What do you think are scams?

[kalvado]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

I can't agree with this one.

Sorry for going into politics, but...
Elections should be a secure procedure. Security concepts are evolving, as parties involved are becoming more aggressive and understanding of problems evolves.  There is also a complication with identity verification and anonymizing results. Keeping as much of the process as possible exposed to public and monitors; and verifyable is the way problem is approached so far. Thats not the only option, but most traditional one.

With that....

A lot of recent policies are aimed at reducing elections security - possibly as unintended effect (if you believe in "unintended" part, I have some highway bridges for sale real cheap).  Mail-in voting aka ballot harvesting, no government ID verification, early voting without monitors present, ballot photos are great examples of security backdoors which  may not be used YET.
YET is the keyword. 


On the same page - a lot of security aspects in our lives is evolving. We may dislike 2FA it is used more and more frequently. Chip-enabled credit cards are a mainstream.  We still have door locks mostly preventing honest people from accidentally walking in - but now they are often supplemented with cameras...

Solving a voter fraud problem that doesn't exist.

There is no IT security problem until you are hacked or crime problem until you are robbed.. 
Rensselaer county election commissioner got federal charges filed, but that is too far away, right?

[kalvado]

Not to get into it and either, but it's paranoia. No amount of voting "anomalies" could offset an 8,000,000 or 11,000,000 majority for example. That's all I'm gonna say about that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bush II vs Al Gore boiled down to a much smaller number of ballots. Presidential elections are decided in swing states, representative majorities  on different levels are decided in swing districts....

I agree, the Electoral College is a scam.  Get rid of that and there won't be any elections decided by swing states/districts, or by small margins (Gore won the national popular vote by about one million votes, as I recall).

Still there is house of representatives which is divided close to 50-50, and majority party would have a few representatives who won by a small margin.
It may be the same at any representation level, it's a feature of a system - electing a single representative into a bigger body is prone to that.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Any political system other than a direct democracy is a scam.

[Max Rockatansky]

Any political system other than a direct democracy is a scam.

Says the guy who doesn't vote.

[CoreySamson]

Any political system other than a direct democracy is a scam.

Pure democracy to me is a scam. The 51% majority can get what it wants, leaving the 49% at their mercy. Democracy works when it has checks and balances (such as how the US was originally envisioned).

[kalvado]

Any political system other than a direct democracy is a scam.

Pure democracy to me is a scam. The 51% majority can get what it wants, leaving the 49% at their mercy. Democracy works when it has checks and balances (such as how the US was originally envisioned).

Not even that. Democracy works best when most (not 50%+1 vote) people share common goals and common grand vision. You cannot have democracy in a group of rabbits and wolves.

[hotdogPi]

That's exactly why I don't vote. Why bother in a state where there's a 7 to 1 majority of one party to the other, and therefore your vote will not change anything for EITHER candidate. Even for governor I disliked both Zeldin and Kathy, so what's the point?

Ironic coming from the part of the country with the biggest House GOP upsets.

[abefroman329]

Not to get into it and either, but it's paranoia. No amount of voting "anomalies" could offset an 8,000,000 or 11,000,000 majority for example. That's all I'm gonna say about that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bush II vs Al Gore boiled down to a much smaller number of ballots. Presidential elections are decided in swing states, representative majorities  on different levels are decided in swing districts....

I agree, the Electoral College is a scam.  Get rid of that and there won't be any elections decided by swing states/districts, or by small margins (Gore won the national popular vote by about one million votes, as I recall).

The biggest problem with that it one word - 'recount'. Also, the USA's midsection (aka 'flyover country') world really become FLYOVER COUNTRY - only the interests of the biggest urban markets would ever get any attention from the media and the people in charge  (those founding fathers™ were really smart people!).

Mike

So everyone's vote would count equally?  How awful

[Bruce]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

I should note that Washington has had mail voting for over a decade and entrusted it to a Republican Secretary of State until very recently. The only real hiccups were either caused by DeJoy's USPS or the standard failed verifications that get rejected and have to be replaced. In 2016, an audit of Washington elections found only 2 fraudulent ballots (both non-counted) out of 3.25 million cast.

2 votes out of 3,245,282.

