Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If we could just jail Trump, end the electoral college, stack the SC, and end voter ID we could save Democracy.We aren't talking about protecting a list of emails in some lame company database.
If we can use data mining and blockchain tech to secure bitcoin transactions and ownership, surely that same or similar tech will secure voter IDs and votes. If not, instead of dismissing this approach, figure out how to make it even more secure.
Our current electoral process seems a lot worse.
We aren't talking about protecting a list of emails in some lame company database.
If we can use data mining and blockchain tech to secure bitcoin transactions and ownership, surely that same or similar tech will secure voter IDs and votes. If not, instead of dismissing this approach, figure out how to make it even more secure.
Our current electoral process seems a lot worse.
that's pretty much a given. Lighten up. Francis.haha. Got it.
Also, you've demonstrated you should STFU anyway.
well, yeah, that would be more appropriate for you.Toilet paper?
so then, you are saying those voting machines were rigged.It sounds like the right solution could solve many problems, but there are so many moving parts and pieces, like everything up to the point of something like a blockchain ledger, that I wouldn't trust it to be infallible. From the client-verification side, to denial of service, to man-in-middle attacks at browser/phone/wifi/isp/code pushing to a ledge, all the way to the long-term storage or tabulation components... there are so many ways for things to go sideways that i think it would be hard for joe public to trust it.
Without paper it is hard to ultimately tie a human touch to a vote, so auditing becomes tricky too.
Theoretically authentication/verification is needed, but votes themselves are supposed to be private/secret. So do you just throw away the authentication after you've updated the ledger to ensure secrecy is kept, if so *i think* that makes auditing impossible.
Maybe i'm over-complicating. Modern tech is amazing, maybe we'll secure things one day, but we can't even secure biometric-based gunsafes.
"far"??? You're trying to make mountains out of mole hills and moving the goalposts again. Except I've already addressed it in my post about people and their motivations. One short trip for an ID that's good for 10 YEARS is just not that much of a burden. Literally. ONE office visit within their actual county covers them for TEN years. If the situation is so dire that they can't figure out a way to make one visit to an office within the county in which they live, I think they've got much bigger problems than potentially not being able to vote due to lack of an ID. This is where that little part about actually having to make some effort, literally any effort whatsoever, comes in.What does it say regarding the points i mentioned above regarding hours of operation and people without transpo that live far from the county BOE, DMV and passport agency?
Mountains out of molehills indeed. Like most Dims, he knows there’s no legitimate reason for not requiring an ID to vote. None. And we know why they don’t want them and why they want unlimited absentee voting."far"??? You're trying to make mountains out of mole hills and moving the goalposts again. Except I've already addressed it in my post about people and their motivations. One short trip for an ID that's good for 10 YEARS is just not that much of a burden. Literally. ONE office visit within their actual county covers them for TEN years. If the situation is so dire that they can't figure out a way to make one visit to an office within the county in which they live, I think they've got much bigger problems than potentially not being able to vote due to lack of an ID. This is where that little part about actually having to make some effort, literally any effort whatsoever, comes in.
Next you'll ask about getting the ID's for free again.
well duh, genius, then there'd be no reason for a MAGA to complain. But YOUR stupid ass sure would be wailing like a banshee. The idea would be to not have it lend itself to a skewed outcome for any particular desired result. The idea would be to not have a setup that engenders questionable results, which in turn engender serious complaints from either or any political persuasionUnless your MAGA candidate wins with those votes... Then, it's perfectly fine.
FIF me. And I'll note that my polling station had accommodation for the handicapped such that they did not have to get out of their vehicle to fill out a ballot. I don't know if that's standard, but it would be helpful if it was.Absentee voting is fine where a voter with demonstrable limitations can not reasonably be expected to have the wherewithal to physically visit a polling place.. Mass mail in voting is not.
How do we do it now in elections with or without paper ballots? More or less secure than blockchain?Theoretically authentication/verification is needed, but votes themselves are supposed to be private/secret. So do you just throw away the authentication after you've updated the ledger to ensure secrecy is kept, if so *i think* that makes auditing impossible.
🤣I won't bother substantiating this. so I'll just say my belief is that dems take a decent economy and run it into the ground, where it's turned over to republicans to dig up and fix
Awwww... did 'ems get mad again???well duh, genius, then there'd be no reason for a MAGA to complain. But YOUR stupid ass sure would be wailing like a banshee. The idea would be to not have it lend itself to a skewed outcome for any particular desired result. The idea would be to not have a setup that engenders questionable results, which in turn engender serious complaints from either or any political persuasion
The mindlessness is stunning. Even more amazing is the inability to get past 'gotcha' levels of maturity.
