2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[gourimoko]

It is an adequate solution to the question of whether there is fairness of the right to vote.

The question at hand is accessibility, not fairness. The polls are open to everyone, but not equally accessible due to circumstance.

I think it is convenient enough to vote as is. I don't think it needs to be any more convenient.

This is the only part of the argument I'm actually concerned with. It isn't only about convenience.

If online voting is more secure, more accessible, cheaper, less prone to fraud, and enhances voter participation; then what is rational argument against it?

It's quite easy. I personally like that people aren't universally registered,

I'm asking why you "like" that this is a fact? It seems you don't want people who are not as engaged as you might be to vote.

What if someone like me said the same of someone like you. What if I said, "well, he's not involved in the process enough, so make registration require that a person attends party activities and is a regular contributor to their political organization. Only those who are willing to sacrifice time and money should be counted."

The reason that's absurd is because no one gets to set the bar of who should and shouldn't vote; even if it is only "3 buttons" as you put it.

and can't simply click 3 buttons and vote online the day of. I don't see that as a grand injustice.

The grand injustice is the myriad of state policies that restrict voting; I think you might be conflating those policies with the question of whether or not we should use paper ballots.

The argument against paper ballots and for online voting is multi-fold, but it's not because paper ballots are "a grand injustice."

I also think it opens up a whole new set of problems.

Like what?

I think that they could be solved, but I don't personally care for this issue, as it's rather "meh" to me. I don't think it's unfair how it is, no matter what party it favors.

If it favors any party and those parties are aligned along socioeconomic conditions then by definition it is inherently unequal.

My point isn't about equality but participation. But either argument can be made that a universal registration and online voting system would likely see massive increases in voter participation.

ok. I don't see our society as any more awesome if there are more people voting

...

because they can click a few buttons on the day of the deadline and make it happen. It's just not for me.

Why?

I file it under a false positive of us being more democratic.

How?

Again, I've already linked you to how one would rationally measure the quality of a democracy. Participation and competition are the two primary factors in that metric. I don't think you're argument makes sense.

Right I get why some people would call this a deliberate and artificial attempt to impede the voting process and I think that's Charmin soft. I think it's weak. Each non-voter didn't have the capacity to get the registration and voting process done. It's harder than breathing. That's ok by me, so to me, so maybe the term is wrong, but for the most part I file it under poetic justice.

I don't understand the argument you're making?

You're saying it's "weak" and "soft" and "poetic justice," but what's your rational reasoning behind opposing online voting? Because it's not difficult enough? How difficult should exercising a right be?

I never took a position that voting is something to be earned. I have said multiple times that it is a right. This is ridiculous.

Here's what you said:
"to distance the reward of voting from the stimulus of commitment to achieve it."

Rewards, distance, commitment, achievement, etc imply something to be earned, or as you put it, "achieved." You don't "achieve" the right to speak freely, or to go to church, or to vote; these unalienable rights are endowed upon you by the Creator.

No test, no commitment, no reward let alone "distance" is necessary or warranted.

I think that the online system will come, and it will be abused.

How?

In the meantime, democratic or not, this "freely exercised" right is absurdly easy to exercise. I mean fuck man, why not just get a show of fucking hands? Why not a text from your number too? It's like at some point, asking someone to take some personal responsibility is getting twisted into me favoring a system of oppression. It's comical but I think you are serious.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

I am saying that there should be universal voter registration and online voting.

I am saying that I don't see any rational argument against these proposals.

I don't understand why my argument is so difficult to grasp to the point where you might ask whether or not I'm being serious. What isn't serious about the idea?

So again, I think we would have more fraud by an online system for the fucking president of the US versus what we have now, by any way that you slice it.

How would one do such a thing?

The entire database of votes, for every election is open to the public. The auditing code-base is open-source. Every person has a voting receipt.

I'm not sure how, from a scientific standpoint, such a system would be more susceptible to fraud than the one we have today?

People don't know how to validate their voting receipts,

They could go online, punch in their account, and view their receipt. To validate their receipt, they'd simply need to login. For someone else to validate their receipt, they'd give that person their API key (or the hash on their receipt). This allows third-party organizations to audit the results of elections.

What mechanism do we have today for independent companies and individuals to audit elections? Oh wait... we don't have anything like that today, do we?

