What did Democrats do wrong?

[AmyStrange]

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.

Yes, it probably would be, but I'm just explaining how the data could be put out of reach of outside hackers, but TBH, I still like paper ballots too.


-

 

[AmyStrange]

Well. I tried. I failed. I walk away. But I thank you for your input.

You're welcome.


-

 

[ahhell]

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.

Valid point on the numbers, you are correct, tens of thousands not hundreds, otherwise? That seems to me to be an extraordinary claim, making anything on the internet hacker proof? You are just saying its easy and not actually showing its easy.

 

[Thermal]

Well. I tried. I failed. I walk away. But I thank you for your input.

The NPR article you linked (and thanks for that) shows that 34 US states and territories use some kind of online/fax/portal voting. There have been no breaches.

Do you think a secure password to a portal is conceptually un-doable?

 

[Thermal]

Valid point on the numbers, you are correct, tens of thousands not hundreds, otherwise? That seems to me to be an extraordinary claim, making anything on the internet hacker proof? You are just saying its easy and not actually showing its easy.

As 3.14's link showed, we already do it. In my fair state too. 300,000 votes cast electronically.

I believe we could demonstrate that those 300,000 votes alone could swing an election, if placed right.

I think its doable with a password /portal combination.

 

[AmyStrange]

As 3.14's link showed, we already do it. In my fair state too. 300,000 votes cast electronically.

I believe we could de.onstrate that those 300,000 votes alone could swing an election, if placed right.

I think.its doable with a password /portal combination.

Although. I agree, all you would need is some stupid underling to click on the wrong link or open the wrong e-mail.

IIRC, that's how the trump campaign's data got stolen, but please correct me if I'm wrong.


ETA: There are other ways to attack a computer hooked up to the internet without using e-mail, but that's one of the easiest.


-

 

[Thermal]

Although. I agree, all you would need is some stupid underling to click on the wrong link or open the wrong e-mail.

I think that's how the trump campaign's data got stolen, but please correct me if I'm wrong.


-

I don't remember the circumstances of the Trump data breach, sorry.

I'm thinking more along the lines of mass vote caging, that the voter is unaware of and casts a nullified ballot without being informed of it. It happened in NJ by the 10s of thousands in the Reagan reelection, and believed to have been larger in the Bush. The big problem with caging is the voter never knows his ballot was discarded. Electronically, you'd be notified that you were ineligible immediately and could contest it.

 

[AmyStrange]

I don't remember the circumstances of the Trump data breach, sorry.

I'm thinking more along the lines of mass vote caging, that the voter is unaware of and casts a nullified ballot without being informed of it. It happened in NJ by the 10s of thousands in the Reagan reelection, and believed to have been larger in the Bush. The big problem with caging is the voter never knows his ballot was discarded. Electronically, you'd be notified that you were ineligible immediately and could contest it.

Makes sense and thank you.


-

 

[mumblethrax]

As 3.14's link showed, we already do it. In my fair state too. 300,000 votes cast electronically.

The link also shows that cybersecurity experts warn that this is highly inadvisable and dangerous, and widespread adoption could be catastrophic.

There are way more issues than just site security here, and that's hardly a solved problem.

 

[Thermal]

The link also shows that cybersecurity experts warn that this is highly inadvisable and dangerous, and widespread adoption could be catastrophic.

There are way more issues than just site security here, and that's hardly a solved problem.

Of course, it's not a solved solution in place. I'm suggesting that some more robust version might be workable.

 

[mumblethrax]

Of course, it's not a solved solution in place. I'm suggesting that some more robust version might be workable.

When a blue ribbon panel of experts can't even agree on what would be necessary to make recommendations about how to get here from there, I think that's at best optimistic.

 

[Thermal]

When a blue ribbon panel of experts can't even agree on what would be necessary to make recommendations about how to get here from there, I think that's at best optimistic.

They surely did conclude that, after being paid to talk about it for a year. Then, in the article, the very next line is : "But the awkward fact is internet voting is already happening in every federal election." And zero breaches. So something is working already. I find it hard to believe it's simply impossible on a grander scale.

 

[mumblethrax]

They surely did conclude that, after being paid to talk about it for a year.

Come off it.

Then, in the article, the very next line is : "But the awkward fact is internet voting is already happening in every federal election." And zero breaches. So something is working already. I find it hard to believe it's simply impossible on a grander scale.

It's not an 'awkward fact' because it shows the experts wrong, it's awkward because it's a stupid thing to do.

And like I said, it's not just breaches you have to worry about.

 

[Agatha]

Return to sharing your opinions about why the Democratic Party lost the election, please. We have threads to express your opinions on abortion, trans issues and hypothetical future technology; please use those threads for such discussions and not this one.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Thermal]

Ok. "What did the Democrats do wrong?"

A. Nothing. They voted, they were in the minority, and they lost.

B. They forgot it was election day, or felt that voting was too much trouble.

C. They didn't hold enough Republicans captive in their basements on Election Day.

Others?

 

[Samson]

I was saying: The popular vote, nationwide, isn't what determines who wins and who loses. It's the popular vote at the state level that determines this.

Losing 100,000 votes in California doesn't matter; losing 100,000 voters in swing states matters A LOT.

I got to thinking. Kamala Harris never had kids. I have a sneaking suspicion this hurt her. I don't know why it should, from a rational standpoint; I just think it may have made her a little less relatable.

On that subject, a well known New Zealander, Bob Jones considers Trump an unmitigated disgrace and wholly unfit for office, but asked for something positive about the man he said his children.

"Recently discussing Trump the issue arose as to there’s anything one can say that’s positive about him. Yes, there is, specifically his children, now all adults, who all seem to be very civil, albeit that may be more attributable to their mothers."

And with JD Vance seemingly almost assured of the presidency in 2028, his friendship with these people should be encouraging.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, my fellow repubs can't attack him for what he did, because... well, because the maga weirdoes picked trump this time around, and he's definitely no shining example of the squeaky-clean politician, but like I said, what do I know?


-

MAGA attack people regardless of what their chosen deity has done. Hypocrisy has no meaning to them.

 

[Hercules56]

Hmm, seems Kamala's campaign website was pretty light. Should have drop down menus and buttons to press on to see how she will deal with each issue. They should have tried harder.

https://kamalaharris.com/issues/

 

[AmyStrange]

MAGA attack people regardless of what their chosen deity has done. Hypocrisy has no meaning to them.

That's true, but the difference between him and trump and the maga weirdoes is he took responsibility for what he did, while all those other creeps never have, which probably won't mean much to them, but that might make a whole lot of difference in the next election, especially to those who didn't vote in this election (giving trump the win) and this might be enough to give them an incentive to vote with a vengeance in the next one, but what do I know?


-

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Ok. "What did the Democrats do wrong?"

A. Nothing. They voted, they were in the minority, and they lost.

B. They forgot it was election day, or felt that voting was too much trouble.

C. They didn't hold enough Republicans captive in their basements on Election Day.

Others?

Yes, others. This thread has suggested any number of others.

Even if one accepts that Democratic losses were inevitable, it does not follow that the DNC did nothing wrong, and it still behooves one to figure out what they might do better next time.

Unranked teams that get stomped by Oregon should still study the game film afterward.