ID/INTERNET FOR VOTING IN NYC

[FLVOL_79]

I've been proposing this for awhile. You can do double verification of identification, easily track who is voting to ensure eligibility. Save a ton of money.

Some things, which are of high importance, shouldn't ever been connected to the internet. Like voting. Things like power grids, utilities, etc, should be on closed systems similiar to our air traffic control systems.

Voting..punch cards and hanging chads baby!

 

[Weezy]

Elections and manual vote counting is done by volunteers (and it's allegedly full of fraud). We aren't talking about nuclear plants.

Can we just skip to the part where we just admit one party doesn't want certain people to be able to vote? That's why we make you take time off work, which is easy for the retired and office workers, and sit in a line forever (which is hard for those with children).

 

[hog88]

Elections and manual vote counting is done by volunteers (and it's allegedly full of fraud). We aren't talking about nuclear plants.

Can we just skip to the part where we just admit one party doesn't want certain people to be able to vote? That's why we make you take time off work, which is easy for the retired and office workers, and sit in a line forever (which is hard for those with children).

Vote counting doesn't have to be manual, it can be done by machine. Just not a machine connected to the internet.

 

[LouderVol]

Elections and manual vote counting is done by volunteers (and it's allegedly full of fraud). We aren't talking about nuclear plants.

Can we just skip to the part where we just admit one party doesn't want certain people to be able to vote? That's why we make you take time off work, which is easy for the retired and office workers, and sit in a line forever (which is hard for those with children).

The best option to make voting safe and secure is to make it completely anonymous, impossible to secure, and totally in the hands of the people who benefit from it. Sounds foolproof.

 

[Weezy]

The best option to make voting safe and secure is to make it completely anonymous, impossible to secure, and totally in the hands of the people who benefit from it. Sounds foolproof.

You ever buy anything on the internet? Manage your bank accounts, retirement funds?

Your phone have a camera? Register a photo ID to a voting number, and that's all you really need. Then you can still leave it in the hands of states to create a bipartisan, multi-party auditing agreement, where a manual revote can be taken if evidence of hacking is shown (which isn't impossible to prevent). You also can enable the voters to confirm how their vote was counted.

The idea of making something secure by making it dumb as hell is lost on me. Also 100 biased Atlanta residents picking and choosing which ballots to count and which ones to throw out based on a signature is not my idea of secure.

 

[Rickyvol77]

You ever buy anything on the internet? Manage your bank accounts, retirement funds?

Your phone have a camera? Register a photo ID to a voting number, and that's all you really need. Then you can still leave it in the hands of states to create a bipartisan, multi-party auditing agreement, where a manual revote can be taken if evidence of hacking is shown (which isn't impossible to prevent). You also can enable the voters to confirm how their vote was counted.

The idea of making something secure by making it dumb as hell is lost on me. Also 100 biased Atlanta residents picking and choosing which ballots to count and which ones to throw out based on a signature is not my idea of secure.

I do agree that a fail safe check of voters SEEING how their vote was counted is important, but it leads to serious kinds of privacy issues as well where that info could be used nefariously.

There is no easy solution

 

[Weezy]

I do agree that a fail safe check of voters SEEING how their vote was counted is important, but it leads to serious kinds of privacy issues as well where that info could be used nefariously.

There is no easy solution

That's a good challenge. I'd guess a lot of people were scared to donate to Trump this cycle with one sided cancel culture in full effect. Now imagine if you were scared to vote for a candidate. So it's a trade off for fraud versus anonymity. I might choose the anonymity if you can secure it via other means (picture gets you in the door but there's no connection to the actual vote).

 

[C-south]

Elections and manual vote counting is done by volunteers (and it's allegedly full of fraud). We aren't talking about nuclear plants.

Can we just skip to the part where we just admit one party doesn't want certain people to be able to vote? That's why we make you take time off work, which is easy for the retired and office workers, and sit in a line forever (which is hard for those with children).

Is it the people that dims say can’t navigate the internet?

