|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States41989 Posts
If I had to design a system I’d do those computer readable test slips with a sequential ID on each slip. Each candidate would have a series of circles next to their name and you’d fill in the first circle for first preference, second for second preference, and so forth. At the bottom there would be 40 more circles in a grid 10 wide, 4 down, and you’d shade four of them to select a 4 digit pin. You’d also tear away a part with your ballot’s sequential number on it.
The control for ballot stuffing would be the control over the issuance of ballots, you’d issue as many as you had participants and the system would reject duplicate IDs and IDs out of bounds.
You could easily graphically show, with colour coded (by candidate) threads, how the first round choices were made of individual votes and how, as the lowest first choice candidate was eliminated, those threads changed colour and joined their second preference on the next layer. Zoom out and you have a macro view of how the vote went, how each subsequent reallocation changed overall share and who the winners and losers from each elimination were. Zoom in and you can see, and find, the individual anonymized threads. Use your thread number and PIN and you can see your thread, unique and distinct within the tapestry, and verify that the colours represent your vote.
It’s simple enough to be open source, it’s digitized enough that you’ll get an immediate answer within minutes of scanning the slips, it provides clarity on a macro level, it’s verifiable on a voter level, and has complete paper records allowing it to be audited. The only downside is that the ID and PIN system would allow voters to disclose and subsequently prove how they voted which is considered a flaw in some weak democracies due to the potential for coercion or bribery.
|
I like the idea of a mechanical computing solution, personally. Some punchcard system with things that are basically abacuses, racking up votes, that can store and punch out a total at the end of the day.
Lock and seal the boxes, check them beforehand by punching a few thousand test cards, and allocate candidates to slots on the day by pulling them out of a hat.
I'm sure this already exists in lots of places. You still need to manually transfer the votes but it's much harder to hack than a digital solution and much less error-prone than manual counting.
|
On February 10 2020 07:10 Belisarius wrote:
I like the idea of a mechanical computing solution, personally. Some punchcard system with things that are basically abacuses, racking up votes, that can store and punch out a total at the end of the day.
Lock and seal the boxes, check them beforehand by punching a few thousand test cards, and allocate candidates to slots on the day by pulling them out of a hat.
I'm sure this already exists in lots of places. You still need to manually transfer the votes but it's much harder to hack than a digital solution and much less error-prone than manual counting.
The system you just described is what Florida was using in 2000 that led to Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court.
|
On February 10 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:
Yeah those IDP statements all sure read like something people say when they make honest mistakes. /s
From "No we will not recanvas because that would demean the work done by our volunteers", which is hilarious because I'm pretty sure those volunteers want their results to be correct.
to "we will not correct mistakes if we find them because then Math is biased".
Wonder if stuff like this is making any of the people that voted for "they are just incompetent" a few days ago change their mind.
Maybe a couple but probably not most of them if I were to hazard a guess.
EDIT: Btw it seems Nevada hired a staffer for Mayor Cheat to be their "voter protection director"
|
On February 10 2020 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 07:10 Belisarius wrote:
I like the idea of a mechanical computing solution, personally. Some punchcard system with things that are basically abacuses, racking up votes, that can store and punch out a total at the end of the day.
Lock and seal the boxes, check them beforehand by punching a few thousand test cards, and allocate candidates to slots on the day by pulling them out of a hat.
I'm sure this already exists in lots of places. You still need to manually transfer the votes but it's much harder to hack than a digital solution and much less error-prone than manual counting. The system you just described is what Florida was using in 2000 that led to Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court.
I still don't know what the problem with simple classic paper ballots is.
Have paper ballots. Put into closed box while multiple people with multiple different political affiliations are present.
Have people count these at a local polling station, once again with multiple people being there (And only open the box under these circumstances, and never leave it unsupervised. Also mark everyone who voted on a list. You can even have the counting process open to the public in a way that anyone can walk in and watch if they want to. Compare counted total to amount of people who voted. Keep all the ballots and store them in some way for the next few years. Have someone responsible for this, and make sure that they can actually be held responsible.