Let’s just be honest about the reason repubs and dems are for/against voter id and mail in voting. And it has abso fukin lutely NOTHING to do with “election integrity” or “disenfranchisement “ it’s 100% pure and simple that any added requirements to voting reduces dem voter turnout and anything that makes it easier helps. That’s it. Period. Both parties don’t give a rats fuking ass about anything except being the power whores that they are. If voter id reduced repub votes then they’d be against it. If mail in voting helped repubs dems would be opposed. So spare me the holier than thou bullshit.
ZZzzzzzzzz.🤣
Some jokes are only good for a single laugh, but this one is worthy of another. You're a hoot!
lol, me mad? We know it's getting under your skin when you pull out the baby talk and gay come ons and say the other guy must be mad.Awwww... did 'ems get mad again???
All I'm saying is that if Trump had won with mail-in ballots, you robot partisan shitheads would be shouting from every mountain that they were essential in every election.
All you poor bastards do is play bookends. "Left-bad, right-good"... or "Left-good, right-bad." You could literally change every facet, every talking point, everyTHING and both sides would simply embrace them and keep bitching that the OTHER side is to blame.
actually, it's a lot simpler than that. It's weird how we have to make things complicated just so we can rant a little.Let’s just be honest about the reason repubs and dems are for/against voter id and mail in voting. And it has abso fukin lutely NOTHING to do with “election integrity” or “disenfranchisement “ it’s 100% pure and simple that any added requirements to voting reduces dem voter turnout and anything that makes it easier helps. That’s it. Period. Both parties don’t give a rats fuking ass about anything except being the power whores that they are. If voter id reduced repub votes then they’d be against it. If mail in voting helped repubs dems would be opposed. So spare me the holier than thou bullshit.
Yep, and neither side seems capable of compromise.Let’s just be honest about the reason repubs and dems are for/against voter id and mail in voting. And it has abso fukin lutely NOTHING to do with “election integrity” or “disenfranchisement “ it’s 100% pure and simple that any added requirements to voting reduces dem voter turnout and anything that makes it easier helps. That’s it. Period. Both parties don’t give a rats fuking ass about anything except being the power whores that they are. If voter id reduced repub votes then they’d be against it. If mail in voting helped repubs dems would be opposed. So spare me the holier than thou bullshit.
Ah, so what you're telling me is your cockamamie comment is merely a dream. That's what I've been saying.ZZzzzzzzzz.
Two things can be true at the same time. And, I've also made it clear I believe that there is a distinct problem with "voters" being informed or educated on more than someone having a particular letter after their names.Let’s just be honest about the reason repubs and dems are for/against voter id and mail in voting. And it has abso fukin lutely NOTHING to do with “election integrity” or “disenfranchisement “ it’s 100% pure and simple that any added requirements to voting reduces dem voter turnout and anything that makes it easier helps. That’s it. Period. Both parties don’t give a rats fuking ass about anything except being the power whores that they are. If voter id reduced repub votes then they’d be against it. If mail in voting helped repubs dems would be opposed. So spare me the holier than thou bullshit.
What nonsense. Pretending that the right is only asking for a little effort, and calling the RIGHT to vote a "privilage" is a blatant anti-democracy distortion.Asking one to make a little effort to obtain the PRIVILEGE of voting is just a small step towards ensuring that the person also has a reason to actually vote for any given person and their actual policies. If that means it has a side benefit of slightly suppressing the potential idiot voter who takes no actual interest in voting prior to 90 seconds before the moment of signing their "X", who apparently only votes for the person who promises them the most give aways at the expense of everyone else, so be it. Everything has additional consequences to it.
Yep, and neither side seems capable of compromise.
I agree. Trump and his MAGA followers have taken the GOP so far to the right it has become unrecognizable, especially to those old-school Republicans who have said as much.That’s true. But one side has moved so far in the extreme to their side that “meeting in the middle” is still very far to their side. You can’t move the end so far and then get pissed when one side won’t “compromise”.
Don't be a jabroni. First, if you're going to quote me, at least spell it correctly.What nonsense. Pretending that the right is only asking for a little effort, and calling the RIGHT to vote a "privilage" is a blatant anti-democracy distortion.
You are entitled to oppose democracy. But please don't try to pass off efforts to make voting harder - in particular, efforts to make D/poor/non-white voting harder - as good for America.
We don't have any rights. We have very select privileges...on a good day. We don't have a right to anything. No matter how much the powers that be like to entice people into believing. If a right can be taken away, then you never truly had it.What nonsense. Pretending that the right is only asking for a little effort, and calling the RIGHT to vote a "privilage" is a blatant anti-democracy distortion.
You are entitled to oppose democracy. But please don't try to pass off efforts to make voting harder - in particular, efforts to make D/poor/non-white voting harder - as good for America.