 

[Weezy]

Is it the people that dims say can’t navigate the internet?

I'm pro-ID, and I think that argument is similar to some of the arguments to restrict ease of voting, purely partisan meant to enhance their team's chance of winning, and not logic based.

 

[LouderVol]

You ever buy anything on the internet? Manage your bank accounts, retirement funds?

Your phone have a camera? Register a photo ID to a voting number, and that's all you really need. Then you can still leave it in the hands of states to create a bipartisan, multi-party auditing agreement, where a manual revote can be taken if evidence of hacking is shown (which isn't impossible to prevent). You also can enable the voters to confirm how their vote was counted.

The idea of making something secure by making it dumb as hell is lost on me. Also 100 biased Atlanta residents picking and choosing which ballots to count and which ones to throw out based on a signature is not my idea of secure.

Identity theft is kinda a big deal in the crime world in case you havent noticed. Seems like raising the stakes for what can be gained just invites more threats.

There is no fool proof plan. But considering your phone can be stolen or hacked with everything needed to verify it's not really a selling point to say it will be secured.

 

[C-south]

I'm pro-ID, and I think that argument is similar to some of the arguments to restrict ease of voting, purely partisan meant to enhance their team's chance of winning, and not logic based.

Voting is pretty important and steps to insure it’s security and legitimacy doesn’t bother me. Some people wouldn’t sell their vote for $10k. Some people would sell their vote for a $2 scratch off. Surely you see where the potential for fraud and corruption lies. People need to get off their ass and vote except in the most extreme circumstances. That is if it’s important to THEM.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The best option to make voting safe and secure is to make it completely anonymous, impossible to secure, and totally in the hands of the people who benefit from it. Sounds foolproof.

try font color #001EFF

 

[AM64]

Then give everybody the day off including the fast food workers and grocery store workers. Shut it all down.

Why would people go vote on a day off when there are better things to do? Imagine "free voting day" as part of a three day weekend.

 

[hog88]

You ever buy anything on the internet? Manage your bank accounts, retirement funds?

Your phone have a camera? Register a photo ID to a voting number, and that's all you really need. Then you can still leave it in the hands of states to create a bipartisan, multi-party auditing agreement, where a manual revote can be taken if evidence of hacking is shown (which isn't impossible to prevent). You also can enable the voters to confirm how their vote was counted.

The idea of making something secure by making it dumb as hell is lost on me. Also 100 biased Atlanta residents picking and choosing which ballots to count and which ones to throw out based on a signature is not my idea of secure.

Sounds great, I’ve never heard of an online store, bank or other institutions being hacked. The internet is completely secure.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Lines were very long this last election. Not sure why you wouldn't want to do it in 5 minutes on your smartphone that can take pictures and verify identity. Must be an old people thing like walking at the mall. Need something to fill their days.

I would love convenience. Me personally, I'm not sure want to sacrifice convenience for security. Meaning, it takes a lot to rig traditional elections, but online voting just seems like a pathway for stuffing ballots much easier.

 

[Zues1]

The military uses CAC ID cards (Common Access Card) with an embedded integrated circuit. That card inserted into a CAC reader allows the holder access to some military online sites not accessible without the card and reader. It's certainly a costly process to issue a similar card as voter ID, but that with a reader could be a secure means to allow remote voting by internet. I can't imagine it being cost effective down to an individual user level, but then technology has made a lot of seemingly impossible things possible. It would assure two things: provide a secure platform and "suppress votes obviously". Oh, it would probably take the government bureaucracy thirty years to implement ... and be obsolete.

View attachment 361821

Why not. Joe could just write another trillion dollar check.

 

[Sandman 423]

And just like that, gig speed internet became a right.

 

[BP4Prez]

Lines were very long this last election. Not sure why you wouldn't want to do it in 5 minutes on your smartphone that can take pictures and verify identity. Must be an old people thing like walking at the mall. Need something to fill their days.

Would the left be ok with verifying identity? That was voter suppression last week.