Have those people who counted sign a total count. Transport that total count to a central office, once again with the same setup as the local offices (multiple people, open for the public to watch). Add up totals from the polling stations. Produce total total. Maybe have another similar step like this, depending on how big the whole election is.
This might not be new, but this has been done for a long time, and it actually works. People trust system that their vote is actually counted, it is very hard to cheat a well-set-up paper system, you can recount as often as you like, you have a paper trail if stuff doesn't seem to fit, you have people at every step who are responsible that that step works out correctly.
I have yet to see a computerized system that is as good at preserving the basic principles of democracy as a paper system. And even the thing Kwark proposed has the major problem (which he recognized in his post) that the vote is not anonymous, since people can prove what they voted for (Which means that you can force people to prove what they voted for through peer pressure, or through only hiring people who are willing to show that they voted the way you like). Which i see as extremely critical to a functioning democracy.
|
On February 10 2020 08:06 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:On February 10 2020 07:10 Belisarius wrote:
I like the idea of a mechanical computing solution, personally. Some punchcard system with things that are basically abacuses, racking up votes, that can store and punch out a total at the end of the day.
Lock and seal the boxes, check them beforehand by punching a few thousand test cards, and allocate candidates to slots on the day by pulling them out of a hat.
I'm sure this already exists in lots of places. You still need to manually transfer the votes but it's much harder to hack than a digital solution and much less error-prone than manual counting. The system you just described is what Florida was using in 2000 that led to Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court. I still don't know what the problem with simple classic paper ballots is. Have paper ballots. Put into closed box while multiple people with multiple different political affiliations are present. Have people count these at a local polling station, once again with multiple people being there (And only open the box under these circumstances, and never leave it unsupervised. Also mark everyone who voted on a list. You can even have the counting process open to the public in a way that anyone can walk in and watch if they want to. Compare counted total to amount of people who voted. Keep all the ballots and store them in some way for the next few years. Have someone responsible for this, and make sure that they can actually be held responsible. Have those people who counted sign a total count. Transport that total count to a central office, once again with the same setup as the local offices (multiple people, open for the public to watch). Add up totals from the polling stations. Produce total total. Maybe have another similar step like this, depending on how big the whole election is. This might not be new, but this has been done for a long time, and it actually works. People trust system that their vote is actually counted, it is very hard to cheat a well-set-up paper system, you can recount as often as you like, you have a paper trail if stuff doesn't seem to fit, you have people at every step who are responsible that that step works out correctly. I have yet to see a computerized system that is as good at preserving the basic principles of democracy as a paper system. And even the thing Kwark proposed has the major problem (which he recognized in his post) that the vote is not anonymous, since people can prove what they voted for (Which means that you can force people to prove what they voted for through peer pressure, or through only hiring people who are willing to show that they voted the way you like). Which i see as extremely critical to a functioning democracy.
For me, you answered your own question about the problem with paper ballots
it is very hard to cheat a well-set-up paper system
The Democrats are putting Hanlon's and Occam's razors in a battle to the death.
|
On February 10 2020 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 07:10 Belisarius wrote:
I like the idea of a mechanical computing solution, personally. Some punchcard system with things that are basically abacuses, racking up votes, that can store and punch out a total at the end of the day.
Lock and seal the boxes, check them beforehand by punching a few thousand test cards, and allocate candidates to slots on the day by pulling them out of a hat.
I'm sure this already exists in lots of places. You still need to manually transfer the votes but it's much harder to hack than a digital solution and much less error-prone than manual counting. The system you just described is what Florida was using in 2000 that led to Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court.
I don't believe this is true. I'm not talking about "dumb" computers, I'm talking about mechanical computing.
The Florida machines were still digital, just supposedly secure digital boxes. To my knowledge, the vulnerabilities involved hacking either the central database they communicated with, or the memory cards on the machines themselves.
Nothing is unhackable, but altering a mechanical system would need physical interference with the mechanism, and this is quite a bit harder to achieve.
|
Paper ballots problem is speed the cable news has a hard on for being able to call an election with-in 24 hours. They take a tons of short cuts to do it and we've relied on people conceeding for which plays down all the errors that occur.
