Hacker News Reader

Comment by cinquemb | Hacker News Reader

Ok, then how about for primaries [0]? People have to register for those and provide proof in order to vote during those in a way that's not anonymous, right?

But even the process that people would have to go through to even get something like that up and running would be too heavily influenced by the ever printed federal reserve notes flowing into the beltway.

The way people state we can participate in the system just seems so moot when I think about it. Which is probably why I don't vote and because subversion seems to be the only thing working these days that is in the interests of the people and not just what we are told where our interests should lie…

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588

View on HN

If elections matter there is a strong case for anonymity. I'm not US based but as I understand it the primaries are in practice quite important but the ways they are run are highly variable and the choices of the parties (are they even constitutionally necessary or just common practice?). If they are currently not anonymous there is probably no harm in going online but I haven't fully thought it through but non-anonymous election processes are substandard anyway in my view.

Outside elections seriously massive scale public protest or large scale civil disobedience and general strikes really can change things. For smaller things mass lobbying of politicians can swing a balance.

Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one.

>Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one.

Oh really?[0]: "The Florida election recount of 2000 was a period of vote re-counting that occurred following the unclear results of the 2000 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, specifically the Florida results. The election was ultimately settled in favor of George W. Bush when the U.S. Supreme Court, with its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been proposed by the all Democrat Florida Supreme Court, which had the effect of awarding Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College."

With one flick of the wrist by a couple appointed judges, recounts become moot.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

I think Bush v Gore was an awful decision, but 1) judges are appointed by elected Presidents and confirmed by Senators, in accordance with the Constitution, so their role and powers are part of the Constitutional design; and 2) recounts did not become moot. The decision is explicitly limited to that particular case and the holding cannot be cited in other cases. Surely you've noticed that other elections since then have also involved recounts and nobody has tried to prevent them going ahead on the basis of Bush v Gore.

>1) judges are appointed by elected Presidents and confirmed by Senators, in accordance with the Constitution, so their role and powers are part of the Constitutional design

And as we have seen throughout history, they can grant themselves more power through amendments and executive orders that can go (and have gone in some cases) unchecked once enacted.

>2) recounts did not become moot

In that instance they did. But of course, something like this can never happen again even though it happened once already.

>Surely you've noticed that other elections since then have also involved recounts and nobody has tried to prevent them going ahead on the basis of Bush v Gore.

I haven't, care to point to some information?

And as we have seen throughout history, they can grant themselves more power through amendments and executive orders that can go (and have gone in some cases) unchecked once enacted.

By 'they' I presume you mean Presidents and Senators. And guess what the Cosntitution contains provisions for them to do exactly that, and for you to challenge it if you see fit. And that sort of thing happens quite frequently.

>2) recounts did not become moot

In that instance they did.

That doesn't even make sense.

I haven't, care to point to some information?

Really, you can't use Google to search for stories about election recounts over the last 12 years? You're just being lazy now. How can you expect me to take you seriously on elections when you obviously don't pay much attention to them?

Here's a story about a recount. Last year. In Florida. The Republican lost. Happy now? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84068.html

>That doesn't even make sense.

I guess "stopped a recount that had been proposed by the all Democrat Florida Supreme Court, which had the effect of awarding Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College." is over your head.

>Really, you can't use Google to search for stories about election recounts over the last 12 years? You're just being lazy now. How can you expect me to take you seriously on elections when you obviously don't pay much attention to them?

>Here's a story about a recount. Last year. In Florida. The Republican lost. Happy now? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84068.html

Probably because I don't pay attention congressional elections because I don't live in Florida? I'm sure many other citizens wouldn't pay attention to that.

Really, you can't scroll through this thread? Now you're just being lazy now. How can you expect me to take you seriously when you obviously don't read through this thread to look if I stated my participation level in the puppet show on federal reserve note strings we call an election process in its current form? If I can have some of your Kool Aid, I'll be happy.

Bullshit. You said Bush v Gore had made recounts, plural, moot. I pointed out that this was not the case. So you're saying it made that one moot. Not the same thing, and you know it.

Probably because I don't pay attention congressional elections because I don't live in Florida?

That didn't stop you knowing about the Florida recount in Bush v Gore, did it? I've never even been to Florida, I just read newspapers and use the internet and pay attention to the makeup of Congress.

If I can have some of your Kool Aid

And I thought you wanted to have a serious conversation. Oh well, more fool me.

>* Bullshit. You said Bush v Gore had made recounts, plural, moot. I pointed out that this was not the case. So you're saying it made that one moot. Not the same thing, and you know it.*

I didn't say Bush v Gore had made recounts. You said that.

The recounts were underway before the supreme court stopped them in Bush v Gore.[0]

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the United States Supreme Court decision that effectively resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and only three days earlier, had preliminarily halted a recount that was occurring.

See the last part: had preliminarily halted a recount that was occurring

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

>And I thought you wanted to have a serious conversation. Oh well, more fool me.

Only as serious as one can converse with a state apologist. ;)

With one flick of the wrist by a couple appointed judges, recounts become moot.

a recount != recounts.

Troll away, but I'm out of this conversation.

If you scroll further down the page of the link that I had posted with it [0], you would see that multiple were being conducted.

And to suggest that just because it only happened once, to mean that it can't happen again is naive (but I guess that is in the nature for apologists of the state).

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5992013

Even if what you say is true(and others are disputing it)I don't see that it in any way contradicts my statement. Audit able and recount able is better than online. The fact that there were votes to argue in court about is still a step above "computer says Bush".

>Audit able and recount able is better than online.

Because databases and computer systems aren't audit able? How do dba's and computer forensics ever solve any problems?

>The fact that there were votes to argue in court about is still a step above "computer says Bush".

A step above because you say so? I guess all those punch card machines that accepted and counted votes during the election probably were dismissed then since a computer gave an answer.

I'm not going into punch card machines. In the UK we write a cross in pencil on a bit of paper we can see and then put it in a box.

As for auditing computer databases and software that is hard enough with computers you control but for elections the people operating the machine are one of the threats and the process needs to be verifiable by independent volunteers and the parties contesting the election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com