You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
129 points

“The last thing I would do is trust a computer program,” says the owner of a car company developing self driving & rocket company building automation into rocket launches.

permalink
report
reply
25 points

not to mention brain chips. Remember, every accusation is a confession with the MAGA crowd. I bet we’d find a few gems in the code for tesla and twitter now

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Software that killed a pedestrian recently.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

That’s why you’re supposed to have paper backups. And you audit things.

Edit: I think you could even get a real time audit and still be electronic with backups

  1. You go to machine and vote
  2. It prints off a copy of what you voted and records it (this is the primary vote count)
  3. You verify the paper ballot print off and take it to a second area to be recorded and kept for audits.
  4. Put ballot in second machine which validates and counts the vote and externally shows a counter increase on the machine for votes counted (not who) so you also know this machine counted it for a total.

So now you have the proper vote tallies from 1. The audit of the correct amount of total records from 4. If there’s any cause for concern or for auditing, you can manually count the paper ballots.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

Well, actually that’s correct, which is why there are various approaches to make it possible to trust an output of a computer program, verify it against that of other such computer programs, and so on.

But in my opinion the whole idea of voting sucks. It’s less democratic than sortition. With sortition minority positions are disadvantaged, but with most systems involving vote they are absolutely trumped (pun intended, though saying “harrised” would not be as far as I’d like).

Republics which used sortition have historically existed for very long spans of time. In Antiquity, in Middle Ages, during Renaissance. It’s harder to cheat with. Which also means it’s harder to sow distrust in.

And, well, humans are superstitious creatures and results of sortition are much more similar to how they see divine will.

Sortition is also more honest, it doesn’t abuse the human instinct of allowing politicians more than their rightful mandate when elected by a majority vote. When the reason a person holds some position is because a of a lucky die, the society looks at them more critically and they themselves know they won’t enter that river for a second time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

What are you talking about?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Picking a random person. If looking up a word is too hard

permalink
report
parent
reply
-33 points

To be fair, I wouldn’t trust a computer program for voting either, but I would trust and ride in an autonomously landing rocket.

Which is why I much prefer the scantron type fill in the bubble ballots, you get a full digital count with an easily cross referenced ballot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points
*

So you fully trust computers that can kill you and others without a thought, but you don’t trust a computer to do the insanely simpler task of “count paper?”

Also, musk and all the other disingenuous shitheads are complaining about any digital counting, including your preferred scantron ballots. They want very slow, flaw ridden human counting only, so they can inject chaos and noise into the electorial system and force the “congress picks the president” process in our constitution that will always favor the GOP.

Paper ballots are already used in 98% of all US elections, they are just counted digitally. These are not serious people with serious concerns.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

A computer that lands a rocket incorrectly is found out immediately.

A computer that tallies votes incorrectly may never be found out.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 213K

    Comments