Got a hypothetical question about voting and how y'all would handle a situation

[JuvenalsCat]

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended. Assume this system is effective and it keeps your vote and your identity as a person detached. Imagine it uses a checksum of a ballot ID and your vote to do the verification... Also, assume these can only be checked using special devices in these specific situations. Your iphone cannot do it. Now, let's also assume there is a rule that if a certain threshold of test ballots come back as not matching, this would cause the election results to be thrown out and for a new election to be held. If you knew or had a good reason to believe your candidate wasn't going to win, would you purposefully make it so the audit on your ballot would fail, and thus contribute toward forcing a new election to be held?

 

[kyzr]

No.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended. Assume this system is effective and it keeps your vote and your identity as a person detached. Imagine it uses a checksum of a ballot ID and your vote to do the verification... Also, assume these can only be checked using special devices in these specific situations. Your iphone cannot do it. Now, let's also assume there is a rule that if a certain threshold of test ballots come back as not matching, this would cause the election results to be thrown out and for a new election to be held. If you knew or had a good reason to believe your candidate wasn't going to win, would you purposefully make it so the audit on your ballot would fail, and thus contribute toward forcing a new election to be held?

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended.

The device will say, "You voted for Candidate X.....Yes or No"?

How is that keeping my vote a secret?

 

[KoalaCorp]

TERRIBLE hypothetical, since it's NOT keeping the ballots secret.

This is like do I torture the guy because I KNOW that he KNOWS where the nuke is?
If you KNOW that he KNOWS where the nuke is, then you SHOULD be able to find it, unless you are a complete imbecile.

 

[JuvenalsCat]

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended. Assume this system is effective and it keeps your vote and your identity as a person detached. Imagine it uses a checksum of a ballot ID and your vote to do the verification... Also, assume these can only be checked using special devices in these specific situations. Your iphone cannot do it. Now, let's also assume there is a rule that if a certain threshold of test ballots come back as not matching, this would cause the election results to be thrown out and for a new election to be held. If you knew or had a good reason to believe your candidate wasn't going to win, would you purposefully make it so the audit on your ballot would fail, and thus contribute toward forcing a new election to be held?

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended.

The device will say, "You voted for Candidate X.....Yes or No"?

How is that keeping my vote a secret?

Good question! Design the system so only the voter can see what is input into the system. Not much different than how voting works. An alternative is to have essentially a reverse polling station in which people can go to confirm their votes in a secured location that offers similar protections to regular voting with regards to vote selling and intimidation.

 

[JuvenalsCat]

TERRIBLE hypothetical, since it's NOT keeping the ballots secret.

This is like do I torture the guy because I KNOW that he KNOWS where the nuke is?
If you KNOW that he KNOWS where the nuke is, then you SHOULD be able to find it, unless you are a complete imbecile.

Where do you think it's leaking the secrecy of the vote? I should have mentioned the displayed results are either it matches the input of the voter or it doesn't. So, maybe says valid or invalid. It doesn't display the actual vote and the input is private.

I'm mostly interested in if people would be willing to adjust their vote (cheat essentially) if they thought it would cause an election redone if their preferred candidate was losing/lost.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended. Assume this system is effective and it keeps your vote and your identity as a person detached. Imagine it uses a checksum of a ballot ID and your vote to do the verification... Also, assume these can only be checked using special devices in these specific situations. Your iphone cannot do it. Now, let's also assume there is a rule that if a certain threshold of test ballots come back as not matching, this would cause the election results to be thrown out and for a new election to be held. If you knew or had a good reason to believe your candidate wasn't going to win, would you purposefully make it so the audit on your ballot would fail, and thus contribute toward forcing a new election to be held?

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended.

The device will say, "You voted for Candidate X.....Yes or No"?

How is that keeping my vote a secret?

Good question! Design the system so only the voter can see what is input into the system. Not much different than how voting works. An alternative is to have essentially a reverse polling station in which people can go to confirm their votes in a secured location that offers similar protections to regular voting with regards to vote selling and intimidation.

Just require photo ID to vote. Much easier.

If you knew or had a good reason to believe your candidate wasn't going to win, would you purposefully make it so the audit on your ballot would fail, and thus contribute toward forcing a new election to be held?

And this. ^

What was your plan, run this "audit" on millions of votes a week after the results come in?
Or before they come in? Silly idea.

