Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Jorge Stolfi (jorgestolfi@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 30-May-2024 10:02:59 JST Jorge Stolfi

   🧵>
   * The folded paper ballots should be deposited in a translucent ballot box in front of a bunch of election officers, in public view but out of anyone else's reach.

   * At the end of the election day, the same officers open the box and count the votes, reading them aloud, still in view of the public. They then sign the total sheet and send the numbers to a central station, that adds up the totals. 🧵>

   • Embed this notice
     Steven Bodzin (guacamayan@journa.host)'s status on Thursday, 30-May-2024 10:02:56 JST Steven Bodzin

     in reply to

     @JorgeStolfi none of this matters, man. Belief is not based on evidence. People either trust in electrical or they don't. In an era of antisocial media, distrust is the norm. No matter how good the system, distrust will prevail, and democracy can't survive that.

     We don't need paper ballots, we need paper books and news papers. The problem isn't electronic voting but electronic social life.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Thursday, 30-May-2024 10:02:56 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • Steven Bodzin
     electronic voting is impossible to make voter-verifiable and -trustable by the average voter. most people don't have the required knowledge of computing and maths to as much as reason about the security of the entire process.
     
     that's what makes paper-based voting safer for democracy. parties can have regular people auditing the voting and the counting, rather than computing and cryptography specialists auditing code that might not even be running on the actual machines.
     
     that makes a fundamental difference in how believable the results are
   • Embed this notice
     Jorge Stolfi (jorgestolfi@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 30-May-2024 10:02:57 JST Jorge Stolfi

     in reply to

     • Steven Bodzin

     @guacamayan

     🧵> For sparsely populated areas, and bed-ridden voters, one can have moving voting stations, complete with ballot box and team of election officers.

     It also goes without saying that members of the current government, of any branch, should not be allowed to interfere in the voting process. Voting laws should be enacted by the Federal government and should take effect only 8 years after that. 🧵>

   • Embed this notice
     Jorge Stolfi (jorgestolfi@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 30-May-2024 10:02:57 JST Jorge Stolfi

     in reply to

     • Steven Bodzin

     @guacamayan

     🧵> The election process should be run by an Election Commission set up just for each election, and voting station officers should be chosen by lot, like jurors...

   • Embed this notice
     Jorge Stolfi (jorgestolfi@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 30-May-2024 10:02:58 JST Jorge Stolfi

     in reply to

     • Steven Bodzin

     @guacamayan

     🧵> Venezuela under Chavez is a good example for my point. They used electronic voting machines, but of the type that prints the vote, lets the voter verify it, and then deposits it in a ballot box. Twice the opposition tried to start a civil war by claiming that the election that they lost had been rigged; but the votes were recounted manually and confirmed the result, and the civil war was avoided. International observers too confirmed the result.

   • Embed this notice
     Jorge Stolfi (jorgestolfi@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 30-May-2024 10:02:58 JST Jorge Stolfi

     in reply to

     • Steven Bodzin

     @guacamayan

     🧵> As for people who can't get to the voting station on election day: it goes without saying that there should be a voting station within walking distance of every place with a few hundred residents. This is another argument against electronic voting machines, because it makes the cost of a voting station to be $1000 or more rather than $10. 🧵>

   • Embed this notice
     Steven Bodzin (guacamayan@journa.host)'s status on Thursday, 30-May-2024 10:02:59 JST Steven Bodzin

     in reply to

     @JorgeStolfi this kind of election excludes people who can't get to the voting station on election day.

     Your characterization of losers as always being suspicious and sore losers is out of line with hundreds of years of representative democracy in which there were far bigger issues than what we suffer today.

     No election system will convince people who want to be suspicious (see Venezuela under Chavez) and even an awful system can be trusted by people of good faith.