EPTBut being able to vote through an online website would be nice.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 894
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
But being able to vote through an online website would be nice. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11927 Posts
I think that the physical act of voting is an important part of instilling the feeling of democracy into a population. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9642 Posts
On November 06 2018 05:55 Simberto wrote: I am not a fan online voting due to the trust problems inherent in that. You already have people not trusting voting machines. Even ignoring all of the possible security concerns with online voting ( And i am sure that there are a lot of those), even if it were completely safe, there would still not be any way of knowing that a) Your vote is actually being counted, b) Only real votes are being counted, and c) no one knows who you voted for. I think that the physical act of voting is an important part of instilling the feeling of democracy into a population. what assurances do you have that those problems don’t already exist in the current voting mechanism? | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
|
nojok
France15846 Posts
On November 06 2018 06:06 brian wrote: what assurances do you have that those problems don’t already exist in the current voting mechanism? What? Aren't you supposed to have some representative from both parties and count ballot papers in public in front of whoever wants to see it? It would be really really hard to fraud. | ||
|
chocorush
696 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 06 2018 06:12 riotjune wrote: Hmm, I guess paper is still good for something this day and age (besides an electrical blackout). And this is after seeing all my senior professors, reluctant to change their ways, finally move all their lectures and research from towering papers to digital form. Ctrl+F sure beats manually and blindly flipping through the pages though. Digital is nice for some things, but it will never replace paper and physical documents. It isn’t just a reluctance to change, but also that the digital world requires software or hardware to read the digital media. My time as legal professional has turned me 180 on the total digital world and its viability. And the rise of the smart phone has only cemented that view. On November 06 2018 06:25 chocorush wrote: We have plenty of historical precedence for fraud in the counting process. It's supposed to be difficult, but I don't see why we should inherently trust humans over computers for fair and accurate counting. Not much is recent elections. The counting process is done by a large number of people and fraud is difficult due to the process not being centralized. Voting machines are fine, but they need paper backups. And frankly, state wide voting machines means we lose the security of a decentralized process. | ||
|
Slydie
1987 Posts
You cannot say the economy isn't doing well just because it doesn't benefit everyone. If the economy is growing that means the size of the pie is growing. How that pie is then subdivided is not what economic growth means. I think it is dangerous to say that the economy isn't doing so great because it just appears to be doing great. This completely ignores the point of the baked-in inequality mechanisms of the current economic system. What do you think will happen when the economy collapses once again? It also presupposes that there are different types of economic growth and that the next one may be of the type that will benefit the working poor. The working poor threw a Molotov cocktail into Washington and the democrats didn't even blink. They changed nothing. The fact of the matter is that all these people will never ever get good paying jobs ever again. They simply aren't productive in the right way. And they and their children will be poorer than their parents. They will never benefit significantly from any economic growth. And let's not forget that having economic growth if a finite quantity. Economic growth alone does not stimulate wage growth for lower income groups. Why would anyone pay someone more than they have to? It really comes down to the workers unionizing to fighting and negotiate to get their share of the pie. United workers is a force to be reconned with! You might lose some jobs to lower wage countries, but American workers should not compare their conditions to the ones in Bangladesh anyway. The only other option would be a major shortage of workers, but with the number of people wanting to immigrate to the US, how easy it is to flag out production and a shortage of workers hindering the said growth, that probably won't help either. The key to longterm success for the west lies in knowhow, education, infrastructure, reliability and quality. I understand why Trump and others romantisize earlier times with industrial low-wage jobs for everyone, but I don't understand why anyone buys the BS. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11927 Posts
Meanwhile, if you have a centralized, electronic system, someone just need to get one virus into the right system, and they can basically change the result to be whatever you like. And there is no way for anyone to easily figure this out. And if you do web-based stuff, there are just so many different ways this could go wrong. You would need to make sure that all of the computers of people doing the web-based voting are themselves safe. Not only from manipulation, but also from just people monitoring who they voted for. | ||
|
Slydie
1987 Posts
The US has much bigger threats to it's democracy, though. When was the last time the GOP won a national popular vote, and who has triple majority (incl. scotus) and the president? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Rather than online voting, lets just have they day off and go get pizza afterwords. Way easier. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On November 06 2018 07:29 Slydie wrote: I have to say that in a world where you start wars, control murderdrones and sell a billion dollar companies online, making a secure online voting system sounds perfectly reasonable. I am not a security expert but all of those applications sound like they only require secure single-point-to-single-point communication, and one can reasonably assume that somebody competent controls both points. Online voting doesn't satisfy either of those conditions. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22476 Posts
Republicans will never allow elections to be a national holiday or a sunday. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46224 Posts
On November 06 2018 07:52 Gorsameth wrote: All talk about making it easier to vote or be informed when voting falls flat when you consider that one of the two parties in the country actively tries to prevent the 'wrong' people from voting, and those 'wrong' people would vote more if they had the time to do it. Republicans will never allow elections to be a national holiday or a sunday. Agreed, for the same reason why they'd never allow the electoral college to go away. More and fairer voting means their consistent losing of the popular vote (and slowly shrinking numbers in younger generations) would slowly eliminate Republicans in power. Anyways, I'm ready to cast my New Jersey vote tomorrow, and I've already convinced a couple friends of mine to vote as well. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
On November 06 2018 06:25 chocorush wrote: We have plenty of historical precedence for fraud in the counting process. It's supposed to be difficult, but I don't see why we should inherently trust humans over computers for fair and accurate counting. There is good reason for this i think. Because it could be checked by every person out there in theory. everyone could re-count votes or watch the counting and see if it is done fairly. That alone creates a sort of trust. With computer voting you would need to be a computer expert to revieuw process. People then have to trust something they dont understand themselves. Even though almost noone checks counting the votes himself (i did once as a kid) the fact that it is in theory possible makes people trust the system. With electronic voting most people could not check for themselves,not even in theory. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Panthous
30 Posts
On November 06 2018 05:23 Gahlo wrote: More like they wheeling the trojan horse with one garbage capitalist to the gates of the White House. To claim Trump was a Molotov against politics as usual is foolish. This is an absolutely absurd statement. A Molotov cocktail is supposed to burn everything down. And you make the point they merely send in Trojan horse. A Molotov cocktail isn't a shot across the bow. These people literally voted for the worst candidate possible just to make a point. Are you really saying Trump isn't doing enough damage? Trump filled every institution with crooks, making them completely dysfunctional. And most of that damage is completely irreversible. And on top of that we have this polarization. Now of course people are completely foolish in throwing a Molotov cocktail. But that isn't your point. Are you saying that they should have voted for Ted Cruz if they had wanted a real Molotov cocktail? And the fact that it didn't work and this extremism has now become the new normal, next election they will try to elect someone who doesn't just praise violence. There must be some Duterte or Bolsonaro type out there in there US somewhere. The Democrats didn't even flinch. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
Step 1: avoid social media the day after election. | ||
| ||