[kalvado]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

Ok, and how about $50 for that ballot so I can take the burden of research from you?

[jeffandnicole]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

How does one's voting option impact the amount of time they have to research candidates and their positions?  Anyone who actually wants to do this won't be going to a polling place on election day to only find out about the candidates for the first time.  If they do, then they ignored the sample ballot and all other news and social media coverage about the candidates.

[Bruce]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

Ok, and how about $50 for that ballot so I can take the burden of research from you?

And how does requiring votes to be done in-person prevent any of that? I could offer money for votes to any of the bored people waiting in long lines.

Also should note that mail votes are less effected by weather or freak events. The mail might be delayed for those who wait until close to Election Day, but people are still able to cast their ballots.

How does one's voting option impact the amount of time they have to research candidates and their positions?  Anyone who actually wants to do this won't be going to a polling place on election day to only find out about the candidates for the first time.  If they do, then they ignored the sample ballot and all other news and social media coverage about the candidates.

Even an informed voter like myself would be hard-pressed to memorize or note all the candidates in smaller elections. There might be 30+ elections to pick with hundreds of candidates in the primaries.

[kalvado]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

Ok, and how about $50 for that ballot so I can take the burden of research from you?

And how does requiring votes to be done in-person prevent any of that? I could offer money for votes to any of the bored people waiting in long lines.

Also should note that mail votes are less effected by weather or freak events. The mail might be delayed for those who wait until close to Election Day, but people are still able to cast their ballots.

How does one's voting option impact the amount of time they have to research candidates and their positions?  Anyone who actually wants to do this won't be going to a polling place on election day to only find out about the candidates for the first time.  If they do, then they ignored the sample ballot and all other news and social media coverage about the candidates.

Even an informed voter like myself would be hard-pressed to memorize or note all the candidates in smaller elections. There might be 30+ elections to pick with hundreds of candidates in the primaries.

Idea is that payer has no way to verify the vote actually cast in-person as poll location is public and monitored, someone looking at your ballot would quickly get flagged. Otherwise you're free to collect $50 and vote the way you want, not the way you're paid for.  That's why some places also have a ban on ballot pictures,  and the actual ballot marking process is private. 
You can easily let someone check the ballot before mailing (or mark and mail it for you) in exchange for cash. . 
There are some interesting engineered approaches to keep process confidential and verifiable at the same time. Of course those don't resolve long lines or 20+ hour working days for poll workers. 

If anything, I can see online vote with an opportunity to change your vote up until poll closing (vote A, get $50, walk away, re-vote B). That would require a method for robust personal identification online, something that is easier to say than to do. For example, SSN as a passcode is a fairly lame attempt causing significant problems...  We're even struggling with robust personal identification in-person....

[JayhawkCO]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

Ok, and how about $50 for that ballot so I can take the burden of research from you?

And how does requiring votes to be done in-person prevent any of that? I could offer money for votes to any of the bored people waiting in long lines.

Also should note that mail votes are less effected by weather or freak events. The mail might be delayed for those who wait until close to Election Day, but people are still able to cast their ballots.

How does one's voting option impact the amount of time they have to research candidates and their positions?  Anyone who actually wants to do this won't be going to a polling place on election day to only find out about the candidates for the first time.  If they do, then they ignored the sample ballot and all other news and social media coverage about the candidates.

Even an informed voter like myself would be hard-pressed to memorize or note all the candidates in smaller elections. There might be 30+ elections to pick with hundreds of candidates in the primaries.

Idea is that payer has no way to verify the vote actually cast in-person as poll location is public and monitored, someone looking at your ballot would quickly get flagged. Otherwise you're free to collect $50 and vote the way you want, not the way you're paid for.  That's why some places also have a ban on ballot pictures,  and the actual ballot marking process is private. 
You can easily let someone check the ballot before mailing (or mark and mail it for you) in exchange for cash. . 
There are some interesting engineered approaches to keep process confidential and verifiable at the same time. Of course those don't resolve long lines or 20+ hour working days for poll workers. 

If anything, I can see online vote with an opportunity to change your vote up until poll closing (vote A, get $50, walk away, re-vote B). That would require a method for robust personal identification online, something that is easier to say than to do. For example, SSN as a passcode is a fairly lame attempt causing significant problems...  We're even struggling with robust personal identification in-person....

Or you can just do it the easy way that causes no problems -- mail in voting.

[kalvado]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

Ok, and how about $50 for that ballot so I can take the burden of research from you?

And how does requiring votes to be done in-person prevent any of that? I could offer money for votes to any of the bored people waiting in long lines.

Also should note that mail votes are less effected by weather or freak events. The mail might be delayed for those who wait until close to Election Day, but people are still able to cast their ballots.

How does one's voting option impact the amount of time they have to research candidates and their positions?  Anyone who actually wants to do this won't be going to a polling place on election day to only find out about the candidates for the first time.  If they do, then they ignored the sample ballot and all other news and social media coverage about the candidates.

Even an informed voter like myself would be hard-pressed to memorize or note all the candidates in smaller elections. There might be 30+ elections to pick with hundreds of candidates in the primaries.

Idea is that payer has no way to verify the vote actually cast in-person as poll location is public and monitored, someone looking at your ballot would quickly get flagged. Otherwise you're free to collect $50 and vote the way you want, not the way you're paid for.  That's why some places also have a ban on ballot pictures,  and the actual ballot marking process is private. 
You can easily let someone check the ballot before mailing (or mark and mail it for you) in exchange for cash. . 
There are some interesting engineered approaches to keep process confidential and verifiable at the same time. Of course those don't resolve long lines or 20+ hour working days for poll workers. 

If anything, I can see online vote with an opportunity to change your vote up until poll closing (vote A, get $50, walk away, re-vote B). That would require a method for robust personal identification online, something that is easier to say than to do. For example, SSN as a passcode is a fairly lame attempt causing significant problems...  We're even struggling with robust personal identification in-person....

Or you can just do it the easy way that causes no problems -- mail in voting.

Mail-in is not secure. 

[J N Winkler]

I am against bans on ballot selfies too.  I routinely take a camera copy of my voted ballot--not because I sell my vote (which is illegal at both ends of the transaction), and not because I post it online to say I have voted, but rather to keep myself honest when some official or other makes an ass of himself or herself and I think to myself, "I can't possibly have voted for him or her."

Kansas does not ban ballot selfies, though in state law there is a ban on disclosure of individual votes that applies to persons having election duty, not voters.

[abefroman329]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

Ok, and how about $50 for that ballot so I can take the burden of research from you?

And how does requiring votes to be done in-person prevent any of that? I could offer money for votes to any of the bored people waiting in long lines.

Also should note that mail votes are less effected by weather or freak events. The mail might be delayed for those who wait until close to Election Day, but people are still able to cast their ballots.

How does one's voting option impact the amount of time they have to research candidates and their positions?  Anyone who actually wants to do this won't be going to a polling place on election day to only find out about the candidates for the first time.  If they do, then they ignored the sample ballot and all other news and social media coverage about the candidates.

Even an informed voter like myself would be hard-pressed to memorize or note all the candidates in smaller elections. There might be 30+ elections to pick with hundreds of candidates in the primaries.

Idea is that payer has no way to verify the vote actually cast in-person as poll location is public and monitored, someone looking at your ballot would quickly get flagged. Otherwise you're free to collect $50 and vote the way you want, not the way you're paid for.  That's why some places also have a ban on ballot pictures,  and the actual ballot marking process is private. 
You can easily let someone check the ballot before mailing (or mark and mail it for you) in exchange for cash. . 
There are some interesting engineered approaches to keep process confidential and verifiable at the same time. Of course those don't resolve long lines or 20+ hour working days for poll workers. 

If anything, I can see online vote with an opportunity to change your vote up until poll closing (vote A, get $50, walk away, re-vote B). That would require a method for robust personal identification online, something that is easier to say than to do. For example, SSN as a passcode is a fairly lame attempt causing significant problems...  We're even struggling with robust personal identification in-person....

If you had even a basic understanding of how election laws work as they stand now, then you wouldn't be asking some of the questions you're asking.

[JayhawkCO]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

Ok, and how about $50 for that ballot so I can take the burden of research from you?

