voting receipts (1 Viewer)

[captain_amazing]

Making someone confused is a form of racism since it hinders their ability to vote properly.

hi

 

[The Commish]

The problem with this is that it would require making voting easy, and the GOP is more concerned with voter suppression.

It may be naive of me but I won't completely believe this, at least about everyday Republicans, until an average Joe GOPer tells me this himself. I believe that all of us who aren't actually in the election business want honest elections. In a country that routinely processes billions of commercial transactions daily, it amazes me that we can't get this right. 

I hope this sentiment doesn't get me thrown out of the Trump-bashers club because I really enjoy my membership there.

Don't think the exclusion of voters is unique to either party.  They just present it in different ways.  Caucuses are the ultimate form of voter suppression.  We hardly ever hear about that process though.  

 

[tone1oc]

Don't think the exclusion of voters is unique to either party.  They just present it in different ways.  Caucuses are the ultimate form of voter suppression.  We hardly ever hear about that process though.  

Please point me to policy written by a Democrat that makes it harder for someone to vote, I'll wait.

 

[The Commish]

Don't think the exclusion of voters is unique to either party.  They just present it in different ways.  Caucuses are the ultimate form of voter suppression.  We hardly ever hear about that process though.  

Please point me to policy written by a Democrat that makes it harder for someone to vote, I'll wait.

How about a process that flat out says "sorry, you're group isn't big enough, vote for someone else".  Would that suffice?

 

[tone1oc]

How about a process that flat out says "sorry, you're group isn't big enough, vote for someone else".  Would that suffice?

I think you are talking about something else. 

 

[mr. furley]

77000 dead people found on the active voter rolls in New York, 2600 of them actually voted after death.

a whopping 0.003%. 0.0001% of whom "voted".

STAGGERING CORRUPTION.

i work in an industry that records and pays out to retirees. dead people get paid. it happens. it's not because of corruption or fraud in 99.99% of cases. it's just human error.

 

[The Commish]

I think you are talking about something else. 

I'm talking about voter suppression.  What are you talking about?

 

[tone1oc]

I'm talking about voter suppression.  What are you talking about?

I think you are complaining about caucuses right?

 

[The Commish]

I'm talking about voter suppression.  What are you talking about?

I think you are complaining about caucuses right?

It's one of many ways to suppress a vote.

 

[tone1oc]

It's one of many ways to suppress a vote.

A political party having a caucus is not suppressing a vote.  I think the process is dated, but it has nothing to do with lawmakers making laws making it harder for people to vote in general elections.  

I'm pretty sure you are a Berner, forgive me if I'm wrong on that, but he cleaned up on the caucuses.. Do you think that was unfair to HRC voters?

 

[The Commish]

A political party having a caucus is not suppressing a vote.  I think the process is dated, but it has nothing to do with lawmakers making laws making it harder for people to vote in general elections.  

I'm pretty sure you are a Berner, forgive me if I'm wrong on that, but he cleaned up on the caucuses.. Do you think that was unfair to HRC voters?

There's no need to compare them to other methods of suppression unless you're just picking and choosing what you want to be upset about with respect to voter suppression.  The end result is the same.  Yes, it was unfair to anyone who wanted to walk in and vote for someone and they were told they can't.  Doesn't matter to me who they were going in to vote for.  If you want another example, go to any state where a "day of" write in vote isn't allowed.  That's another form of voter suppression. 

 

[tone1oc]

There's no need to compare them to other methods of suppression unless you're just picking and choosing what you want to be upset about with respect to voter suppression.  The end result is the same.  Yes, it was unfair to anyone who wanted to walk in and vote for someone and they were told they can't.  Doesn't matter to me who they were going in to vote for.  If you want another example, go to any state where a "day of" write in vote isn't allowed.  That's another form of voter suppression. 

A caucus is a function of a certtain state's political party primary process.  It is not voter suppression.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The problem with this is that it would require making voting easy, and the GOP is more concerned with voter suppression.

