I think paper ballots being counted in public is the best. I vote absentee as most californians do .We don't trust the machines . My paper ballot has a tear off receipt I can go down have have my receipt matched with my ballot if I have any doubts.
Voting on paper is just as susceptible to fraud as our current system. I'm sure Russia, Iran, and Venezuela will tell you as much. The correct implementation is open source software and hardware using actual cryptographic methods that prevent fraud. This is a solved problem with in-the-wild implementations of the solution, just not applied to voting for "who knows" what reason.
@DeJach That sounded nice but it doesn't make sense to me. Digital data can always be forged, open source or not. If say, we had cameras watching the ballots go in the box, and cameras watch the box be opened and counted at the same location ... then where does the opportunity for forgery come in?
@DeJach So basically you're saying "smart people know what it is, so we should blindly trust them." That doesn't make me trust them or the technique that they claim is flawless and more than some stranger on the internet claiming I should. Video cameras don't make errors and they can't be hacked. Point 2 at every important spot and you're covered. No matter how many big words you use, computers are always hackable.
@onlywhenprovoked As someone who has hacked webcams before I disagree with your assertion that video cams can't be hacked. I'm amused you follow up that assertion with "computers are always hackable." But you're right you shouldn't trust my word: go read up on cryptology and encryption. I'd be happy to paste some material here but for Youtube's text limit and lack of LaTeX for formatting math. Open source is important, as while the math is sound the implementation might not be.
@DeJach Obviously I didn't mean "hack into a webcam". You know that. Please don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I'll try not to do the same to you.
I'm OBVIOUSLY talking about how you can't make a persons arm reaching for a ballot and sticking it in their pocket disappear from 2 independent cameras.
And how the hell does "cel phones cameras caught people with purple fingers" do anything but prove that the video was the only method that worked in that case?
@onlywhenprovoked Except you can. Regular cameras aren't fundamentally different from webcams especially if they're connected to a network. (Even if they're not they are susceptible and not just by software attacks.)
The cell phone cameras proves that 1) no one cared and 2) the presence of cameras didn't stop fraud. (The purple fingers was also a bad idea since I remember hearing that some people with purple fingers had their fingers cut off by the local extremists.)
@onlywhenprovoked Look, I'm fine with having video cameras record people's votes, the counting, etc. It's an extra layer of security no matter how weak. But using encryption methods stops certain classes of fraud from even happening instead of relying on after-the-fact correction alone.
@onlywhenprovoked It's been a while since I looked at the methods, so I looked for some new methods and I discovered the simple low-tech Rivest and Smith's protocols from 2007. (Please Google.) So it looks like "complicated cryptography" isn't required, which is useful. I had a very similar idea to VAV back in 2005 (I think it's simpler from the voter's perspective) that uses (in my opinion simple) cryptographic methods.
@judyleasugar97 Double-votes (or more), votes of dead people, votes of fictitious people. The term "stuff the ballot box" comes specifically from a glaring flaw in paper votes. There were videos of a recent Afghanistan election where their solution was to dye people's fingers purple if they had already voted that wasn't easy to wash off. (It didn't' stop people with the mark from voting again as the video showed.) Furthermore human counting is less accurate than machine counting.
@DeJach I don't agree. The examples you're using were ages ago and/or third world shit holes and had no access to the kind of video recording technology we all have in our pockets, now. We're talking about cameras.... pointed at the box, at the people counting them. There's no way to slight of hand a video camera. It doesn't get distracted like the human eye.
@onlywhenprovoked I think the fact that video cameras (mostly cell phones) recorded double-voting by purple-finger-marked individuals disproves your point. There's a second element of enforcement that you have to take into account, the joys of a proper implementation of various encryption methods (think: why can't you cash a check twice even though banks let you deposit by just taking a picture?) means a lot of choice-to-enforce problems go away.
@DeJach: Do you know how rare voter fraud is? Compared to election fraud, dare I say it, Bush's two terms? Hartmann has talked about this. Paper is the only modestly safe form of voting for now.
@TruthAndMoreTruth That's just the thing. The right-wingers often get away with this kind of shit because the authorities themselves are right-wing as well. It's an American tradition.
Who owns/runs Command Central (voting machine company) that is replacing Opti-Scans machines for free???
dael4 1 month ago
I think paper ballots being counted in public is the best. I vote absentee as most californians do .We don't trust the machines . My paper ballot has a tear off receipt I can go down have have my receipt matched with my ballot if I have any doubts.
420gma 1 month ago
Voting on paper is just as susceptible to fraud as our current system. I'm sure Russia, Iran, and Venezuela will tell you as much. The correct implementation is open source software and hardware using actual cryptographic methods that prevent fraud. This is a solved problem with in-the-wild implementations of the solution, just not applied to voting for "who knows" what reason.
DeJach 1 month ago
@DeJach That sounded nice but it doesn't make sense to me. Digital data can always be forged, open source or not. If say, we had cameras watching the ballots go in the box, and cameras watch the box be opened and counted at the same location ... then where does the opportunity for forgery come in?
onlywhenprovoked 1 month ago
@onlywhenprovoked Forge this (okay I truncated it since it wouldn't fit):
hQEMA8Zh/T88z7EhAQf/SPSO6rSBX9NBDF0ON62qqtVjCRBQxU8RBBTHnVHgZcTU
jSNRaKpyv1ECrwi/UPWgFt0WU4GWHWOSJiUCl0E3DgGQVaL6Zrcsa22KHv1VY+nF
l4JOEy7FSDzSIoOAeUtGm37fXqwXMVf77FczGO9AnHbbiSAfXWwzzUi5A2yHT8sY
D2GP6c30ylGDnNkDxIyJKQy7pTRvBb0Sgzz0D2McWPLF7stCh0tv3fCEhtSaetc
I can't get into the details of anti-forgery math with Youtube comments, all I can say is it exists and you can learn it by studying cryptology.
