[ExI] Immaculate Election

[spike at rainier66.com]

>...> On Behalf Of Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat
Subject: [ExI] Immaculate Election

>... a sizable percentage of people keep insisting, based on an anecdotal
evidence and a bunch of hearsay, that the election was fraudulent and
stolen. While I agree with the U.S.  
Justice Department and state and local governments that there was no
evidence of WIDESPREAD fraud...

Indeed?  How widespread is necessary to cause the appearance of impropriety?
How widespread do we wish to tolerate?  Note that one congressional seat was
decided by less than a dozen votes and another one still isn't decided.  So
how widespread shall we tolerate?  Why do we tolerate any-spread voting
fraud?  We have the means to make a trustworthy verifiable election. 

>...there was clearly one video that could be construed as evidence of
small-scale fraud...

Indeed?  How small?

>... The problem is the black-box nature and security flaws inherent in
voting machines makes it so that every election that has ever used them has
engendered at least some people crying foul...

And yet, we still have the wretched contraptions.  Why do we still have
them?  Do we need them?  Why do we still need them?  

Without voting machines, we will not know who won the election that night.
With voting machines we will not know who won the election ever.

>... I have read and heard many software engineers warning of the ease of
hacking voting machines and voting software in general...

Please how long are we going to tickle the tail of this venomous dragon?
Can anyone here offer a good reason (other than corruption) that we really
need voting machines at all?

https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/PSNR20.pdf

Cool thanks for the links Stuart.  Very informative.

>...If one does not want to read the whole article, it is quite nicely
summarized by this installment of xkcd:
...

https://xkcd.com/2030/


>...The authors of the paper contend that no electronic voting system is as
trustworthy as paper ballots. 

I agree.  So why should we opt for a less trustworthy system?  Well, other
than the obvious reason, is there any other justification for them?

>... One of their biggest objections to blockchain is that being able to
offer proof of ones vote will lead to coercion and the buying and selling of
votes...

Stuart that ship has sailed.  The most populous state in the union legalized
vote harvesting.  This allows people to sell their signed ballots.
Elections are already for sale.  Big money interests can already buy
elections.  Now a second state has legalized vote harvesting.  People with
political power now have a debt to repay.

>... the possibility of voluntarily selling ones vote is such a horrible
development especially considering the attempted insurrection in the Capitol
last week...

There are two ways to go with that.  Since there is no way to stop people
from selling signed ballots, there is no point in having laws to prevent it.
Alternatively: if we had fair and trustworthy elections, there would not
have been an attempted insurrection.  If we put systems in place to make
elections trustworthy, we can prevent all manner of unpleasantness in the
future.

>...Which brings up another point. If voting machines are universally
distrusted and despised, then why do we still use them? 

Other than the obvious answer, I am stumped.

>... If distrust of voting machines are causing massive protests that lead
to injury, loss of life, and destruction of property and historic artifacts,
then should not the manufacturers of voting machines be held liable for the
damages?

No.  The liability is on the governments which choose to use them.

>...Putting these companies on the hook for the damage done seems a great
deterrent to keep companies from trying to sell governments voting machines
that nobody trusts...

Anything that has a buyer has a seller.  Governments know what is at stake.

>.... I don't see how the Republic can continue to survive if we can't
restore people's trust in our elections...

Agreed sir, and well said.  

	- The steps are easy: eliminate all voting machines forever.
	- Never let ballots be out of sight of multiple witnesses.
	- End vote harvesting (in accordance with the previous comment.)
	- Place digital images of signatures beside a digital image of the
registration in the public domain.
	- Publish lists of registered voters (so that volunteers may verify
the addresses exist.)
	- Double count the ballots, by groups of volunteers, and if the
numbers by two independent groups disagree, count a third, fourth and fifth
time if necessary.


>...despotism is the only way to prevent violence...  Stuart LaForge

Ja, but there are alternatives to violence to prevent despotism.

Sure, if we do the steps outlined above, we won't know who won the election
that night.  But we will eventually know for sure.  We can know fairly
quickly, within days: in the future there will be armies of volunteers
available to count ballots, teeming hordes, faceless masses.  I will eagerly
and cheerfully join them (even if I am the only one there with an actual
face (oh that would be so creepy.))  Americans realize now what is at stake.
We will chip in and help count those ballots, quickly and accurately, by
hand.

Stuart, this can be fixed.  It isn't even hard to do.  It remains to be seen
if the necessary changes will be made, and if not, who is blocking them.

spike

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat