All the propositions were defeated. I admit I voted in favor of the communistic Prop 79, but I never really thought it would pass. Oh well
( Read more... )
Paper is very important. I really do not like the idea behind these Diebold machines. Printing will cause a huge pain, though. How often do you have to unjam or replace the print cartridge on the printer in your home or office? Now imagine your printer just sits unused for a year--do you expect it to work well? The entire thing would have to be regreased, ink replaces, etc. You'd need the ability to reprint ballots, too, which would open up the possibility of your ballot becoming non-secret.
Being able to look up your vote online is also bad as it would allow for voter intimidation. The only thing that should be checkable outside of the polling place is that your vote was included in the tally.
I think marking paper with ink is a fine method that everyone born in the last...3000 years(?) knows how to do. When did we first start marking tree bark with animal blood?
Someone should test how well the Diebold machines respond to a degaussing coil. It feels like we're leaving our democracy in the hands of a few morons as-is.
You can accomplish redundancy with two different databases, but only paper gives you an absolute canonical record. I mean, if the computers differ, which vote do you take? Do you just throw the vote out? This will be especially important for the first couple of years of using the machines. Hopefully after a couple of years of trials,
I also disagree that you should be able to log in with the receipt and some personal information. There should be no connection between the voter and his record, other than the ID number which he happens to have. The ID shouldn't know when it was issued.
I'm sensitive to thatdumbjerk's point about printer paper jams, but office printers are designed to take a lot of different types of paper and are loaded by random idiots. How often does an ATM paper receipt jam? I think it would be a matter of using equipment and paper that's standardized for not-jamming.
You can accomplish redundancy with two different databases, but only paper gives you an absolute canonical record. I mean, if the computers differ, which vote do you take?
What? If a computer prints out the paper, what makes it more authoritative? What you're basically saying is that with a paper ballot the user could verify the accuracy of thier vote before submitting it fully and then the paper ballot wouldn't change over time so it would perfectly preserve the correct vote. But fundamentally that system is based on the verification process by the user, so if the electronic system allows that same verification to take place at any time after the vote is cast, it doesn't matter that electronic information is more easily changed.
I also disagree that you should be able to log in with the receipt and some personal information. There should be no connection between the voter and his record, other than the ID number which he happens to have. The ID shouldn't know when it was issued.This is obviously a failure of my explaination.
( ... )
I don't much care about the paper ballot, honestly. I just think it would make people feel better, at least for the first few years, and I just wanted to show that it would be easy to do. All we need are two redundant databases that each independently store the votes, so that the two databases can be compared with one another
( ... )
The election results warmed my cold, cynical heart. I was expecting to be disappointed like I've been after every recent election, but no, it actually went the way I wanted it to! Thanks, Californians!
As for the electronic voting machines, couldn't you get a permanent absentee ballot instead? At least then it'll always be paper.
Comments 16
Maria (from fitspiration)
Reply
Reply
Being able to look up your vote online is also bad as it would allow for voter intimidation. The only thing that should be checkable outside of the polling place is that your vote was included in the tally.
I think marking paper with ink is a fine method that everyone born in the last...3000 years(?) knows how to do. When did we first start marking tree bark with animal blood?
Someone should test how well the Diebold machines respond to a degaussing coil. It feels like we're leaving our democracy in the hands of a few morons as-is.
Reply
Reply
I also disagree that you should be able to log in with the receipt and some personal information. There should be no connection between the voter and his record, other than the ID number which he happens to have. The ID shouldn't know when it was issued.
I'm sensitive to thatdumbjerk's point about printer paper jams, but office printers are designed to take a lot of different types of paper and are loaded by random idiots. How often does an ATM paper receipt jam? I think it would be a matter of using equipment and paper that's standardized for not-jamming.
Reply
What? If a computer prints out the paper, what makes it more authoritative? What you're basically saying is that with a paper ballot the user could verify the accuracy of thier vote before submitting it fully and then the paper ballot wouldn't change over time so it would perfectly preserve the correct vote. But fundamentally that system is based on the verification process by the user, so if the electronic system allows that same verification to take place at any time after the vote is cast, it doesn't matter that electronic information is more easily changed.
I also disagree that you should be able to log in with the receipt and some personal information. There should be no connection between the voter and his record, other than the ID number which he happens to have. The ID shouldn't know when it was issued.This is obviously a failure of my explaination. ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
As for the electronic voting machines, couldn't you get a permanent absentee ballot instead? At least then it'll always be paper.
Reply
Also, yeah, my heart was warmed too.
Reply
Leave a comment