DeJach 1 month ago
@onlywhenprovoked Forge this (okay I truncated it since it wouldn't fit):
hQEMA8Zh/T88z7EhAQfSPSO6rSBX9NBDF0ON62qqtVjCRBQxU8RBBTHnVHgZcTU
jSNRaKpyv1ECrwi/UPWgFt0WU4GWHWOSJiUCl0E3DgGQVaL6Zrcsa22KHv1VY+nF
l4JOEy7FSDzSIoOAeUtGm37fXqwXMVf77FczGO9AnHbbiSAfXWwzzUi5A2yHT8sY
D2GP6c30ylGDnNkDxIyJKQy7pTRvBb0Sgzz0D2McWPLF7stCh0tv3fCEhtSaetc
I can't get into the details of anti-forgery math with Youtube comments, all I can say is it exists and you can learn it by studying cryptology.
DeJach 1 month ago
@DeJach So basically you're saying "smart people know what it is, so we should blindly trust them." That doesn't make me trust them or the technique that they claim is flawless and more than some stranger on the internet claiming I should. Video cameras don't make errors and they can't be hacked. Point 2 at every important spot and you're covered. No matter how many big words you use, computers are always hackable.
onlywhenprovoked 1 month ago
@onlywhenprovoked As someone who has hacked webcams before I disagree with your assertion that video cams can't be hacked. I'm amused you follow up that assertion with "computers are always hackable." But you're right you shouldn't trust my word: go read up on cryptology and encryption. I'd be happy to paste some material here but for Youtube's text limit and lack of LaTeX for formatting math. Open source is important, as while the math is sound the implementation might not be.
DeJach 1 month ago
@DeJach Obviously I didn't mean "hack into a webcam". You know that. Please don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I'll try not to do the same to you.
I'm OBVIOUSLY talking about how you can't make a persons arm reaching for a ballot and sticking it in their pocket disappear from 2 independent cameras.
And how the hell does "cel phones cameras caught people with purple fingers" do anything but prove that the video was the only method that worked in that case?
onlywhenprovoked 1 month ago
@onlywhenprovoked Except you can. Regular cameras aren't fundamentally different from webcams especially if they're connected to a network. (Even if they're not they are susceptible and not just by software attacks.)
The cell phone cameras proves that 1) no one cared and 2) the presence of cameras didn't stop fraud. (The purple fingers was also a bad idea since I remember hearing that some people with purple fingers had their fingers cut off by the local extremists.)
DeJach 1 month ago
@onlywhenprovoked Look, I'm fine with having video cameras record people's votes, the counting, etc. It's an extra layer of security no matter how weak. But using encryption methods stops certain classes of fraud from even happening instead of relying on after-the-fact correction alone.
DeJach 1 month ago
@onlywhenprovoked It's been a while since I looked at the methods, so I looked for some new methods and I discovered the simple low-tech Rivest and Smith's protocols from 2007. (Please Google.) So it looks like "complicated cryptography" isn't required, which is useful. I had a very similar idea to VAV back in 2005 (I think it's simpler from the voter's perspective) that uses (in my opinion simple) cryptographic methods.
DeJach 1 month ago
@DeJach: How is voting on paper susceptible to fraud? Particularly as the guy said, counted in front of the public.
judyleasugar97 1 month ago
@judyleasugar97 Double-votes (or more), votes of dead people, votes of fictitious people. The term "stuff the ballot box" comes specifically from a glaring flaw in paper votes. There were videos of a recent Afghanistan election where their solution was to dye people's fingers purple if they had already voted that wasn't easy to wash off. (It didn't' stop people with the mark from voting again as the video showed.) Furthermore human counting is less accurate than machine counting.
DeJach 1 month ago
@DeJach I don't agree. The examples you're using were ages ago and/or third world shit holes and had no access to the kind of video recording technology we all have in our pockets, now. We're talking about cameras.... pointed at the box, at the people counting them. There's no way to slight of hand a video camera. It doesn't get distracted like the human eye.
onlywhenprovoked 1 month ago
@onlywhenprovoked I think the fact that video cameras (mostly cell phones) recorded double-voting by purple-finger-marked individuals disproves your point. There's a second element of enforcement that you have to take into account, the joys of a proper implementation of various encryption methods (think: why can't you cash a check twice even though banks let you deposit by just taking a picture?) means a lot of choice-to-enforce problems go away.
DeJach 1 month ago
Comment removed
x0PUNKER0X 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeJach: Do you know how rare voter fraud is? Compared to election fraud, dare I say it, Bush's two terms? Hartmann has talked about this. Paper is the only modestly safe form of voting for now.
x0PUNKER0X 1 month ago
@judyleasugar97 Paper is only susceptible to fraud if it is hand counted. If it is counted by machine then it might be susceptible to fraud.
captcrais101 1 month ago
yeah well, ya know, the rules dont apply to certain people...or so they think.
VoVaKissCam 1 month ago
They brought down ACORN over NOTHING!
An organization that actually helped people no longer exist over empty accusations that were proven baseless and without merit.
Here we have actual voter fraud in plain site, by the same side of the political spectrum that brought down acorn.
TruthAndMoreTruth 1 month ago 6
@TruthAndMoreTruth That's just the thing. The right-wingers often get away with this kind of shit because the authorities themselves are right-wing as well. It's an American tradition.
Homer177 1 month ago