And how does requiring votes to be done in-person prevent any of that? I could offer money for votes to any of the bored people waiting in long lines.

Also should note that mail votes are less effected by weather or freak events. The mail might be delayed for those who wait until close to Election Day, but people are still able to cast their ballots.

How does one's voting option impact the amount of time they have to research candidates and their positions?  Anyone who actually wants to do this won't be going to a polling place on election day to only find out about the candidates for the first time.  If they do, then they ignored the sample ballot and all other news and social media coverage about the candidates.

Even an informed voter like myself would be hard-pressed to memorize or note all the candidates in smaller elections. There might be 30+ elections to pick with hundreds of candidates in the primaries.

Idea is that payer has no way to verify the vote actually cast in-person as poll location is public and monitored, someone looking at your ballot would quickly get flagged. Otherwise you're free to collect $50 and vote the way you want, not the way you're paid for.  That's why some places also have a ban on ballot pictures,  and the actual ballot marking process is private. 
You can easily let someone check the ballot before mailing (or mark and mail it for you) in exchange for cash. . 
There are some interesting engineered approaches to keep process confidential and verifiable at the same time. Of course those don't resolve long lines or 20+ hour working days for poll workers. 

If anything, I can see online vote with an opportunity to change your vote up until poll closing (vote A, get $50, walk away, re-vote B). That would require a method for robust personal identification online, something that is easier to say than to do. For example, SSN as a passcode is a fairly lame attempt causing significant problems...  We're even struggling with robust personal identification in-person....

Or you can just do it the easy way that causes no problems -- mail in voting.

Mail-in is not secure.

Says you. Colorado has been doing it since 2013 with no issues. I get a text when my ballot is mailed to me, delivered to me, received for counting, and counted. We have the best system in the country.

[kalvado]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

Ok, and how about $50 for that ballot so I can take the burden of research from you?

And how does requiring votes to be done in-person prevent any of that? I could offer money for votes to any of the bored people waiting in long lines.

Also should note that mail votes are less effected by weather or freak events. The mail might be delayed for those who wait until close to Election Day, but people are still able to cast their ballots.

How does one's voting option impact the amount of time they have to research candidates and their positions?  Anyone who actually wants to do this won't be going to a polling place on election day to only find out about the candidates for the first time.  If they do, then they ignored the sample ballot and all other news and social media coverage about the candidates.

Even an informed voter like myself would be hard-pressed to memorize or note all the candidates in smaller elections. There might be 30+ elections to pick with hundreds of candidates in the primaries.

Idea is that payer has no way to verify the vote actually cast in-person as poll location is public and monitored, someone looking at your ballot would quickly get flagged. Otherwise you're free to collect $50 and vote the way you want, not the way you're paid for.  That's why some places also have a ban on ballot pictures,  and the actual ballot marking process is private. 
You can easily let someone check the ballot before mailing (or mark and mail it for you) in exchange for cash. . 
There are some interesting engineered approaches to keep process confidential and verifiable at the same time. Of course those don't resolve long lines or 20+ hour working days for poll workers. 

If anything, I can see online vote with an opportunity to change your vote up until poll closing (vote A, get $50, walk away, re-vote B). That would require a method for robust personal identification online, something that is easier to say than to do. For example, SSN as a passcode is a fairly lame attempt causing significant problems...  We're even struggling with robust personal identification in-person....

If you had even a basic understanding of how election laws work as they stand now, then you wouldn't be asking some of the questions you're asking.

That's the fun part about security - you need to look at how things MAY work as opposed to how they SHOULD work. If you had even a basic understanding of how traffic laws work as they stand now, then you wouldn't be expecting to see average speeds I do see.

[ethanhopkin14]

I have never been a user.  I don't smoke anything, and I don't drink.  Every person I have ever met who habitually smokes marijuana always:

A) Tells me they are not addicted and can quit anytime.

B) Gets mad at me for not trying it (I still don't know why they even care).

C) Goes on and on about how safe it is.

D) Then proceeds to space out constantly, and the ones I worked with, would need to be told several times how to do the most menial tasks.

