straydog
Usenet User
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
Re: Vote fraud....
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, R. Martin wrote:
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:15:32 GMT
> From: R. Martin <russell.martin@wdn.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: Vote fraud....
>>>>> after the 2000 election about how difficult it is to accurately
>>>>> count a huge number of votes, even by computer, given the
>>>>> probability of errors.
>>
>> How come airlines, who have to match up passengers with planes and routes
>> and takeoff times don't make anywhere near as many mistakes as the Red
>> Cross does with blood transfusions?
>
> Don't they?
No, and back over ten years ago when the FDA got a consent decree over RC
screwups, the RD hired a consultant from the airlines industry ticket
center to help them. I talked to the guy....totally by accident.
> Anyway, 100 million people in the U.S. don't fly every day.
Even less than that vote every day, either.
But, I'm going to say that I _think_ the number of people in the air every
day is at least the same number as the number on the cot giving blood.
>>>
>>> I like the idea, except it doesn't work for multiple offices,
>>
>> Spread out the elections all year instead of on one day. Get's people
>> involved, talking, jawing, and concerned.
>
> Yes, but then people have to take time to vote that many more times.
> It is hard enough to get people to vote for President, and at least
> then maybe they'll vote on some other things. You know how poor the
> turnout is for special elections like to fill one vacancy on the
> school board or something. Many people would vote for President and
> just blow off the rest of the elections.
OK, then if that's the way people want it, then let them show up or not
show up, as they see fit. If people don't show up, then they are saying
one of several things that have come out in the media: i) elections are
irrelevant to their lives, ii) they don't care, iii) they are too lazy,
iv) etc. I've said it before: if you add up the people who voted for the
guy that didn't win plus the people who didn't vote, you'd get a majority
which shows that in the end only a minority of people get what they want.
Besides, I haven't seen too many candidates for anything in many decades
that I could get very excited about. I didn't like Bush, but wasn't that
happy with Kerry, either. What to do?
>>
>>> ballot splitting, special referenda, etc., unless you have multiple
>>> pieces of paper.
>>
>> So, what's the big deal? They're spending 250-350 million now for a prez
>> election campaigning costs. How much can it cost to print a good hard to
>> counterfiet dollar bill? Ten cents?
>
> True, I'm just pointing out that it is a complication.
Sure, if we got serious about this, we'd really have to study the whole
issue in much more detail. Even with paper ballots (like the old days),
you have to trust the staff at the polling place. They could fiddle the
election, too. There's been stories of people registerd at vacant lots
voting as far back as I can remember, stories of people who were
registered who were also dead voting, too. etc. Then there's the one "Hey,
I saw your face in here earlier today...you already voted!"
>>>>> but as they say freedom isn't free.
>>>>
>>>> Everything that insures a 'check' also removes our secret vote system.
>>>> That part is bad.
>>>
>>> I don't see why. If the cards are encoded and have no personal
>>> information, the results are still secret.
>>
>> Yeah, but if THEY can read the encoding and YOU cannot, then what good is
>> it?
>
> No reason in principle why you couldn't read it. In fact, say
> it used a public/private encrytion scheme where it was encrypted
> with the public key, but only you have the private key.
I'm thinking about two real encryption schemes: one to make you happy, and
you can read it, but the other encryption scheme, simultaneously valid,
makes the fake vote show up where it counts. And, ...thus...little guys
like us are 'snookered.'
If there
> was a recount and you wanted to make sure your vote counted, you'd
> go back to the polling place and insert the card and key in your
> private key and your vote would be read back to you in private and
> you'd be asked to confirm that it was recorded on the card the way
> you intended. Conditions would be just as private as when you cast
> the original vote.
There's an old saw: if the crooks can look at and understand ANY safeguard
technology then they can break in and steal the jewels.
>> And, it has to link YOU with that pattern of vote. Doesn't it?
>
> No. Say we had a system like is being proposed now with a paper
> receipt with your votes recorded. That wouldn't have your name on
> it. Neither would a card.
