Ideas on how to achieve 90%+ voter turnout rate

abandonconflict said:

I'm not such a savvy hacker. I have no objections to the existence of online voting so long as it is not designed to automatically include every citizen, but only those who sign up.

Click to expand...

Only votes are tallied. SSN is only used to associate a tallied vote, once tallied, SSN and vote are disassociated. Only a simple binary value would verify a vote.

No SSN, no vote. One vote, one SSN.

It's actually a very elegant solution.

Red1966 said:

More illegal votes = more liberal votes, also.

Click to expand...

"Illegals" can't vote. Are you familiar with the voting process? Can you cite a single source showing legitimate voter fraud in either the 2008 or 2012 elections leading to Obama's victories?

No, of course you can't..

But to address your claim, "more illegal votes (minorities) = more liberal votes, you're 100% right! Do you think that could be because republicans hate immigration reform, hate, minorities, etc.? Why the fuck wouldn't every minority vote democrat? Your party hates minorities and they show that with every vote they make. Your cry of persecution is hilarious! "I hate them, so they don't vote for me!! Persecution!!" Shut the fuck up with that bullshit, retard.

Red1966 said:

Not surprising those that do tend to vote liberal would want more voter fraud.

Click to expand...

More liberal votes = more voter fraud, according to Red (forum retard)

Red1966 said:

He didn't say that at all. Quit putting words in his mouth.

Click to expand...

See the "?" at the end of the post, retard? That symbolizes clarification. I wasn't making a claim, I was asking for clarification. Learn to academic

Red1966 said:

Where did anyone, other than you, mention "buying votes"? Care to explain that one?

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

So you are fond of liberals buying votes with lotteries and rewards but you don't want nonliberals to vote at all. Got it.

Click to expand...

Red1966 said:

Hilary Clinton won the primary majority vote in 2008, but Obama was nominated anyway. What was the point of having primaries again?

Click to expand...

"you want to provide incentives to vote in hopes that your candidate will win."


@Red1966 , sincerely, you should probably just kill yourself

see4 said:

Only votes are tallied. SSN is only used to associate a tallied vote, once tallied, SSN and vote are disassociated. Only a simple binary value would verify a vote.

No SSN, no vote. One vote, one SSN.

It's actually a very elegant solution.

Click to expand...

See, this is something I can agree with. Really, I see the problem with participation being effort and time spent vs perceived use. Incentives like a lottery just sound ridiculous to me. Alleviating some of the time and effort spent by voters would streamline the process and save money for tax payers while increasing turn out with out resorting to using authority to make it mandatory.

I still think that perceived use is something that needs to be improved but that would require better candidates.

abandonconflict said:

See, this is something I can agree with. Really, I see the problem with participation being effort and time spent vs perceived use. Incentives like a lottery just sound ridiculous to me. Alleviating some of the time and effort spent by voters would streamline the process and save money for tax payers while increasing turn out with out resorting to using authority to make it mandatory.

I still think that perceived use is something that needs to be improved but that would require better candidates.

Click to expand...

A better candidate will not change the fact that if you don't want to be encompassed automatically you still will be.

Also the term "better candidate" is very subjective. It presumes there is a standard to measure them by, but with the varying wants and needs of the voters, no candidate will be good for everyone, ever.

The idea that replacing the candidates in a systemically flawed institution will yield better results is the underlying sleight of hand that keeps the populace occupied, maneuverable and sheep like.

Rob Roy said:

A better candidate will not change the fact that if you don't want to be encompassed automatically you still will be.

Also the term "better candidate" is very subjective. It presumes there is a standard to measure them by, but with the varying wants and needs of the voters, no candidate will be good for everyone, ever.

The idea that replacing the candidates in a systemically flawed institution will yield better results is the underlying sleight of hand that keeps the populace occupied, maneuverable and sheep like.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion Robroy.

abandonconflict said:

Thanks for your opinion Robroy.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

see4 said:

What do you mean "cannot be traced back to them", why would you not want the voted traced back to the voter?

Click to expand...

So the answer to the question "have you even read one actual paper in the field of electronic voting systems?" is quite clearly "NO."

You thought "how hard can this be, all I have to do is authenticate users then record their vote in a database."

That's why you think the problems with voting on the 'net have to do with scalability.

You don't even understand the problem but we're supposed to believe you have a good solution to it.

Observe & Report said:

So the answer to the question "have you even read one actual paper in the field of electronic voting systems?" is quite clearly "NO."

You thought "how hard can this be, all I have to do is authenticate users then record their vote in a database."

That's why you think the problems with voting on the 'net have to do with scalability.

You don't even understand the problem but we're supposed to believe you have a good solution to it.

Click to expand...

Even if everyone's vote could somehow be verified, at the end of the day it's still an election of which turd smells the least.

A free market doesn't place a turd on the throne. It deposits the turd IN the throne and flushes it away.

Observe & Report said:

So the answer to the question "have you even read one actual paper in the field of electronic voting systems?" is quite clearly "NO."

You thought "how hard can this be, all I have to do is authenticate users then record their vote in a database."

That's why you think the problems with voting on the 'net have to do with scalability.

You don't even understand the problem but we're supposed to believe you have a good solution to it.

Click to expand...

"Field of electronic voting systems" - the problem with this and any paper you may have read is the premise is too broad, and generally debate the merits of electronic systems NOT related to internet web applications.

So yes, you are quite right, I have not read those sort of "papers", as they do not pertain to me or to the topic at hand. It's also quite obvious you have not read these "papers" either.

No, it would be a little more complicated that just "authenticate users then record their vote in a database". But this is where your lack of understanding software development is evident, and that's ok. I'm just telling you how it can be done and you're debating me on the legitimacy of my claim without actually knowing anything on the subject, and that's not ok.

No, bro. It's you that doesn't understand the problem. The problem is, the system right now is purposely overly complicated and convoluted to deter votes. The solution is to make it simple for the people. Simple for the people doesn't necessarily mean simple in design and architecture. But you can leave that sort of stuff to us nerds.

see4 said:

Sort of like how all online shopping works today. Your credit card information and user information are disassociated with each other. I wrote a platform for this when I was an IBMer. A big "orange" box store still uses the platform today.

Click to expand...

Let's review: you didn't know that votes must remain secret, you have no idea how cryptography might apply to voting systems, and you wrote the code the led to probably the biggest security breach in retail history. Yeah, you're totally qualified to make a voting system. LOL!! I think we'd be better off using SurveyMonkey.

Observe & Report said:

Let's review: you didn't know that votes must remain secret, you have no idea how cryptography might apply to voting systems, and you wrote the code the led to probably the biggest security breach in retail history. Yeah, you're totally qualified to make a voting system. LOL!! I think we'd be better off using SurveyMonkey.

Click to expand...

Your troll technique is poor. Try harder.

Observe & Report said:

Let's review: you didn't know that votes must remain secret, you have no idea how cryptography might apply to voting systems, and you wrote the code the led to probably the biggest security breach in retail history. Yeah, you're totally qualified to make a voting system. LOL!! I think we'd be better off using SurveyMonkey.

Click to expand...

And just for future reference:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/06/home-depot-hackers-stolen-data/18613167/

The application code itself was not hacked. Someone gained access to vendor log on credentials to obtain and download emails.

Cryptography, if you mean encryption, is a common practice when securing any dataset that requires it. I've run several intranet programs getting companies to become ISO 27001 and HIPA compliant, I was the W3 intranet Implementation Lead for all of IBM. All 430,000+ employees. I know a little something about securing systems.

Your use of the word, "cryptography", which is the study of encryption, was a very telling sign you are in over your head when discussing security software application systems. Whereas I can speak to it in depths well beyond your comprehension. Nobody who knows anything about application security would use the word cryptography, as you put it.

Have a wonderful night. And if it makes you feel better, you win. Ok? You win.

Votes MUST remain SECRET. Otherwise a nefarious government scofflaw will eliminate the ones who didn't vote for them in one way or another.

Padawanbater2 said:

"Illegals" can't vote, dipshit. Are you familiar with the voting process? Can you cite a single source showing legitimate voter fraud in either the 2008 or 2012 elections leading to Obama's victories?

No, of course you can't..

But to address your claim, "more illegal votes (minorities) = more liberal votes, you're 100% right! Do you think that could be because republicans hate immigration reform, hate, minorities, etc.? Why the fuck wouldn't every minority vote democrat? Your party hates minorities and they show that with every vote they make. Your cry of persecution is hilarious! "I hate them, so they don't vote for me!! Persecution!!" Shut the fuck up with that bullshit, retard.

