You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Children Hack the Election and “F**k With the Public” at DEFCON – #NewWorldNextWeek
Then we're back to this though:
"Voters being able to verify that their vote was counted sounds nice, but I’m thinking that would ultimately be quite meaningless, since the establishment could just make up voters who vote in its favor. “But a state only has so many people living in it, so the establishment can’t just make up voters.” Well, maybe not after the fact…"
I disagree that independent verification would be unable to reveal unverifiable votes.
How could phantom voters be added to the rolls and cast votes that could not be detected by public auditors?
Not sure what I said that you disagree with.
By "public auditors," do you mean voters who call other voters?
Independent auditors are groups or individuals that conduct verification and are not officials or agents of government.
What you said that I disagree with is:
Independent verification would detect such vote fraud. This would only be meaningless insofar as proof of vote fraud was meaningless.
While I do not propose particular mechanisms to prosecute election fraud, that has not been the topic. I reckon such mechanisms are either extant or can be effected.
But how these (supposedly) independent people know who is a legitimate voter and who isn't? I mean, again, voice changing technology exists, and the government could simply make voters up.
Let's take the last point first. Fake voters cannot answer the telephone and verify that they cast a vote.
If those fake voters are given phone numbers that some team somewhere answers, this is a higher level of fraud that is vastly more expensive than simply making them up, as is done now.
Voice changing technology is a further expense and complication, and it's easily detectable. If a voter being called to verify their vote is using a voice changer, that vote is not verified.
An individual who wants to verify votes can access public records to compare those individual voters they call to their public record. Voter registration records are public records.
Yes, I was mostly talking about higher levels of fraud, as in, for example, establishment troll farms.
I don't think the average person who wants to verify a vote can hear the difference between an actual human voice and something like this:
Not to mention, imagine what kind of voice changing technology the establishment may have access to.
If people's voter data were next to their vote, then everyone would know how everyone voted. If you have to ask the person you're calling for their voter data, then they can simply refuse to tell you or, of course, lie. They may also not answer the phone to begin with. And if you track a voter down via their voter data, you may find that they're dead or "dead":
First, not everyone is competent to do everything they want to do. Fail happens. Nothing is ever without drawbacks.
It is absolutely true that there will be some choices regarding how we reveal information that need to be made regarding voting, but that is true about everything else as well, as information technology changes the landscape.
What I am confident of is that using decentralized blockchain technology to record votes is verifiable, secure, and vastly reduces fraud.
Given that public sentiment has been scientifically proved to have no statistical relevance to legislation enacted, and the sea change in the relationship between American government and free people, it is clear to me that this would be a beneficial change in voting.
Corruption and fraud are the hallmarks of democracy today. The purchase of the Democratic nomination in 2016 by HRC, and the failure of the courts to rule it fraud is revealing how democracy now is little more than pretense that allows the public to believe they choose.
The reality is that individual and collective voters are ignored, and politicians empowered by corrupt monied interests.
While not without problems, decentralized blockchain voting will prevent troll farms, DNC primary rigging, and various other forms of corruption from fooling the public into believing they elected their officials.
Better minds than mine, giving it more thought and effort than I have here, will be able to address better the concerns regarding information security and verification.
As I said, my experience with verification was undertaken simply to make sure market research employees weren't falsifying their records for pay, and that is a far lower priority task than election fraud prevention.
Individuals cannot differentiate between voice changing technology by ear, and not everyone will possess appropriate means and skill to do verification. That does not mean verification is impossible, or even difficult.
Ballot box stuffing has been happening for centuries. Diebold machines are child's play to hack. Decentralized blockchain technology is orders of magnitude more secure, and it is only going to happen if we make it happen against the will of the corrupt parties profiting from extant corrupt systems.
"What I am confident of is that using decentralized blockchain technology to record votes is verifiable, secure, and vastly reduces fraud."
How can you possibly say and mean that at this point (especially when you didn't refute my arguments)? I mean, this is getting beyond weird. But, before I go, here's how I think you prevent election fraud:
votes must be cast on paper ballots, not on electronic voting machines
ballots must be thrown into a see-through object that is placed on another see-through object that is at least 2 feet tall
the ballots must be counted by hand and in public
the people counting the vote must not wear gloves or long-sleeved clothing
people attending the vote must be allowed to film both the ballot box and the vote count