So that means this is less prone to fraud right?

and people don't know that votes will be cast for them by people who got their login/password/ss#, etc.

Again, a person can validate or invalidate their vote. Meaning, they can determine who their vote was cast for in a permanent future context. So yes, they would know that their vote was cast, and who it was cast for.

People would sign up to vote old-school and find out that they had already voted.

This would invariably happen, and their ballot at the ballot box would invalidate their early-voting (online) absentee ballot.

It would have to be a very robust secure system.

Obviously, I think that goes without saying.

Personally, subjectively, I have no problems with people not being able to make a snap decision to vote,
whether that is more democratic or not.

"whether that is more democratic or not;"

standpoint will not change: it isn't jumping through hoops to mail something in. It just isn't. It's another way for people to claim that they are a victim, and to call the current system oppressive.

No one is talking about victimization or oppression but access to the polls.

The arguments you've made against an online voting system, as far as I can tell, are:

1) You want there to be some degree of difficulty to vote. Meaning, you oppose universal registration (even though we do this with the Selective Service), and you oppose online access to the polls - people should vote absentee by the Postal Service.

2) Online systems would somehow be insecure and allow fraudulent voting.

3) You don't care whether a system that impedes voting is less democratic, it is somehow qualitatively better than one that would allow for greater access?

If I understand you correctly, my problem with your arguments are:

1) Voting is a right; if given the option, 90% of people would probably prefer to vote online - so why force them to vote by mail? I don't understand the rationale? The concept that a person should be artificially "distanced" from their rights seems unethical; let alone unnecessarily costly.

2) I'm not sure how one could crack such a system. Sure everything is hackable, and people's identities would be invariably be stolen - but voting en masse? I'm not really seeing how one could do it. If such a thing could be done, I think we'd have seen massive instances of stolen funds from banks and government institutions that deal with the public.

And if security is that much of a concern, where we don't trust our own mathematical ability to validate the system; then don't use only username/password pairs - use a biometric and network validation system.

So in order to vote, you need to submit either a fingerprint, retinal/iris scan, or facial pattern check when you register. Anyone with a smartphone (64% of Americans) would have the ability to physically validate their vote using unique indicators like the MEID/ESN, phone number, GPS-based physical location, IP Address geolocated position, a combination of harmless biometrics like facial recognition coupled with maybe Iris scanning (data that isn't useful for a criminal investigation like a fingerprint) - and for the less paranoid, a fingerprint scan.

The 64% of Americans with smartphones could likely share with family that doesn't have a smartphone, enabling likely 90% of the population the ability to vote from home simply by logging into a government website with their phone.

You can do all of that from a Galaxy S5, securely. And you're telling me that's less secure and more prone to fraud than a paper ballot?

3) Quality of democracy; I don't think this needs to be argued... Participation is a direct contributing factor to measuring any democracy. Our participation in this country is a joke compared to other developed nations.

 

[pr26]

but wait, you can't vote online... but you still voted, right? You figured it out because it wasn't that bad, at all.

I like the idea of a national holiday or national half-day for voting. That's a great idea.

The "service people" can vote absentee, they can arrange to accommodate their schedule that day (like go during lunch), they can ask their bosses. It's not a process failing people, it's the people not exercising their rights.

Just look at our rights, all of them, and understand that this one is a layup - you mail some shit in. It's preposterous that anyone can claim democratic FAILURE because they had to work.

Ok, I am out. It's been fun.

What you bolded is true, but it's true because I'm educated on the voting process, I'm lucky enough to have a job where they would give me time off to vote. Just schedule it on your lunch? You ever worked a job where you had a half hour lunch and clocking in a minute late is a write up? Good luck smashing your lunch, finding a polling place, and getting through the lines. I am also lucky enough to live in a place where if I didn't have a car or a way to get to the polls, there is an extensive get-out-the-vote infrastructure here that will provide rides to the polls if you don't have one? Do you think that existed in PG county Maryland when I lived there?

I'm not sure why making it easier across the board for people to vote, regardless of their job, class, or education level, would be a bad thing worth arguing against.....in less it was in your best interest for those people to not vote.

 

[gourimoko]

unless it was in your best interest for those people to not vote.

....yep....

