Democratic Nomination?

So how do we deal with the issue of voter identification techniques v. voter anonymity? Do we walk out of the voter booth with purple thumbs, like newly "freed" Iraqis? Or do we walk out and allow our vote to be cast for a candadite for which we didn't vote? Do we swipe our voter registration card when we choose our candidate and then have to worry about our union working against us because they know we cast a ballot for a candidate they didn't back?

Anonymity with confidence, or public records of each and every vote we cast?

Originally posted by Devil King
So how do we deal with the issue of voter identification techniques v. voter anonymity? Do we walk out of the voter booth with purple thumbs, like newly "freed" Iraqis? Or do we walk out and allow our vote to be cast for a candadite for which we didn't vote? Do we swipe our voter registration card when we choose our candidate and then have to worry about our union working against us because they know we cast a ballot for a candidate they didn't back?

Anonymity with confidence, or public records of each and every vote we cast?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The answer is to make every decision that is made by vote to be ****ing pointless and not matter to everyone in any way.

Tell me, how would you fix that problem?

Originally posted by Devil King
Tell me, how would you fix that problem?

What do you think is the problem though?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was actually being quite serious.

What do you think is the problem though?

I know you were being serious. That's why I asked for your solution.

The "problem" is that votes tabulated by machines, or even by annonymous paper ballads, can be fixed or altered to represent the end result desired by a corrupt political system. On the other hand, if you had a ballot that was identified by a finger print or voter registration number, then your vote would be a matter of public or private record. But the key term there is 'record'. You vote would be identifiable to your union officials or church officials or even your human resources depatment. That would lead to the possiblitiy of voter coersion and then repercussions in your professional or private life. (This has been a real problem in the past)

Even the idea that a voter gets a voter's reciept that could be presented in the case of a recount, leads to the possiblity of voter bullying.

Originally posted by Devil King
I know you were being serious. That's why I asked for your solution.

The "problem" is that votes tabulated by machines, or even by annonymous paper ballads, can be fixed or altered to represent the end result desired by a corrupt political system. On the other hand, if you had a ballot that was identified by a finger print or voter registration number, then your vote would be a matter of public or private record. But the key term there is 'record'. You vote would be identifiable to your union officials or church officials or even your human resources depatment. That would lead to the possiblitiy of voter coersion and then repercussions in your professional or private life. (This has been a real problem in the past)

Even the idea that a voter gets a voter's reciept that could be presented in the case of a recount, leads to the possiblity of voter bullying.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why exactly should you have the right to anonymously decide the fate of a huge amount of people? You can't decide stuff for other people and then say "But hey, no one is allowed to know", in my opinion at least.

You mean to tell me you don't understand what the issue could be?

You don't understand how a person's life could be made more difficult if his machine workers union endorses candidate A, but his voting record reflects that he cast a ballot for candidate B, that the union knowing that could mean trouble for that guy?

We already cast annonymous ballots.

Originally posted by Devil King
You mean to tell me you don't understand what the issue could be?

You don't understand how a person's life could be made more difficult if his machine workers union endorses candidate A, but his voting record reflects that he cast a ballot for candidate B, that the union knowing that could mean trouble for that guy?

We already cast annonymous ballots.

man. sometimes, talking to you...

Originally posted by Devil King
man. sometimes, talking to you...

I don't need to explain it to you again. You're just being obstinate. Should we post them like end-of-semester finals scores? What makes you think you have a right to know? The transparency of democracy? Kind of hard to support that notion when your HR dept. at work can make sure you vote their way or find yourself without a job. Maybe Wal-Mart is hiring. Or, hell, why don't we just get wal-mart to vote for each and every one of their 1.5 million employees.

Originally posted by Devil King
I know you were being serious. That's why I asked for your solution.

The "problem" is that votes tabulated by machines, or even by annonymous paper ballads, can be fixed or altered to represent the end result desired by a corrupt political system. On the other hand, if you had a ballot that was identified by a finger print or voter registration number, then your vote would be a matter of public or private record. But the key term there is 'record'. You vote would be identifiable to your union officials or church officials or even your human resources depatment. That would lead to the possiblitiy of voter coersion and then repercussions in your professional or private life. (This has been a real problem in the past)

Even the idea that a voter gets a voter's reciept that could be presented in the case of a recount, leads to the possiblity of voter bullying.

It wouldn't take too much effort to setup a secure system that wouldn't allow you to vote without scanning a finger or thumb. The records would not be accessible for a recount unless you had 4 or 5 people scattered throughout the united states to use their own biometrics and password to open up the records for a recount. You could make it a requirement for the supreme court members to be the ones who unlock the records and the president to co-open the records.

Voter anonymity would be preserved AND only specific situations would allow the records to be setup. Securing the data itself is rather easy as the DOD has several methods of securing that data so tight that not even Chinese hacking teams can crack the databases.

You may ask, "what about people who do not have any limbs or are quadriplegics?" I don't know about them...they would have to vote old school or something...but that may screw up the data system. A voter think tank could easily think of a way to integrate their vote into that electronic system with no problems, I am sure.

The system used for voting would have to be secured. Each system would need to tie into a district to create a fragmented network, that way if one network was cracked, you wouldn't have access to the entire system, just the precinct or tri-county area, etc. They could create virtual networks out of existing hardware with specific authentication methods that are not synchronized with each other.

To top it all off, you could have some sort of auto process to destroy those voting records after so long or something...just to preserve confidentiality really far down the road.

This is just off the top of my head so I am sure someone else who has been doing these types of things for years could think of an even better system.

Originally posted by Devil King
I don't need to explain it to you again. You're just being obstinate. Should we post them like end-of-semester finals scores? What makes you think you have a right to know? The transparency of democracy? Kind of hard to support that notion when your HR dept. at work can make sure you vote their way or find yourself without a job. Maybe Wal-Mart is hiring. Or, hell, why don't we just get wal-mart to vote for each and every one of their 1.5 million employees.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have the right to know because every ****er that is voting is deciding shit that influences me. Every single one. Again. It wouldn't be an issue if the most they can decide is what Bubble Gum is called from now on, but they can decide whether I have to accept murder in my name...so, sorry if I don't really care whether they have to justify their votes. I see where you are coming from and I think the solution would be that the votes aren't published though they are connected to the people, but still, in theory I would find it better if everyone has to take responsibility for their decisions.

You speak as though you've somehow magically found yourself outside the situation. (Or maybe it's just because you're outside the actual country we're addressing.) And that's a fine position to take, until you get called in to a meeting with your local union reps.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The records would not be accessible for a recount unless you had 4 or 5 people scattered throughout the united states to use their own biometrics and password to open up the records for a recount.

Thus putting the authority into the hands of a small group of people, or perhaps a branch of the government whose members have been apointed by members of one party or the other?

If this system is electronic, then how does it change the nature of the problem as it already exists?

Originally posted by Devil King
Thus putting the authority into the hands of a small group of people, or perhaps a branch of the government whose members have been apointed by members of one party or the other?

If this system is electronic, then how does it change the nature of the problem as it already exists?

Originally posted by Devil King
Thus putting the authority into the hands of a small group of people, or perhaps a branch of the government whose members have been apointed by members of one party or the other?

If this system is electronic, then how does it change the nature of the problem as it already exists?

You seem to believe in conspiracies too much.

The supreme court judges coupled with a member from another branch seems like a good choice to make that decision...they were the ones who decided that George Bush won the election in 2000...something like that would definitely go the supreme court. If they decided on a recount, they would also release the records coupled with the President or someone else. Politics is corrupt...but not as corrupt as you or Deano think.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You seem to believe in conspiracies too much.

The supreme court judges coupled with a member from another branch seems like a good choice to make that decision...they were the ones who decided that George Bush won the election in 2000...something like that would definitely go the supreme court. If they decided on a recount, they would also release the records coupled with the President or someone else. Politics is corrupt...but not as corrupt as you or Deano think.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually 2000 might have been corrupt. Pretty likely even.

My point is that it came down to a decision from the supreme court...which is where these types of things end up. Supreme court members are life time appointments...several presidents have their hand in appointments.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My point is that it came down to a decision from the supreme court...which is where these types of things end up. Supreme court members are life time appointments...several presidents have their hand in appointments.