 

[JuvenalsCat]

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended. Assume this system is effective and it keeps your vote and your identity as a person detached. Imagine it uses a checksum of a ballot ID and your vote to do the verification... Also, assume these can only be checked using special devices in these specific situations. Your iphone cannot do it. Now, let's also assume there is a rule that if a certain threshold of test ballots come back as not matching, this would cause the election results to be thrown out and for a new election to be held. If you knew or had a good reason to believe your candidate wasn't going to win, would you purposefully make it so the audit on your ballot would fail, and thus contribute toward forcing a new election to be held?

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended.

The device will say, "You voted for Candidate X.....Yes or No"?

How is that keeping my vote a secret?

Good question! Design the system so only the voter can see what is input into the system. Not much different than how voting works. An alternative is to have essentially a reverse polling station in which people can go to confirm their votes in a secured location that offers similar protections to regular voting with regards to vote selling and intimidation.

Just require photo ID to vote. Much easier.

If you knew or had a good reason to believe your candidate wasn't going to win, would you purposefully make it so the audit on your ballot would fail, and thus contribute toward forcing a new election to be held?

And this. ^

What was your plan, run this "audit" on millions of votes a week after the results come in?
Or before they come in? Silly idea.

I would think maybe randomized spot audits and also audits of those who requested it would be most likely to be how it would be done. Sort of like how industry does quality control. Also, this has less to do with confirming the right of someone to vote as your suggestion of just requiring a picture ID would do, but rather confirming the integrity of the vote. This could be applied to regular in-person voting. In person voting is what I was originally thinking about. But that's not really my point here. I'm not really pushing this idea as an actual idea to implement. The problem with people manipulating the vote to cause a re-vote was one of the problems I identified. Another problem was, let's say there were 10 votes out of 10,000 that came back as invalid, what happens then? Maybe there was a mistake on the voters part, maybe there was bug, maybe there was manipulation. Do those people get to recast or would be disenfranchised? We often accept faceless disenfranchisement if a ballot is thrown out of a hanging chad or something similar, but in this case the person would know their vote was absolutely not counted if they can't vote again. But if we let them vote again then maybe they too are gaming the system by essentially getting a transferable vote. Now we implemented a half-assed selective (even if random) transferable voting system. Which is an interesting concept, but not the intention and totally not fair since it's not universal. It does highlight that we may be more willing to ignore disenfranchisement so long as it's a statistic rather than a clear case of an individual not having their vote count.

Anyway, totally get the problems with the idea. But during my exploring of my thoughts on this, I became curious about how many people would be willing to manipulate the vote of they could. That's main reason for me asking this.

 

[depotoo]

My thought years ago was each ballot be assigned a number, but not associated with the individual, and then you could use that number to check how your vote was recorded online. I finally decided there was a problem with that, but can’t remember what it was. Lol

 

[Billiejeens]

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended. Assume this system is effective and it keeps your vote and your identity as a person detached. Imagine it uses a checksum of a ballot ID and your vote to do the verification... Also, assume these can only be checked using special devices in these specific situations. Your iphone cannot do it. Now, let's also assume there is a rule that if a certain threshold of test ballots come back as not matching, this would cause the election results to be thrown out and for a new election to be held. If you knew or had a good reason to believe your candidate wasn't going to win, would you purposefully make it so the audit on your ballot would fail, and thus contribute toward forcing a new election to be held?

Let's say there was a system implemented in which after a vote you could have some election officials come to your home with a device that would let you confirm the vote tallied in official number is what you intended.

The device will say, "You voted for Candidate X.....Yes or No"?

How is that keeping my vote a secret?

Good question! Design the system so only the voter can see what is input into the system. Not much different than how voting works. An alternative is to have essentially a reverse polling station in which people can go to confirm their votes in a secured location that offers similar protections to regular voting with regards to vote selling and intimidation.

Just require photo ID to vote. Much easier.

If you knew or had a good reason to believe your candidate wasn't going to win, would you purposefully make it so the audit on your ballot would fail, and thus contribute toward forcing a new election to be held?

And this. ^

What was your plan, run this "audit" on millions of votes a week after the results come in?
Or before they come in? Silly idea.

Not fair
Black people can not get ID's

 

[JuvenalsCat]

My thought years ago was each ballot be assigned a number, but not associated with the individual, and then you could use that number to check how your vote was recorded online. I finally decided there was a problem with that, but can’t remember what it was. Lol

Biggest problem would likely be people using it to pay or coerce people to vote a certain way. Might be hard to pull that off in a large enough way to impact an election, but it would cause enough FUD to be a problem. I could even see some folks using the internet to basically trick the less intelligent of us that if they show their receipts then they will have some money or bitcoin deposited into their accounts. That would be why any such thing would require controlled access to verifications. There is also the situation of how do you handle it when people claim their vote doesn't match what they voted for? Throw their votes out? Let them vote again?

