Thermal
August Member
Better than mail: online. Everything electronically verified. No more ballots discarded or lost or burned by a Republican.
What did Democrats do wrong?
- Thread starter Hercules56
- Start date
Good point, no
Sounds like a fascist.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
With very basic site security, no they wouldn't. This would not be a complicated site with unforeseen vulnerabilities. Simple and straightforward can be made more bulletproof than mailing in a piece of paper.
You are going to have to provide more evidence than an assertion that internet voting can be made hacker proof. Pretty much every other day there's some story about some major corporation or government agency has been hacked but no, its apparently simple to make things hack proof, I guess.
Paper ballots aren't bullet proof, but at least you need hundreds of millions of bullets to actually rig the presidential election.
Paper ballots aren't bullet proof, but at least you need hundreds of millions of bullets to actually rig the presidential election.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,093
For me, the advantage of paper ballots is that anyone can understand it. Anyone can observe it and see if it's being done correctly or if it's being tampered with
Electronic voting does not have these advantages.
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,017
The consensus from cybersecurity professionals is "Hell, no." There are a few trial programs around the world, and Estonia has gone fully online, but then Estonia also has a national ID card with relatively sophisticated security features.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
I'm not an expert, but one way is after someone votes, a copy could then be physically made and moved to a server that is not internet connected. I'm not exactly sure how that could be done, but I'm sure some professional, hacker experts could figure out a way to do it.
If a server isn't connected to the internet, it can't be hacked, unless someone who has access to that computer does it in person.
It's how some of the NSA and LE computers are configured.
-
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,093
So, you have no idea how it could be done, but you're sure it can be done, despite having no knowledge or expertise?
Perhaps you want to reconsider your position after thinking critically about it?
No?
Fair enough...
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Well, it certainly seems that despite having no knowledge or expertise either, you seem to think it can't be done, so maybe you should also reconsider your position after thinking critically about it.
And FYI, I've been working with computers since 1973 (through the USAF as an ECM tech), so it's not like I have no knowledge of computers.
I'm just not an expert hacker, although I do know a lot about it.
-
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,093
I didn't make a claim. You did. I'm just questioning the (very shaky) basis upon which you made your claim, which was "I'm not an expert" and " I'm not exactly sure how that could be done".
That you believe heartily that it would be safe, after having admitted you are not an expert and you don't know how it could be done, quite frankly, baffles me.
Then I'd expect you to know better.
Such is life.
Thermal
August Member
Which, as I already said, has more to do with complicated sites having unforeseen vulnerabilities.
The technology isn't much more complicated than the pin code on an iPhone, or a password. The trick is simply making the pin long enough. Like, the program to hack past all possible pins for a four digit password is seconds, iirc. For 17 digits, it takes years. By initiating the three strikes and lockout protocol, it's basically impossible to hack into. On the other end, it is closed to other connections, just tabulation and recording votes with registered voters in the district.
Conceptually it shouldn't be particularly challenging.
As we have seen, no. You often need a few thousand in key areas to swing a vote. We had a problem with mass challenging without the voters knowledge way back in the Reagan Era. Paper voters didn't even know their ballots were being tossed by the thousands. The same happened with Bush.
Eta: and hundreds of millions? Really, dude? Neither candidate had even one hundred million votes TOTAL, and the regular voting kept it close to 50/50 anyway. Election throwing is a few thousand in the right place, not hundreds of millions.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Yes, that's why I do know better and also know it can be done. I'm just not an expert on what specific procedures to use to do it, but please do continue. I need another good laugh today.
-
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,957
Seems to me the more obvious solution is to put people who discard or burn ballots in jail, and to fire anybody who loses them.
Thermal
August Member
Dup
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Sure, just discarded or lost or burned by a vast inscrutable database, with inadequate controls, inadequate auditing, and a vendor that refuses to take responsibility... on an industrial scale.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,093
Well, you'll forgive me if I think this:
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1192723913/internet-voting-explainer (from here: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...t-did-democrats-do-wrong.372826/post-14439717) is more credible than your baseless assertions and self confessed lack of knowledge.
Still, takes all sorts, eh?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
As someone who's made a career of working with computers, your proposal strikes me as prohibitively expensive, and likely to create more problems than it solves.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Thermal
August Member
It should. But they keep getting around that.
Also, one of my kids had to wait nearly four freaking hours to cast her vote. That kind of thing should be long behind us. I think we need a way to get higher voter participation.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,093
Well. I tried. I failed. I walk away. But I thank you for your input.