 

[KI4MVP]

But seriously. You want something, you get it. If you don't care to get it, even if the system could be better, you don't get it. That's fine. You are perfectly fine to exercise your right to vote or not vote. It isn't hard to do no matter who you are. It just isn't. I can't be convinced that it's difficult for any significant # of people to vote absentee or learn about their options to vote.

How about some facts?

The researchers estimate that up to 3.9 million absentee ballots were requested but not received by voters in the 2008 presidential election. Another 2.9 million ballots sent to voters requesting them were not returned for counting. And 800,000 returned absentee ballots were rejected for one reason or another. In all, 21 percent of requested absentee ballots were never counted in 2008—35.5 million requests for absentee ballots led to 27.9 million mail-in ballots being counted.​

7.6 million people tried to absentee vote but weren't able to for one reason or another. I find that pretty alarming.

There is another report that hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots arrived late in the mail. Why would you trust the US Post Office over the internet?

 

[Otsego Mar]

I'm one of those who wants voting to be difficult, not easy. Because voting isn't simply a right, it's also a responsibility... and we already have far too many people voting who don't truly take that responsibility seriously enough. The more barriers we place in the way of potential voters, the fewer "deadbeat voters" will bother to vote because of the hassle of it all. Think your average local DMV station only on steroids and I think we're off to a good start. Add in multiple forms and mandatory ID checks and I think we're getting somewhere.

And there ought to be a test you have to pass in order to vote. Not an excruciatingly difficult one, but certainly not kindergarten level either. You should have to be able to show at least a basic knowledge and understanding of the issues and the candidates on the ballot. If you can't, you are at the ballot box for the wrong reasons and should stay home instead of polluting the voting pool.

And the more money you make, the more weight should be attached to your vote. Why? Because the more you make, the more taxes you pay, and thus the greater share of the country's bills you are helping to fund. A guy who pays $1 million in taxes ought to have more "say" in how the government operates than a guy who pays $1,000 in taxes. And only people who can prove they have voted in the most recent election should be allowed to contribute to a candidate or political cause. And no corporate contributions to candidates or causes AT ALL.

And if you're receiving government aid, you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Period. You shouldn't be able to vote yourself "goodies" to be paid for by somebody else's wallet and hard work.

OK, all of you Democrats/liberals/progressives... you can have a conniption now. LOL!



And actually, I'm only half-trolling with this post.

 

[Cavatt]

Again, people do not fundamentally understand what rights are.

Voting is a right. You don't have to earn it and it's exercise should not be impeded artificially by cumbersome, nonsensical, and antiquated systems that are deliberately designed to cap voter turnout at artificially low levels.

Our voter participation in this country is abysmal compared to our peers.

These guys don't want poor people voting because they might try to get more benefits, but if you pay for lobbyists to get the rules you want, that is cool because you clearly got your money ethically and because you were just better.

They are only into individual rights when it means you can do whatever you want with your money and the government is no good until you need a bail out or subsidy.

 

[RonG]

Right, so you see my statement as dumb, I see your statement as a different viewpoint. You don't have to go anywhere to physically vote. So how does this have anything to do with you not liking to go to the bank, and the value you place on money? Never mind, your statement is stupid and illogical.

But seriously. You want something, you get it. If you don't care to get it, even if the system could be better, you don't get it. That's fine. You are perfectly fine to exercise your right to vote or not vote. It isn't hard to do no matter who you are. It just isn't. I can't be convinced that it's difficult for any significant # of people to vote absentee or learn about their options to vote.

Gour covered this well. I will say dumb is just an adj, nothing more. I didn't mean anything by it.

Just like I'm not offended you call my statement stupid and illogical.

 

[Huber.]

Why are you a Republican?

If you can get food through a drive through then why can't we vote through a drive through? Why can't I get out my smartphone and have a polling location come to me like pizza delivery?


Seriously you guys sound like a bunch of lazy assholes. gtfo

 

[KI4MVP]

If you can get food through a drive through then why can't we vote through a drive through? Why can't I get out my smartphone and have a polling location come to me like pizza delivery?


Seriously you guys sound like a bunch of lazy assholes. gtfo

It's not about my ability to vote. It's about making it accessible to everyone. I live in a place it takes me all of 10 minutes from the time I leave my house. Yet in 2014 some polling places had people waiting in line as long as 9 hours to vote.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...meday-registration-voters-20141105-story.html

How are single parents of small children supposed to do that? How many people were denied their right to vote because they didn't have the ability to spend 9 hours waiting in line?