Maybe all of the hundreds of people I have met who smoke the stuff were all naturally dingbats anyway (so smoking it truly had no effect), although I do have a hard time with that one because the people I worked with that smoked it would be just a little crappy at their job without smoking, go hide somewhere to smoke and come back to work unable to even walk or concentrate.  You can come at me with all the statistics you want about how safe and harmless it is, but I know if it didn't affect your mind in some way then people wouldn't do it, and to think that the mind-altering effect it has is 100% temporary and doesn't have a long-term effect is naive and just ignorant.  Everything you eat or drink has a permanent effect on you so why wouldn't this?

I have experienced enough potheads to see that it can be addictive, people who are habitually doing it are compromised someway and I do not trust anyone behind the wheel of a car who is on the stuff no matter what statistics you pull up after watching the many vacant stares I have witnessed with people on the stuff (do you think I want someone spacing out when they drive?  Drivers are crappy enough stone cold sober).  I don't care if anyone does it, but to act like it is healthy and just as organic as drinking water is just wrong.  Do it all you want, but I am not changing my mind that I want to stay far away from it.

Also any rewards program from a retailer is a scam. 

[abefroman329]

That's the fun part about security - you need to look at how things MAY work as opposed to how they SHOULD work.

Presumably you also need to look at the current safeguards in place and whether they're sufficient to solve issues that MAY come up.  And you haven't done that with election laws.

If you had even a basic understanding of how traffic laws work as they stand now, then you wouldn't be expecting to see average speeds I do see.

...no idea what this means, but ok.

[hotdogPi]

Also any rewards program from a retailer is a scam.

Absolutely not. For IHOP in particular, I think they're actually losing money on me. Other restaurants, like UNO, Outback, and Friendly's, are 1 in 16, 1 in 14, and 1 in 15 back, respectively.

[abefroman329]

Maybe all of the hundreds of people I have met who smoke the stuff were all naturally dingbats anyway (so smoking it truly had no effect)

And maybe the fact that all the people I've known who brag about not smoking anything or drinking are pious, judgmental pricks is a big coincidence.  Who can say.

Addiction comes in many forms and they all light up the exact same part of your brain.  And everybody has their own unhealthy coping skills.  No need to break your arm jacking yourself off just because alcohol and marijuana aren't on your list.

[kkt]

- Voting at locations and times other than your local polling places on election day

You can pry my mail voting from my cold, dead hands.

I am not waiting in line for hours to vote in a rushed manner when I could fill out my ballot from the comfort of home with plenty of time to actually research candidates and their policies. Mail voting increases turnout and makes it more accessible than polling stations ever could; in a truly democratic society, we'd all be using it.

Ok, and how about $50 for that ballot so I can take the burden of research from you?

I'm not Bruce, but I am from Washington State.  If anything less of the BS administrative time of walking down to a polling place, waiting in line, marking the paper, and then waiting in line again to feed it into the machine leaves the voter with MORE time that they might use to research candidates.  Having your sample ballot and computer in the comfort of your home before election day saves time and lets voters work in comfort.  It also saves time to drop off your ballot at any of many convenient drop boxes within the county.

Voters must still show their ID in order to get registered to vote or to change their address.  If a hypothetical bad guy intercepts the ballot, 1. they still have to sign it, and County elections will check it against the signature under which they registered.  2. the voter will probably notice, hey, my ballot hasn't come, and request a replacement.  Then Elections will hold them both for close examination and probably discover the signature mismatch.

Moving the counting away from hundreds of separate precincts to a single Elections office in each county means every verification and counting operation is subject to examination by observers from both parties and the press.  In that way it is considerably more secure than having every precinct count their own.

[kalvado]

That's the fun part about security - you need to look at how things MAY work as opposed to how they SHOULD work.

Presumably you also need to look at the current safeguards in place and whether they're sufficient to solve issues that MAY come up.  And you haven't done that with election laws.

If you had even a basic understanding of how traffic laws work as they stand now, then you wouldn't be expecting to see average speeds I do see.

...no idea what this means, but ok.

.
A common wisdom from OSHA is that safety compliance is better achieved by engineering the process rather than  by regulating things. System which doesn't give people an opportunity to get into  trouble is much better  than a system which requires action or enforcement to keep things going safely.
If you have to appeal to paper safeguards, you already loosing control.
Even OSHA gets it right....