The 2000 election was a lot of those problems popping up when people actually try to really count paper ballots.
|
24 hours really isn't a problem for paper ballots. German elections (100% paper ballots) usually deliver (usually very exact) preliminary results before midnight (polls close at 18:00), and full results at some time during the next day.
|
On February 10 2020 08:28 Simberto wrote:
24 hours really isn't a problem for paper ballots. German elections (100% paper ballots) usually deliver (usually very exact) preliminary results before midnight (polls close at 18:00), and full results at some time during the next day.
Bewildering to me how far people will go to believe simple things are impossible in the US instead of there being deliberate efforts to prevent them.
|
On February 10 2020 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:
Yeah those IDP statements all sure read like something people say when they make honest mistakes. /s
From "No we will not recanvas because that would demean the work done by our volunteers", which is hilarious because I'm pretty sure those volunteers want their results to be correct.
to "we will not correct mistakes if we find them because then Math is biased".
Wonder if stuff like this is making any of the people that voted for "they are just incompetent" a few days ago change their mind. Maybe a couple but probably not most of them if I were to hazard a guess. EDIT: Btw it seems Nevada hired a staffer for Mayor Cheat to be their "voter protection director" https://twitter.com/jackallisonLOL/status/1226609408953577472
Oh ffs. So rather than copy Iowa's method of cheating for Mayor Pete, Nevada is coming up with a new method of cheating for Mayor Pete? (Also: The old director of Nevada's State Democratic Party, Travis Brock, is currently working for Mayor Pete.)
In before South Carolina just asks Pete Buttigieg to count all the votes himself and "be honest" about what the final scores are.
|
What is Bloomberg's path to the presidency? Does he just want to force Bernie towards the center?
|
On February 10 2020 09:20 IgnE wrote:
What is Bloomberg's path to the presidency? Does he just want to force Bernie towards the center?
He hires the entire consultant class and campaign staff from the other candidates spends ~$1-2 billion in ads and gets the establishment to rally around him as the only one that can stop Sanders/Trump (and perpetuate their professional ambitions).
|
On February 10 2020 08:24 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:On February 10 2020 07:10 Belisarius wrote:
I like the idea of a mechanical computing solution, personally. Some punchcard system with things that are basically abacuses, racking up votes, that can store and punch out a total at the end of the day.
Lock and seal the boxes, check them beforehand by punching a few thousand test cards, and allocate candidates to slots on the day by pulling them out of a hat.
I'm sure this already exists in lots of places. You still need to manually transfer the votes but it's much harder to hack than a digital solution and much less error-prone than manual counting. The system you just described is what Florida was using in 2000 that led to Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court. I don't believe this is true. I'm not talking about "dumb" computers, I'm talking about mechanical computing. The Florida machines were still digital, just supposedly secure digital boxes. To my knowledge, the vulnerabilities involved hacking either the central database they communicated with, or the memory cards on the machines themselves. Nothing is unhackable, but altering a mechanical system would need physical interference with the mechanism, and this is quite a bit harder to achieve.
It wasn't an issue with computer failure or hacking. The failure in 2000 was with the physical paper ballots. In a lot of cases, the holes weren't punched successfully, leading to votes not being counted. It was great hearing news talk about hanging chads constantly.
|
On February 10 2020 08:06 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:On February 10 2020 07:10 Belisarius wrote:
I like the idea of a mechanical computing solution, personally. Some punchcard system with things that are basically abacuses, racking up votes, that can store and punch out a total at the end of the day.
Lock and seal the boxes, check them beforehand by punching a few thousand test cards, and allocate candidates to slots on the day by pulling them out of a hat.