More liberal votes = more voter fraud, according to Red (forum retard)

See the "?" at the end of the post, retard? That symbolizes clarification. I wasn't making a claim, I was asking for clarification. Learn to academic




"you want to provide incentives to vote in hopes that your candidate will win."


@Red1966 , sincerely, you should probably just kill yourself

Click to expand...

ACORN

Padawanbater2 said:

"Illegals" can't vote.

Click to expand...

I didn't mention "illegals". You fucking racist.

Padawanbater2 said:

Can you cite a single source showing legitimate voter fraud in either the 2008 or 2012 elections leading to Obama's victories?
No, of course you can't.

Click to expand...

Well, there's the ACORN scandal where thousands were illegally registered to vote.

Padawanbater2 said:

But to address your claim, "more illegal votes (minorities) = more liberal votes, you're 100% right!

Click to expand...

Once again, I did not mention minorities. You fucking racist.

Padawanbater2 said:

Do you think that could be because republicans hate immigration reform, hate, minorities, etc.?

Click to expand...

Once again, you make the false claim I am a Republican. You fucking liar.

Padawanbater2 said:

Why the fuck wouldn't every minority vote democrat?

Click to expand...

Because not all minorities are welfare trash like you think. You fucking racist.

Padawanbater2 said:

Your party hates minorities and they show that with every vote they make.

Click to expand...

Democrats hate minorities? Not all of them share your racist viewpoint. You fucking racist.

Padawanbater2 said:

Your cry of persecution is hilarious! "I hate them, so they don't vote for me!! Persecution!!" Shut the fuck up with that bullshit, retard

Click to expand...

I did not make a "cry of persecution." So........" Shut the fuck up with that bullshit, retard" You fucking liar.

Padawanbater2 said:

More liberal votes = more voter fraud, according to Red (forum retard)

Click to expand...

I said "more voter fraud=more liberal votes.." Something quite different than what you claim I said. You fucking liar.

Padawanbater2 said:

See the "?" at the end of the post, retard? That symbolizes clarification. I wasn't making a claim, I was asking for clarification.

Click to expand...

You made a definitive statement. So you weren't asking for clarification. You fucking liar.

Padawanbater2 said:

Learn to academic

Click to expand...

Learn to write in English. "Academic" is not a verb.

Padawanbater2 said:

Click to expand...

You could have just said you were unable to provide an answer. Trying to pretend that makes ME the dunce is just childish, and dishonest. You fucking liar.

Padawanbater2 said:

"you want to provide incentives to vote in hopes that your candidate will win."

Click to expand...

incentive=mandatory under threat of arrest or fine?

As usual, your reply addresses statements I never made, smacks of racism, and is completely dishonest.

Red1966 said:

I didn't mention "illegals". You fucking racist.




Well, there's the ACORN scandal where thousands were illegally registered to vote.



Once again, I did not mention minorities. You fucking racist.



Once again, you make the false claim I am a Republican. You fucking liar.



Because not all minorities are welfare trash like you think. You fucking racist.



Democrats hate minorities? Not all of them share your racist viewpoint. You fucking racist.



I did not make a "cry of persecution." So........" Shut the fuck up with that bullshit, retard" You fucking liar.




I said "more voter fraud=more liberal votes.." Something quite different than what you claim I said. You fucking liar.



You made a definitive statement. So you weren't asking for clarification. You fucking liar.



Learn to write in English. "Academic" is not a verb.



You could have just said you were unable to provide an answer. Trying to pretend that makes ME the dunce is just childish, and dishonest. You fucking liar.



incentive=mandatory under threat of arrest or fine?

As usual, your reply addresses statements I never, smacks of racism, and is completely dishonest.

Click to expand...

max420thc said:

ACORN

Click to expand...

I will see your ACORN and raise you one BENGHAZI.

abandonconflict said:

I will see your ACORN and raise you one BENGHAZI.

Click to expand...

I will see your BENGHAZI and raise you an EMAIL!!!!

see4 said:

I will see your BENGHAZI and raise you an EMAIL!!!!

Click to expand...

string bets are not allowed.

i go all in. BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

I'm telling you all, max420thc is on our team. He only talks like he does because he wants the Republicans, Tea Baggers and Klansmen to look bad. Nobody really thinks like him, not even he thinks like that. He's just bored.