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: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

If you remove the computer from the equation, what remains?




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

Humans, with appropriate checks and safeguards, ideally.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.


The more people, the more room for exploit. You're clinging to the idea that everyone involved has to be in on it and that's just not true. If even a single vote is manipulated, the human element has failed.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

Foolproof.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

Well, our system works here in the UK pretty well.

Machines - remember "hanging chads" and all that kerfuffle in Florida?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

Nothing is foolproof, but we have had no problems here in the UK.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

You may be in a better position than me to make that call. Perhaps you can say with certainty that our elections are legitimate, but I cannot. I suggest most cannot.

In honesty, I'd never heard of the chad thing. Design flaw, by the sound of it. I'm guessing we can't blame the machine for that.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

So, who is it that builds and programs the computer in the first place?

Unless you've got some sort of A.I. or access to non-terrestrial intelligence, there are going to be humans involved in the process...
edit on 7-11-2018 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I'm not a fan of electronic voting, either, but understand that not all places in the US do electronic voting.

I still filled in mine by hand, although it was scanned by a scanning machine (that I affectionately referred to as "the shredder" when I put mine in the machine).

To ease your mind a bit, none of the electronic voting machines are connected to the internet, from what I've read, and the results are securely transferred by hand, not via the internet (again, if what I've read is accurate).

But there are way too many issues for my taste with the machines and programs, user error or otherwise, for me to have absolute confidence in them.

Why you equate this to a "land of the free" is beyond me, though.

I recall a few years back where a bag of vote submissions to be hand counted was found in a dumpster behind a polling place--don't recall when or where, but just because you are voting the way that you do doesn't mean that there still isn't human error involved, intentional or otherwise.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

Has there ever been an issue about it here? Pretty sure a losing party would have made a fuss.

Look up the chad thing.

And, most importantly - vote early, vote often.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Why you equate this to a "land of the free" is beyond me, though.
Freedom is a people voting for their leadership in a fair and trustworthy manner. Electronic voting is not trustworthy when one computer geek can simply change the result.
I'm glad you had a paper ballot though



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gemwolf
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

My thoughts exactly.

I recently read an article about a guy that bought voting machines on eBay... It's crazy what he was able to get from the machines...



...
If getting voting machines delivered to my door was shockingly easy, getting inside them proved to be simpler still. The tamper-proof screws didn’t work, all the computing equipment was still intact, and the hard drives had not been wiped. The information I found on the drives, including candidates, precincts, and the number of votes cast on the machine, were not encrypted. Worse, the “Property Of” government labels were still attached, meaning someone had sold government property filled with voter information and location data online, at a low cost, with no consequences. It would be the equivalent of buying a surplus police car with the logos still on it.
...
One vulnerability we uncovered in voting machines is the chip card used in electronic voting machines. This inexpensive card can be purchased for $15 and programmed with simple code that allows the user to vote multiple times.
...
More



How can you trust a system with even the minutest vulnerability?


Wow. That's terrifying. Notice the Dems just squeezed that 218 in 2018?

I'm not saying it was rigged but it was rigged!



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Think back to 2000 when the supreme court appointed GWBush as President.
first they create the problem by cheating, then offer to sell a solution.
That was called HAVA - the Help America Vote Act.
Like the PATRIOT Act the more appealing the name the worse it actually is.
HAVA made states toss all the old lever machines in favor of electronic voting systems.
All happily supplied by corporations that lobbied hard to sell them.
Vote fraud never went away, it just changed it's methodology.
Vote flipping, skipping, incorrect tallies can be easily managed through these "tamper proof" systems.
en.wikipedia.org...

The 2004 election was stolen for Bush, a must-read story for those unfamiliar with the fiasco horribly similar to that which gave Bush the election in 2000.
www.commondreams.org...


edit on 7-11-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals
Sounds like the old fashioned system of pen, paper and human counters with a secondary counter per electoral staff member is the way forward.
Honestly, I've done two counts, all working with regular local authority staff doing overtime. Ballot boxes are transported by regular Joe's who work for the council (in pairs), the whole thing is supervised and has CCTV covering the lot. I massively trust the electoral system of voting in my constituency.
It would be a fraud of major proportions involving hundreds of people if the vote in my area was rigged. People would know about it.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
If it’s true electronic votes can be easily tampered with, then yes need paper ballot system, or equivalent.

Short answer why not? Probably powerful people don’t want it that way.
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Probably powerful people don’t want it that way.
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I hope we never get electronic voting in the UK, I wouldn't trust it at all.
Paper and pens with human counters who can count again if there is a dispute is the way forward.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

That's the thing, though--these are (supposedly) standalone computers not connected to an internet or outside network of any sort. So, unless they do it directly in front of the election officials, a computer geek can't just simply change the results.

That doesn't mean that the programs and users can't dick something up, though, but the ability to be hacked from the outside is pretty much impossible.

Yes, I know that teenagers have hacked the programs in simulations, but the simulations mean nothing because the ability to access the programs remotely doesn't exist during the actual elections.

Again, I'm not defending electronic voting, I just think that your understanding of it is a bit wrong.

ETA: Also, if there are run-offs or a recount requested, in the instance like mine where paper ballots are filled out but digitally counted, they use humans to hand-count the original paper ballots to get the final result.


edit on 7-11-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I'm ok with online voting if you let someone competent handle the security. Apparently, we can fuse hydrogen into helium, we can step on the Moon, and we can drive RC cars around Mars, but we have to vote with paper ballots? Shoot me.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

He didn't admit it was defective. He said it could be reprogrammed. It's an electronic system. Like every other electronic system, it can be reprogrammed.

Saying a computer that can be reprogrammed is defective is like saying a car is defective because you could throw a wrench in the engine.

ETA: At best you could say he admitted it was not very secure, again, like most electronics.
edit on 11/7/2018 by scojak because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join