It actually doesn't make voting an easier.  At best, it makes voting no more difficult.  As moleculo pointed out, it might require some form of identification, which would actually make voting harder, not easier (fine with me).

As another poster noted, the actual reason why we don't do this is because it makes it easier to buy/reward/punish votes.  It's a corruption issue from the bad old days of machines.  

 

[Thorpe]

There is the problem of voting being anonymous.  Whatever fraud prevention system is put in place would have to compromise anonymity in some way.  For instance, if you  printed in the newspaper everyone's name and how they voted, fraud would be impossible, but then a lot of people would be afraid to vote against certain people. 

 

[The Commish]

There's no need to compare them to other methods of suppression unless you're just picking and choosing what you want to be upset about with respect to voter suppression.  The end result is the same.  Yes, it was unfair to anyone who wanted to walk in and vote for someone and they were told they can't.  Doesn't matter to me who they were going in to vote for.  If you want another example, go to any state where a "day of" write in vote isn't allowed.  That's another form of voter suppression. 

A caucus is a function of a certtain state's political party primary process.  It is not voter suppression.

Spin how you see fit.  When you tell me I can't vote for X person (beyond what the Constitution says), it's suppressing my vote.  It's not complicated.

 

[The Commish]

You know, this is a fair criticism I haven't been able to work out. I could totally see someone demanding to see receipts to prove his employees, family, whatever, voted a certain way. I don't know how to work around this yet. Totally spot on as a fair issue that would need to be figured out, and I'm not sure how. I thought about encryption methods and some stuff like that, but, I can't really get around it.

Don't spit out a receipt.   

 

[tone1oc]

Spin how you see fit.  When you tell me I can't vote for X person, it's suppressing my vote.  It's not complicated.

I am not spinning anything.  Caucuses were not created or used to suppress votes.  This is a fact.  Sure, some people may not want to take part in a caucus process but that doesn't mean it's designed to suppress the votes.  

And by the way, a polotical party's duty is to nominate a candidate, not elect government officials.  There is a clear and big difference.  

 

[Phil Elliott]

My polling place shows the actual printed ballot in a window for you to approve or reject before completing your vote. They don't all do this?

Are those the results actually reported?

 

[The Commish]

I am not spinning anything.  Caucuses were not created or used to suppress votes.  This is a fact.  Sure, some people may not want to take part in a caucus process but that doesn't mean it's designed to suppress the votes.  

And by the way, a polotical party's duty is to nominate a candidate, not elect government officials.  There is a clear and big difference.  

"designed" or not makes little difference to me....they suppress a vote.  "I didn't mean for it to do that" isn't really an excuse I am interested in entertaining.

 

[The Commish]

Hi Commish. Thanks for your input. Like I said above, I'm not saying I have a perfect solution to the problem. I'm open to discussing others. I'm very interested in ways we can make our great system even better, and even more safe and secure. I hate the idea that we can know, for sure, that fraud has occurred in an election, but we have no way of undoing it. And that we do not allow for re-votes or have any other method of figuring out who won fairly. If you have other ideas, I welcome them. I promise I'll give them fair weight and consideration with an open mind. I've put a little thought into it, here and there, as a bit of a diversion. I welcome conversation with others who are interested in solving problems and coming up with off-the-wall ideas. So if you have thoughts of your own, I'm happy to hear them

The good news is, trace-ability is much easier online than with the archaic system we have now.  We can detect fraud easier and find out where it's coming from easier.  

 

[tone1oc]

"designed" or not makes little difference to me....they suppress a vote.  "I didn't mean for it to do that" isn't really an excuse I am interested in entertaining.

It's not voter suppression, you just made that up.   You've been on this Orwellian permamelt for a while now, but it doesn't make it true.