 

[occupied]

Vote counts can be trusted on a state and national level for a simple reason, there's no way to flip enough votes to make a difference without getting caught.

 

[yidnar]

nothing is more secure and reliable a in person voting with a valid id at the voting station .... if the dems claim that social justice is important enough to gather and protest during the pandemic then our free election is important enough to gather and vote at the voting stations ! 130 million mail in unverifiable votes will be chaos !

 

[yidnar]

Vote counts can be trusted on a state and national level for a simple reason, there's no way to flip enough votes to make a difference without getting caught.

if you can stand in line at the grocery store you can stand in line to vote .

 

[occupied]

Vote counts can be trusted on a state and national level for a simple reason, there's no way to flip enough votes to make a difference without getting caught.

if you can stand in line at the grocery store you can stand in line to vote .

If I had to stand in line for hours out in the cold at the grocery store I'd be a pissed off SOB. That alone was the best way to depress turnout in certain places by shorting them on voting machines. Early voting and absentee sought to address the dramatic rise in voter participation in the last few elections but republicans fought it hard.

 

[JuvenalsCat]

Vote counts can be trusted on a state and national level for a simple reason, there's no way to flip enough votes to make a difference without getting caught.

That's kind of where my intuition is at now. Whenever I go down a path trying to think of different things, it's just added complexity that seems to bring another issue. I was thinking of death from a thousand papercuts in places where the election is very tight. So you spread out the bad voting so it doesn't raise any red flags, but in order do that the scheme needs to be more complex spread across locations with more people that increase the likelihood of it being detected

 

[occupied]

Vote counts can be trusted on a state and national level for a simple reason, there's no way to flip enough votes to make a difference without getting caught.

That's kind of where my intuition is at now. Whenever I go down a path trying to think of different things, it's just added complexity that seems to bring another issue. I was thinking of death from a thousand papercuts in places where the election is very tight. So you spread out the bad voting so it doesn't raise any red flags, but in order do that the scheme needs to be more complex spread across locations with more people that increase the likelihood of it being detected

Our current system works ok but has suffered when turnout is depressed or unexpectedly high. There are certainly improvements to be made but certain parties have no interest in making voting simple and convenient.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Vote counts can be trusted on a state and national level for a simple reason, there's no way to flip enough votes to make a difference without getting caught.

That's kind of where my intuition is at now. Whenever I go down a path trying to think of different things, it's just added complexity that seems to bring another issue. I was thinking of death from a thousand papercuts in places where the election is very tight. So you spread out the bad voting so it doesn't raise any red flags, but in order do that the scheme needs to be more complex spread across locations with more people that increase the likelihood of it being detected

Our current system works ok but has suffered when turnout is depressed or unexpectedly high. There are certainly improvements to be made but certain parties have no interest in making voting simple and convenient.

Certain parties have no interest in making voting honest and secure.

 

[yidnar]

Vote counts can be trusted on a state and national level for a simple reason, there's no way to flip enough votes to make a difference without getting caught.

if you can stand in line at the grocery store you can stand in line to vote .

If I had to stand in line for hours out in the cold at the grocery store I'd be a pissed off SOB. That alone was the best way to depress turnout in certain places by shorting them on voting machines. Early voting and absentee sought to address the dramatic rise in voter participation in the last few elections but republicans fought it hard.

and you will be pissed and claim the election was stolen if Trump wins the mail in vote ! but you know your kind will cheat and you are banking on fraudulent votes by mail ! but what if it still isnt enough to win? are you actually trying to say the evil scum like you on the left will accept a loss ?

 

[Correll]

Vote counts can be trusted on a state and national level for a simple reason, there's no way to flip enough votes to make a difference without getting caught.

if you can stand in line at the grocery store you can stand in line to vote .

If I had to stand in line for hours out in the cold at the grocery store I'd be a pissed off SOB. That alone was the best way to depress turnout in certain places by shorting them on voting machines. Early voting and absentee sought to address the dramatic rise in voter participation in the last few elections but republicans fought it hard.

i understand. you know that your political ideology discourages individual responsibility, so you have to make it as easy as possible for your base to vote, because otherwise, they might not bother.


the republicans are the party of people that get shit done. we are not afraid of having to stand upright , under our own power, for a couple minutes.


so, the act of voting, is a huge hurdle for a lot of your party.


imo, that is fine. people who can't be bothered, to vote, in my opinion, can and should be allowed to decide to not bother.


leave the lazy alone.