I agree. Trump and his MAGA followers have taken the GOP so far to the right it has become unrecognizable, especially to those old-school Republicans who have said as much.
That's why Dobbs was such a travesty. Most of America's history has been a history of expanding rights. Too slowly and often fitfully, but the trajectory was toward more and stronger rights. Until this Court.We don't have any rights. We have very select privileges...on a good day. We don't have a right to anything. No matter how much the powers that be like to entice people into believing. If a right can be taken away, then you never truly had it.
That's why Dobbs was such a travesty. Most of America's history has been a history of expanding rights. Too slowly and often fitfully, but the trajectory was toward more and stronger rights. Until this Court.
The America I'm proud of has always been partly wishful thinking. But that was OK as long as it seemed to be trying to live up to our ideals. We aren't doing that very much this millennium.
Change it from partly to completely, you'll be better off. Your ideals isn't "our" ideals.That's why Dobbs was such a travesty. Most of America's history has been a history of expanding rights. Too slowly and often fitfully, but the trajectory was toward more and stronger rights. Until this Court.
The America I'm proud of has always been partly wishful thinking. But that was OK as long as it seemed to be trying to live up to our ideals. We aren't doing that very much this millennium.
What's your problem?Change it from partly to completely, you'll be better off. Your ideals isn't "our" ideals.
I don't have one. Wishful thinking sounds like it could be a problem.What's your problem?
I'm sayingAh, so what you're telling me is your cockamamie comment is merely a dream. That's what I've been saying.
what nonsense. As I said recently, most arguments end up being about semantics. It doesn't take much effort to understand that how you use a word matters as much or more than what a word is 'supposed' to mean.What nonsense. Pretending that the right is only asking for a little effort, and calling the RIGHT to vote a "privilage" is a blatant anti-democracy distortion.
You are entitled to oppose democracy. But please don't try to pass off efforts to make voting harder - in particular, efforts to make D/poor/non-white voting harder - as good for America.
Nice discussion, but it still isn't just semantics.what nonsense. As I said recently, most arguments end up being about semantics. It doesn't take much effort to understand that how you use a word matters as much or more than what a word is 'supposed' to mean.
There is a 'right' to vote in America, which is actually in practice a privilege provided to American citizens. Establishing a right does not require or even indicate a means for exercising it. It just means you have a lawful and/or moral claim to it....and that while no one can legally or morally deprive you of the right to vote, for instance, no one is legally or morally obligated to provide you with the means to actually vote.
You have the right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that a gun or a means to acquire one are included. The ability to own and use a gun is a privilege which while allowing the right to be acted upon, might legally and morally be subject to limitations on that ability. If Billy Bob presses his revolver into your palm and says 'this is now yours', then you now own the gun and you have exercised that right. But if you want that Sig at the gun shop, your right to own it relies on the privilege of acquiring it. The question isn't right or privilege, it's whether privilege infringes on the right. In practice, the right and the privilege can effectively be the same thing.
It's like love and marriage going together like a horse and carriage.
The ability to exercise the right to vote is likewise a privilege and all the above applies. To be provided with the ability to vote is to be given a privilege which may carry limitations. If the privilege granted places limitations on exercising the right, it is OK. If the privilege curtails the right itself, it is no bueno.
Nice discussion, but it still isn't just semantics.
You and I have an equal right to vote and to own a gun (just to use your examples). There are restrictions on these rights but the key point is that if you and I choose to exercise those rights, the restrictions we face will not be rigged to favor me over you, and vice versa.
That's not all there is to it, of course, but when we argue about these things, I think we should be able to agree on that basic principle.
We can go into it deeper if you wish, because it's easy to come up with restrictions that seem differential and therefore violate that principle, but most of them either make sense - such as saying a convicted murderer can't have a gun - or are clearly illegitimate - such as literacy tests and poll taxes.
My position on voting - as a right - is that it should be equally easy for all eligible voters to vote. Exactly how easy is something each culture will have to decide, but easy in the context of that culture.
Equity vs Equality. Typical Lib talking point.Nice discussion, but it still isn't just semantics.
You and I have an equal right to vote and to own a gun (just to use your examples). There are restrictions on these rights but the key point is that if you and I choose to exercise those rights, the restrictions we face will not be rigged to favor me over you, and vice versa.
That's not all there is to it, of course, but when we argue about these things, I think we should be able to agree on that basic principle.
We can go into it deeper if you wish, because it's easy to come up with restrictions that seem differential and therefore violate that principle, but most of them either make sense - such as saying a convicted murderer can't have a gun - or are clearly illegitimate - such as literacy tests and poll taxes.
My position on voting - as a right - is that it should be equally easy for all eligible voters to vote. Exactly how easy is something each culture will have to decide, but easy in the context of that culture.