I find it speaks volumes about motivations that nobody seems to have any interest in the topic. But really both sides should want it, the left should want it so there's even less basis for doubt in the future, the right should want it if they honestly believe there was irregularity.
Because of the importance of the right to a secret ballot, some E2E voting schemes also attempt to meet a third requirement, usually referred to as receipt freeness:
No voter can demonstrate how he or she voted to any third party.
It also provides receipt freeness .
About half of all districts in the US already use the optical scan counters, which means if we switched to this half the districts would not need any expensive new equipment. All the mathematical/cryptographic magic is in how the ballots themselves are printed and in the pens used to fill the bubbles.
I think the current election, or even just how screwed up elections are in other countries, show that it's probably an order of magnitude more important to have faith the process is objectively right, than to worry about the coercion scenario, which seems pretty contrived to me.
The existence of postal voting has already cracked this one open a bit, though.
It also possible for an E2E system to have design flaws. For example Scytl created an E2E system for the Swiss that had a cryptographic flaw that would allow a mix operator to modify votes in an election undetected.
You could publish hash(salt + SSN) = Vote for all votes on a website, and therefore if somebody voted twice they'd hit the same hash twice.
When you vote, you'd get a physical ballot, and a physical receipt, digitally signed by the booth. If what is published online Hash(salt + SSN) doesn't match your receipt, you'd have physical signed proof of tampering.
If you don't have that list, then there's nothing preventing you from padding the votes with fake people. You can try and implement some way of tracing the votes back to people but, first of all see point 1 up there (oh your phone number/email address/home address changed/was misspelled/you're homeless/you're a nomad) and second, you very likely break secret voting.
FWIW there is no perfect voting system--that's the core problem w/ this discussion. We have to choose:
- Do we have a citizen ID (there's a whole ball of wax here, primarily what happens if someone steals or you forget/lose your ID)
- Do we think some people w/ a citizen ID still shouldn't vote (17 year olds, the incarcerated, etc.)
- Do we create a potential link between people and their votes
- Do we allow people to not vote
- Do we require people to register before voting
- Do we allow people to verify their vote was counted
- Do we allow people to verify their vote was counted correctly (unclear how this would work)
- Do we allow people to vote remotely
- Do we create a paper trail
- Do we allow people to fix problems with their ballots
- Do we require people to sign their ballots, and do we require signature verification
Many of these things are at odds with each other, and depending on how you flip the bits, different political interests will win out.
That's the second reason this is such a nerd snipe. It really, really feels like this is a technical problem but it isn't. It's political, cultural, and societal. You're not gonna fix this with an app or an algorithm. If/When we do fix this I'm sure they'll be involved but, the reason will be multipartisan, multicultural consensus that we need to move forward.
They were not the "organization's beliefs", they were his. As David Frum observed: There are no institutions, only people.
As we've seen over the last little while, once well-respected organizations stayed silent in light of bad behaviour, and/or various institutions have been packed with ill-willed individuals which then did inappropriate things.
As well as touching on Krebs' firing, Hennessy also discusses the difference between political appointees and career track public service roles, and efforts to "burrow" political appointees in career track roles where they could potentially persist after the current administration departs .
Sure, through the courts, just as was in 2000 and in many other elections.
All of the claims about election fraud (including 100% of the affidavits submitted by Trump's campaign) were either invalidated by the courts or withdrawn by the affiants after they refused to testify to those statements under oath, meaning that lying (aka perjury) would result in criminal sanction.
On the other hand, the election workers, both Democrats and Republicans alike, were willing to testify under oath about the process by which ballots were brought in and counted. And there were confirmed and testified-to chains of custody for all ballots between all of the ballot collection sites (aka the polls) and the ballot counting centers. And in a number of the states at issue, the ballot counting process itself was video recorded and even live-streamed.
I would, except that the GOP redacted all names in the document so that nobody could actually verify whether the affiant was a poll worker, as claime, or even whether they exist.
But since they included the "Center" portion of the polling place and described the parking lot, it limits the locations where the supposed individual could have been a poll worker to literally none of the polling centers in Clark County. (There are no polling centers in Clark County that have both "Center" in the name and also have a narrow parking lot.)
Point 5. Is clearly false and demonstrates that affiant does not know the id requirements for Nevada voting. https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/government/departments/electio.... The DMV interim document includes appointment information but the point of the document is not the appointment date, it is that the DMV has verified on a preliminary basis that the person is who they say they are.
Point 7: this is okay fine since the activities were more than 100 feet from the polling place; the statement conveniently leaves out the part where the GOP also had tables in the parking lots of polling places.
Point 9: this is not how mail-in ballots work. Also, Nevada does not use "pink and white" envelopes for mail-in ballots. The white envelopes are the cover envelope sent to the voter that include the mail-in ballot and the pink reply envelope; the pink envelopes only contain the ballot. The white envelope cannot be reused once it is opened, and it would not fit in the small pink envelope. Thus, in alleging that ballots were placed in "white and pink envelopes" it is clear that the affiant is lying.
Point 12: this is clearly a lie, as noted above. Ballot reply envelopes were pink, not pink and white.
Point 13: this is allowed. Family members, for example, are allowed to drop off ballots for spouses, parents, etc.
I'm all for fair legal trials, and the cases are all dropped as nobody is able to mount any evidence, lawyers admit it was a lie before the judge, etc.
There should be no surprise that mailed votes have more votes for Biden, as Trump was supposedly all against mail-in voting, even though he used the same method himself. This means he's confident in the methodology, and just lies as usual.
Trump actually despises all the people following him. He only loves himself and would not think twice of hurting anybody to further enrich himself.
"In Georgia, primary election chaos highlights a voting system deeply flawed" - PBS
The new system replaces the purely electronic older system with a hybrid: tablets that physically mark a printed ballot (similar to California's new system).
From the linked article:
"The state spent more than $100 million to supply every county with so-called ImageCast machines made by a Canadian company, Dominion Voting Systems. They are ballot marking devices, meaning voters make selections on a touch screen, and ballots are printed with choices embedded in a Q.R. code and listed in plain English.
The paper ballot is then scanned and counted."
Voter's selections are literally printed in English text on the ballot, so they can be independently verified in the event of an audit.
Vote spike/batches/surges claims
1. Misreading a graph
2. Not knowing enough statistics to be able to make sense of something that can't easily be represented in a simple graph.
I checked about 10 claims and most of them were in category 1. Kinda depressing.
Anyways, it's not possible to respond to Trump without being dragged down into the mud.