 

[The Commish]

It's not voter suppression, you just made that up.   You've been on this Orwellian permamelt for a while now, but it doesn't make it true.

of course it is....interesting you jumped right to the conspiracy theory shtick..how GOP of you.  There's no conspiracy theory involved here.  It's simple....if I walk into a polling place and they tell me I can't vote for Hillary Clinton, they are suppressing my ability to vote for Hillary Clinton.  No amount of spin can change that.

 

[Koya]

We do get donuts.

 I guess that's a kinda (really tasty) receipt?

 

[tone1oc]

of course it is....interesting you jumped right to the conspiracy theory shtick..how GOP of you.  There's no conspiracy theory involved here.  It's simple....if I walk into a polling place and they tell me I can't vote for Hillary Clinton, they are suppressing my ability to vote for Hillary Clinton.  No amount of spin can change that.

You can vote for Hillary Clinton, several times, if you go to a caucus.  You are wrong.

 

[NutterButter]

And to be clear on this point, I don't believe that if there's an open loophole that no one has exploited yet, that means we don't have to fix it. That would be like a software coder saying "well, there's a big security bug in this thing, but, no hacker's found it yet, so, no need to patch it." I don't believe in waiting for the horses to leave to work on ways to close the barn doors.

It's a system. It can be improved. It'll never be perfect, but, that's no reason to not try and make better what we have now. That's how progress happens in every time, ever.

Uh, I do that all the time with bugs that I found that are going to be pretty difficult to fix.   Granted they're not security bugs, but I don't work on highly vulnerable software either.

 

[Thorpe]

You'd do the same thing for votes. You'd encrypt the master voting file, and each person would individually be able to check their vote, but, if the master file got out, no one would be able to decode the whole thing and see who everyone voted for.

To actually implement this into a secure system, there'd have to be a few extra rounds of encoding and 'salts' to the encryption process. Like, each voter would have to have a PIN, either assigned to them or created on election day. Or something like that. But, it's not infeasible to work out a system that is secure.

 A system like yours would still not be 100% anonymous.  A "political boss" could force a voter to show his voter receipt.  Also, if someone (probably a company that makes the voting machines) has the capability of hacking the existing voting system, they can probably hack whatever system is put in place.

IMO, the voting software should be uniform across the country, and it should be open source to make sure there is no trickery. 

 

[pantagrapher]

Ahhhh, I see. This is another Rampant Vote Fraud thread. How surprising.

 

[The Commish]

You can vote for Hillary Clinton, several times, if you go to a caucus.  You are wrong.

only if she's popular enough for the venue to say I can    

 

[roadkill1292]

I think the goal of having honest, fair and easily accessible elections is a good one. And I think technology can be put to great use to meet this goal.

 

[pantagrapher]

Dude. Technology keeps improving. What is the opposition to continually improving our own systems? 

We've had printed receipt technology since the dawn of human commerce.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Ahhhh, I see. This is another Rampant Vote Fraud thread. How surprising.

Actually it was intended as a "lets insure confidence in the system thread by making it transparent and confirmable."

Do I believe there is a massive problem, no.  Do I believe the far right worries about individual voters committing voter fraud, yes.  Do I believe the far left worries about vote tallying fraud having theories about Diebold, Haliburtan, and **** Cheney, yes.  Do I think that we can easily institute a system where we can check that our votes were accurately tallied and that our voter I.D. was only voted once, and by us, easily.  I see little reason to not instill faith and accountability in the system.  The system is one that needs to operate on moral authority and consent of the populace.  I see no reason to not assure the populace that the system is not corrupt, even if their fears or worries might be exaggerated or fanciful. 

 

[pantagrapher]

I guess if you guys want voting receipts that badly, knock yourselves out. It's silly. 

 

[pantagrapher]

Even if voter fraud has never happened, shouldn't we strive to ensure it stays that way? 

We should install dragon traps on rooftops, too. Cuz you never know.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I guess if you guys want voting receipts that badly, knock yourselves out. It's silly. 

Silly.  That sums me up well.  I am just a Silly.