Oh... maybe I would give up secret ballots.....have something like a giant
stone with name & vote carved in...out in the public...anyone and everyone
can go count the votes if they want and make sure nobody's name comes up
more than ones (yeah, lots of Smiths out there, they need ID numbers or
something).
>>
>> Or, how about this possibility: the 'hacked box' prints up the encoded
>> fake vote (which is not your vote) AND prints up the encoded real vote
>> (that you made) but was not counted in the real election.
>
> Yes, one can imagine any number of scenarios, but for that matter
> why would anyone bother tampering with votes when Skull and Bones
> is already secretly running everything anyway? :-)
Bingo! You're right! (read "The Color of Truth" by Kai Bird)
>> And, ... would
>> they ever tell you how the encryption worked?
>
> That can be public knowledge.
Except if the NSA is involved.
>> Or, maybe there are two
>> secret encryptions, the one the tell you, and the real one they don't tell
>> you.
>
> Like I said, one can imagine numerous nefarious scenarios. Like
> security, it is never possible to make it perfect. One just tries
> to raise the cost of defeating it high enough to make the effort
> uneconomic. Of course, when the prize is control of the U.S., I
> suppose there are people willing to spend enough to defeat any
> system. But in that case, our present wimpy voting fraud prevention
> efforts didn't even slow anyone down, which is the point of the
> lawsuit I suppose.
Yeah, and I'll be interested in how it comes out.
>> You don't let the time
>>> of day the vote was cast or anything like that be recorded so that
>>> no one can begin to make an association between votes and individuals.
>>
>> I...don't....think....I.....like.....that. See above.
>
> Sorry, I don't see how there is any more possibility of associating
> a given person with a given vote under that systen than there is
> now, if anyone really wanted to know. For instance, for all we
> know there are miniature cameras hidden in the new voting machines
> that take each voter's picture and match it to the secret FBI facial
> data base and already tell the President who voted for whom. Geeze,
> Art, even I'm not that paranoid. :-)
Hah, ...you did know, didn't you, that the FBI has dossiers on about 20
million Americans, didn't you? It was the big deal back about 20+ years
ago to do a FOIA to get your FBI files (all with felt tip blackouts to
prevent you from seeing enough of the context that you still didn't know
what they 'had' on you).
>>>> neutral and then throw out all the people who pick a color. Use people who
>>>> don't have strong feelings about any issue. Less bias, less corruption.
>>>
>>> I like it, but of course that trick only works once.
>>
>> Sheesh, you would have to burst my bubble, eh?
>
> That's not to say you don't have the germ of a good idea. Maybe we
> need to do something like that, but make it a random choice as to
> which group gets control of the government each election, which
> would then make everyone choose which group they should claim to
> be in if they want to be in power.
How about, like the military draft, we also have a political draft. Random
pick of a SS number, and, bingo: you get to be some politician for 2-4
years? At a random chance, I'd bet you'd have just about the same
probability of getting a representative portfolio of "jerks" as we get
now. Heck, if the likes of RR and the Governator can get in and do this
work (do they need to know science, calculus, etc.?), we wouldn't be any
worse off ? ! eh?
Two of the possible strategies
> would be to stay in the original groups and wait for chance to give
> your group control, or change groups, which would then mix up people
> in the controlling "party", making it efffectively not a party
> anymore. I bet this could be simulated, like some work I recently
> read in _Science_ about the evolution of cooperation as a social
> strategy.
Yeah, the meerkats! I like meerkats. If I could just arrange a
reincarnation into a meerkat community.......
Sounds like a good research project for a semi-retired
> PhD with lots of old computers. ;-)
Hah!!! ANd, I finished the book on Utopias. Maybe I'll make a little post
about it over the next few days.
And, I have another book, Backyard Utopias, and the subtitle is all about
socialist utopias in the USA from the 1600s up to quite recently.
Cheers,
Art
Retired, ex-scientist (would NOT do it again if I had the chance), and
PhD (=worthless degree), and BFD (anyway). All the old cheap computers are
good, with DOS, they're immune to hacking, no viruses, no spyware, no
scumware, etc.
> Cheers,
> Russell
> --
> All too often the study of data requires care.
>
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
12-22-2004 02:05 PM
