It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTF is this electronic voting??? Land of the free my fat hairy ass lol

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Bluntone22
Lol

Britain supplies multilingual ballot papers, some areas you need to ask in advance though, outside of major cities it is pretty much white as snow English speakers.



In the us, expecting someone to do something in advance of an election would be called voter suppression.
I wish that was a joke..




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

The one constant in this horror show is greedy, controlling humans.

The less involvement with humans hands, the better, IMO.

Computer programs have no interest in politics, money or control, unless someone makes it so. It's still a human issue at heart.

If you could remove the human element entirely, there would be less wiggle room for corruption.

That's the way I see it, anyway.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I would like to link to my posting with two REALLY disturbing voting-machine videos.

Videos

This crap has to stop!

Is there a non-digitally revision of your voting? Like, a printout or something? No? Then it can be changed. And that has happened very very often!



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22
Lol, sorry but that did make me laugh, voter suppression lmao, just phone the council before the vote here if English is not your first language then they print out a ballot in the language you understand.
If you leave it to the day then tough luck, although electoral workers will advise the best they can.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail
One person can change a computer program.
In my constituency the count is doubled and you don't know who is checking your count either. It would be a fraud of massive proportions to beat that, regular administrative office staff from the council do the counts, it would involve many people.
Yet you trust one person and a computer program.
Do you not realise how ridiculous that sounds?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Just one of the reasons I don't bother voting any more. The entire game is rigged over here. Regardless of who wins, they cater to the interests that finance their campaigns and pay lip service to the people that vote them in.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT
I think I'd give up voting if it became computer based in the UK.
I wouldn't trust it, but I trust a double count by my peers, regular folk who usually work in an administrative role for the local authority. People who I know, not one person who has access to a database and can change it on a whim.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

No, I didn't say that.

I trust the computer, it's the person that is the problem.

A better system would be one that removes fallible humans from the count completely.

That's thousands of people, thousands of opinions, thousands of agendas removed from the count process.

Are you under the impression that paper ballots aren't manipulated?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail



A better system would be one that removes fallible humans from the count completely.


So, do you want restrictions on who can vote?
If so, what type of restrictions?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

Nope.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail
Damn hard to manipulate a paper ballot count when it is counted twice by regular administrative staff of the local council.
Staff who don't know who is re-counting their pile of ballots.
Your computer can be hacked by one person and nobody would ever know. Face it, your idea of computer voting has flaws which human counting, and recounting does not. Tens of thousands of people would have to be involved in a human count fraud, but just one programmer would be involved in the computer fraud.
You have no real argument mate, let it go lol



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

Well that's good.
Looks like my comprehension skills are a bit slow today.

So, how do we 'remove fallible humans from the count'?
Current computer systems aren't suitable....what are the alternatives?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

That there is the problem with the US system - the massive amounts of money it takes to fund a candidate.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It's a perfectly legitimate argument.

Humans are scheming, underhanded creatures. Computers are not, if they are, it's because of the human factor. Make no mistake, it is people that are cheating, not the machines.

Again, do you think ballots weren't manipulated before now?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

But, computers can easily be manipulated by scheming humans.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

The one constant in this horror show is greedy, controlling humans.

The less involvement with humans hands, the better, IMO.

Computer programs have no interest in politics, money or control, unless someone makes it so. It's still a human issue at heart.

If you could remove the human element entirely, there would be less wiggle room for corruption.

That's the way I see it, anyway.


Computer programs can be hacked and manipulated



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail
No, it is a crap argument.
The current system in the UK uses tens of thousands of local authority staff to count, and double count (in my constituency) actual paper ballots, all watched by supervisors and CCTV. To manipulate that system would be a huge task in any organised way. People would know about it, normal regular folks who know each other and work with each other would know about it.
You are advocating a computer as a better alternative?!
Lmao, all it takes is one person to manipulate that through a program.
Your argument is crap and you know it, the more people involved then the less chance of deception, certainly by counting.
You advocate a system which could be hacked by one person and nobody else would ever know.
I thought you were more sensible than that.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

Yup. That's the kicker, ain't it?

I can't claim to offer a perfect solution. Perhaps there isn't one.

All I know, (again IMO, of course) is that less changing of hands is preferable. Computers facilitate that, so I see it as a natural progression, really. Automation (even only in part) is a step in the right direction, at least.

Computers are handling much more than just vote counting. We now rely on them to keep the world turning.

We can trust a computer to resolve firing solutions for fighter jets, but can't trust it to tally?

My suggestion is the furore of the voting machines is another layer of smokescreening for distracting from super-rich entities that buy governments after the fact.

Seems odd to blame the tool for the crime, no?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I think it should be like this



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

Skynet, anyone?




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join