I'm sure this already exists in lots of places. You still need to manually transfer the votes but it's much harder to hack than a digital solution and much less error-prone than manual counting. The system you just described is what Florida was using in 2000 that led to Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court. I still don't know what the problem with simple classic paper ballots is. Have paper ballots. Put into closed box while multiple people with multiple different political affiliations are present. Have people count these at a local polling station, once again with multiple people being there (And only open the box under these circumstances, and never leave it unsupervised. Also mark everyone who voted on a list. You can even have the counting process open to the public in a way that anyone can walk in and watch if they want to. Compare counted total to amount of people who voted. Keep all the ballots and store them in some way for the next few years. Have someone responsible for this, and make sure that they can actually be held responsible. Have those people who counted sign a total count. Transport that total count to a central office, once again with the same setup as the local offices (multiple people, open for the public to watch). Add up totals from the polling stations. Produce total total. Maybe have another similar step like this, depending on how big the whole election is. This might not be new, but this has been done for a long time, and it actually works. People trust system that their vote is actually counted, it is very hard to cheat a well-set-up paper system, you can recount as often as you like, you have a paper trail if stuff doesn't seem to fit, you have people at every step who are responsible that that step works out correctly. I have yet to see a computerized system that is as good at preserving the basic principles of democracy as a paper system. And even the thing Kwark proposed has the major problem (which he recognized in his post) that the vote is not anonymous, since people can prove what they voted for (Which means that you can force people to prove what they voted for through peer pressure, or through only hiring people who are willing to show that they voted the way you like). Which i see as extremely critical to a functioning democracy.
This is what my local voting place has done for a generation at least. You don't get a ballot until you've been checked off in the book or turned in a registration form, you vote on a scantron form for everything before turning it into the box which is also a scanner for everything you've voted. Its all wide out in the open and no one at the place knows anything about the votes which are in a sealed box watched by independent observers. I say that they know nothing but they do tell you which number voter you are for the day.
|
Bernie labeling corporate handouts as socialism is great. I'd love to see "corporate socialism" used similar to bail outs etc
People need to look at a 2b tax break and see it is redistribution. It's just removing a transaction cost.
|
On February 10 2020 08:28 Simberto wrote:
24 hours really isn't a problem for paper ballots. German elections (100% paper ballots) usually deliver (usually very exact) preliminary results before midnight (polls close at 18:00), and full results at some time during the next day.
German population is 1/4th the size of the us in one time zone if it wasn't for the fact of the electoral college where we can ignore most states properly counting all their ballots it would take longer in the US than it does right now.
It often takes days after the election for the US popular vote to be counted properly. The one we view in election night and the day after are often projections which can't be considered reliable in a close race. Especially when the US votes on a workday and polling places often have to extend their hours or cut people off.
There are a lot of shot cuts done in the US to call presidential elections the morning after. It's really a terrible expectation. You can see it in most general elections in the US, often there are races that are too close to call which takes days or longer to resolve. Simply put there is little actual faith in that we count things properly only faith that's it's close enough most times. We really rely on good faith electors to conceede for a smooth transition
|
Not to mention the tire fire of elections in Dade county and palm beach county that happens every year.
|
On February 10 2020 20:57 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 08:28 Simberto wrote:
24 hours really isn't a problem for paper ballots. German elections (100% paper ballots) usually deliver (usually very exact) preliminary results before midnight (polls close at 18:00), and full results at some time during the next day. German population is 1/4th the size of the us in one time zone if it wasn't for the fact of the electoral college where we can ignore most states actually properly counting all ballots it would take longer in the US than it does right now.
And Iowa has 1/4th the population of Bavaria.
|
On February 10 2020 20:57 semantics wrote:
German population is 1/4th the size of the us in one time zone if it wasn't for the fact of the electoral college where we can ignore most states properly counting all their ballots it would take longer in the US than it does right now.
How does the total population even matter at all? Votes are counted in their respective districts, no reason the US could not have the same amount of volunteers in the respective disctricts as Germany has. Properly organized paper-ballot voting in the US would not slow down anything... you can have reasonably accurated projections within 1-2 hours and all votes counted within 24. Elections in the US are organized utterly incompetently and, yes, this is deliberate to a certain extent: from waiting lines at voting booths, no national holiday for voting, borderline incomprehensible rulesets, disenfranchisement of voters, incorrect calculations, eletronic voting and much much more. The US is probably the worst democracy in the world in terms of organizing elections....you gotta wonder why that is
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
