I thought your title summed up your point brilliantly.
So we're bright enough to break Apple encryption,but, if we apply bits to voting transgender people will be in very grade school girls bathroom?
Seriously?
Electronic voting is bad? The medium we use to move money is bad because some sonofobitch will jiggle the thing and we'll all be sold down the river Denile because we're helpless against those nerd types.
I sense a woo woo woo thread developing here.
So we're bright enough to break Apple encryption,but, if we apply bits to voting transgender people will be in very grade school girls bathroom?
Seriously?
Electronic voting is bad? The medium we use to move money is bad because some sonofobitch will jiggle the thing and we'll all be sold down the river Denile because we're helpless against those nerd types.
I sense a woo woo woo thread developing here.
The issue is of verification. When you move money, there are separate systems involved and they can all be reconciled to guarantee that the amount being debited is the same as the amount being credited and, if that's not the case, it can be tracked exactly where a breakdown in the process occurred.
If 5% of Clinton votes get registered as Trump votes, however, there's no process to reconcile what was entered to what was recorded or to say where the breakdown in the process occurred. The methodology used to select our government should at least contain the same kinds of checks and balances that you'd find in a corner store's bookkeeping.
I find it incredible that America failed electronic voting. It shouldn't have been that hard.Ya, that would be fine. What's needed is robust verification systems. They need to be able to track and verify the output of the program using something other than the program itself and reconcile it with the same numbers being counted by a different method.
So what we do is treat electronic voting just the same as we treat paper voting. I don't think so. Voters can and should get personal copies of what they voted.There should be ways to rectify such errors by process which is both simple and quick. Verification methods should be robust and not include include near sighted people who need extra light to verify votes.
In fact it seems the government should not be in the business of supplying computers at sites for voters unless voters don't have computers connected to the internet. All the voter does is check in and vote, then when votes are to be counted queries should made to the voter's computer to verify his vote. against the voter's verification routine.
Sorry about the title. I don't know what happened.
So don't worry, I am not having a cerebral vascular accident.
Or... would I know if I did?
I'm beginning to think that despite the handicaps of electronic voting, the manual voting procedure is also problematic because it puts limits on how often and how accessible voting can be, thereby limiting democratic participation. Perhaps it would be a fair tradeoff to give up on privacy in exchange for, say, being able to vote or recall your representatives on a monthly basis from the convenience of your home.
I would support electronic voting only if you fill the ballot out on paper and scan it in electronically to make a record of the ballot. Enure that the ballot has an ID number that is also scanned and ,as a mandatory procedure, each precinct should compare a small random sample of ballots to their electronic counterparts.
So what we do is treat electronic voting just the same as we treat paper voting. I don't think so. Voters can and should get personal copies of what they voted.There should be ways to rectify such errors by process which is both simple and quick. Verification methods should be robust and not include include near sighted people who need extra light to verify votes.
In fact it seems the government should not be in the business of supplying computers at sites for voters unless voters don't have computers connected to the internet. All the voter does is check in and vote, then when votes are to be counted queries should made to the voter's computer to verify his vote. against the voter's verification routine.
Absolutely not. Voting should be immune to coercion and bribery and that necessitates not being able to prove to a coercer how you voted.
Absolutely not. Voting should be immune to coercion and bribery and that necessitates not being able to prove to a coercer how you voted.
I presume you understood that the copy was made with your printed from software on your machine with the only link with the government being the number you were in the vote count.