. But it doesn't matter how many and of what kinds I presented, you'd still have the same complaint. Source? www.wikipedia.com. Oh, and reality. You should try believing in reality some time.
I'm assuming that ballots counted in a precinct came from that precinct. You don't need the exit polls, just the ballot count. I didn't mention asking anyone, including schizophrenic homeless voters, like your mom.
Thus, in any stable country, open voting is optimal. When abused, you can always go back, or just stop the abuses. The non-persecuted recognize they may be next on the list.
Hypothetically, let me grant you that point. But once the country is no longer stable, can we switch back to the other voting system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot#United_States The US switched from open (what the country was founded on, and operated on for about 100 years) to secret when the stability wasn't there. Though, they didn't do so during the open war, but after the civil war ended, and armed men would shoot you if you voted the wrong way in an open ballot (though they quickly moved to hangings, as bullets cost more than reusable rope). So secret ballots made them peek before killing you. And poll taxes were instituted to keep the poor from voting.
But even in a hypothetically "stable" country, honest law-abiding citizens may fight to keep their privacy, so that if and when the "watchers" become evil, they won't get control.
When you go for security clearance, being gay isn't disqualifying. Being a closeted gay is. Hiding the fact that you voted for Bush and lying about it is bad. Being proud of your vote, regardless of who for is good. When the information is open, it can't be used against you. Yes, I'm with 200,000,000 voters. You can pick out the ones you don't like, but do something large and sweeping against them, and in a stable (even if corrupt) country, the others will rise up. Hitler was the world's 9/11. No longer will (mostly) unarmed men hijack a plane. No longer will the social democrats sit idle while the Jews are lead away.
The level of voter fraud was low, even if you didn't like how they voted. The system was fine, even if the voters didn't vote the way you'd prefer.
So the first 100 years of the USA was a dystopian regime? If so, then it's a history argument, not voting argument you are looking for. If not, then you need to go argue with reality first, and come back to me when you've completed your agrument with reality. Let me know if you manage to get reality to change to match your personal preference.
Are you a CA resident? I'm an Alaskan voter, but not an Alaskan resident. Voting gets complicated for some. And absentee isn't as "easy" as greenwow said.
It would be your word against theirs. How would you prove that they asked for your ID?
They can ask once. After that, I'll set my phone in my pocket to record before going in to a private meeting. That, and I've never seen anyone so brazen as to ask who didn't ask more than one person.
Just collect electronic votes with human-readable/machine-readable audit trails. The electronic tally can be used to provide instant results. The paper audit trail can be audited using random sampling to verify the integrity of the electronic tally.
And when the ballot box is stuffed with 10,000 ballots for Kang, what do you do? Throw out the box (picked because it was coming from a Kodos stronghold, benefiting Kang if you discard the whole box) or count them, benefiting Kang who stuffed it. In today's world, they count knowingly bad votes, to avoid not counting a valid one, so they'd count 10,000 votes in a 30 person precinct. That's standard practice to that common fraud.
It could be done today, and isn't. Reality proves you wrong. Go argue with reality, not me.
When there is low turnout, the choice is Evil1 or Evil2, and only the extremists care about the difference.
Bullshit. All you have to do is drop the ballot in the mail.
Nope. You have to pre-register. Get a special ballot mailed to you. And if you are voting out of district, rather than absentee locally, you must justify your absentee status, as you should be voting locally, in most cases. So for an actual absentee person, you have to apply, get accepted into the "program", then request a ballot. Then vote and return the ballot. And take comfort in knowing that your ballot will literally not count if the margin is greater than the number of absentee votes.
And being accepted for an out-of-zone vote doesn't continue. So someone in college who votes at the home zone, rather than moving vote to college address (common and legal to do either), must re-apply every election.
It seems to be set up to be as onerous as possible without being illegal, unless you pick up an absentee ballot locally.
one is it maintains your privacy and that's good for you
This is asserted without historical proof. The open ballot worked fine in the US for 100 years. It's John Hancock, not Anonymous. It only changed when the country was in a civil war. In a stable country, open voting is better.
So the employer can demand your token, and you give it up. Would you give up your personal email password? Facebook password? The actions of the employer are illegal. Why aren't you reporting him?
Yes, someone who is willing to demonstrate their vote to someone will be more easily able to do it, but someone who is required against their will to report a vote will have no easier of a time.
Today, nearly all absentee voting will allow voting outside the view of poll employees. So the employer can fill out ballots for all employees, have them come in and sign them. Then the employer sends them in. Oh, and on election day, everyone has a double-shift with no breaks (no time to vote). At best, the voter can send in a second, spoiling one (or both) votes, but I've not seen any absentee system used in the US that would allow the voter to control his own vote in that situation. If the employer is so aggressive about ensuring votes for his preferred candidate, why aren't more doing this already?
It's not auditable. I can *never* know how my vote was cast. Even after going through the pre-readers that verify the ballot is valid, votes are sometimes thrown out. Was my vote thrown out? How can I ensure it was cast properly? I can't. Thus, not auditable.
The video is wrong (and stupid). It does what all the paper lovers do. It compares the best possible paper vote to the worst possible electronic vote.
The paper vote hasn't solved "ballot stuffing" despite centuries of defending against all means of fraud.
Open voting is the best system in any stable area. It worked much better in the first 100 years of the US than anonymous voting worked after, but it was abandoned when the Union was at war. Anonymous didn't work any better in war. The poll workers would check every ballot, and spoil any that didn't meet their "standards". Often encouraging the voter to not vote again.
Anonymous voting is so poor, it shouldn't be used. We wouldn't allow that for Congress, so why should we allow it to elect Congress.