Edit to add: It's also about more reliable voting. I never want to see another situation in the United States like the Gore/Bush election where not only are the votes not counted properly, but our own courts are used to prevent an accurate count.

 

[The Oi]

@natedagg needs a new proctologist after this one.

Dude got pounded.

 

[gourimoko]

@natedagg needs a new proctologist after this one.

Dude got pounded.

Lol.. I got love for my hommie though.. He's a smart guy. We just disagree.

I honestly think he'd agree if I could explain via a better medium than a forum post. I get what he's saying, we want a better educated, more engaged electorate; and there is a potential danger that exists by making voting for president as simply as liking a Facebook post.

My only argument is that I think we need to educate people in school, and yes, even after their out of school. I think my argument is much more to do with enabling people to think for themselves at a young age, as well as those at a much older age. To teach critical thinking, rational thought, and instill the desire for information, reading, introspection, which I think brings about a certain degree of self-awareness that might be lacking in many people.

I think that's the ethical, democratic way, of improving the level of active, engaged, and educated citizenry within the electorate; rather than simply artificially limiting the exercise of their rights.

 

[Pioneer10]

Are people really sure you want a better educated populace voting? I used to believe this but the data is a bit frightening. The more informed partisan voters get more rigid in their false beliefs even when presented with disputing facts. Particularly worrisome where you can consume a vast amount of media that will reinforce any view you have.

Meanwhile partially engaged voters tend to vote on the relative recent state of the economy with factors like war death and length of incumbency thrown in there. Now this actually seems like a reasonable way to measure government performance

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Jordan]

My views on this issue are fairly nuanced (in my own opinion). I do not think, as citizens, we should have an absolute right to vote. In another context, there are processes to ensure citizens who are unqualified do not sit on a jury, and I think voting should be the same. There are countless studies that demonstrate how uninformed voting Americans are and I think that's problematic.

But on the other hand, the fact is the people who vote are already idiots. Adding more opportunities for disadvantaged people to vote does not add to the existing proportion of stupid/not stupid. It just gives more people that right. So in our current system I think we need to make it easier for people -- especially lower class citizens -- to vote. If the whole system could change -- and I see no way to make it possible while retaining the heralded "democratic values" -- I would not care either way. But at this point I think we have to try.

I understand people may have a built in opposition to me saying not everyone should have the right to vote because our history is such that people have been excluded in the past. And that's what I am getting at. Making it easier for people to vote includes them for the right reasons. And I think a broad exclusionary measure regarding information (again, not sure how we go about doing this) would exclude people for the right reasons. But, because that is not likely to ever happen, fuck it. Voting should be made easier.

 

[natedagg]

These guys don't want poor people voting because they might try to get more benefits, but if you pay for lobbyists to get the rules you want, that is cool because you clearly got your money ethically and because you were just better.

They are only into individual rights when it means you can do whatever you want with your money and the government is no good until you need a bail out or subsidy.

This is an example of exactly the kind of post that divides and adds nothing to the conversation. Just an bitter tirade of divisiveness. The best part about this post is seeing who "likes" it and knowing what all of the debate is about.

There's really no point in going through the exercise with most of you. I don't vote along party lines, and I have no vested interest in making it harder for all of the "victims" out there, who are apparently poor people that "these guys" don't want voting.

I specifically mentioned earlier that this had nothing to do with my side of the debate, simply to sequester the talk away from this subject, but it was inevitable.

 

[gourimoko]

This is an example of exactly the kind of post that divides and adds nothing to the conversation. Just an bitter tirade of divisiveness. The best part about this post is seeing who "likes" it and knowing what all of the debate is about.

There's really no point in going through the exercise with most of you. I don't vote along party lines, and I have no vested interest in making it harder for all of the "victims" out there, who are apparently poor people that "these guys" don't want voting.

I specifically mentioned earlier that this had nothing to do with my side of the debate, simply to sequester the talk away from this subject, but it was inevitable.

Cavatt is talking about Republican policy in general I think. And in that he's right in the general sense. Voter ID laws and challenging of votes has been a GOP strategy for years now. An attempt to actually deny specific groups of people their rights to equal access to the polls.