Rigged or Hacked Voting Machines

theprestige said:
Why would I want to have a conversation with someone who interprets simple disagreement as animosity? That seems like a recipe for pointless bickering.

Do you believe it's possible to disagree without animosity?
Click to expand...

Nah, pointless bickering would be trying to change the discussion to whether or not "hell no" is animosity. The question was about why you are against automatic voter registration. Can you explain why you answered no?
 
wareyin said:
Why all the animosity towards automatic voter registration?
Click to expand...

I can't understand why anyone thinks its a good idea actually, well I can really but it just amounts to a naive faith in democracy.

All it does is get a lot of people registered who clearly don't give a **** enough to actually check a box at the DMV on their own. It seems silly to want that person to vote.
 
They won't have to vote, so I don't see the problem. But there are places in the country that don't make the registration process clear or convenient. That means people who want to vote are being excluded. That is an actual problem.
 
theprestige said:
The real problem with hackable voting machines is that you get what you pay for. No voting district is going to pay Diebold top-dollar for a truly secure voting machine. The way people talk about voting machines, they probably should be as secure as ATMs. But the fact is, they're not, because no voting district has the money to pay for ATM-tier voting machines.
Click to expand...

What makes you think ATM’s are secure?
theprestige said:
Winning an election by hacking voting machines requires certain things:
- You have to know which district(s) you need to hack.
- You have to know how to hack the machine(s) in those districts.
- You have to have undetected access to the machine(s) in those districts.
- You have to be able to change the vote count(s) in a way that's both plausible and decisive.*
Click to expand...

Setting aside the fact that many of the published hacks involve Wi-Fi or exposed USB ports that can easily be exploited using the type of access voters require. Even setting aside the fact that a myriad of people need access to the machines to move them, set them up and store them, and most of these have all the access they need to hack them.

BY FAR the most common culprit for cheating in an election is the people running the election, in which case none of your points apply. Even plausibility of the reported results doesn't prevent the winning party from simply ignoring the complaints. TBH it doesn’t’ matter how many anomalies there are, you can bet that if Republicans win an election Fox will be on the air 24/7 telling the faithful that there is nothing wrong with the results, and most Republicans will not just accept it many will come to forums like this one and fervently defend the results even though they are completely bogus.
 
wareyin said:
Nah, pointless bickering would be trying to change the discussion to whether or not "hell no" is animosity. The question was about why you are against automatic voter registration. Can you explain why you answered no?
Click to expand...
The question was about animosity. I said "no". You said you consider that animosity. I'm not interested in having a conversation on that basis. Change the basis, and we'll talk.
 
Hellbound said:
Just wondering, would it change anyone's mind on mandatory voting if you allowed an "Abstain" option for each item on the ballot?
Click to expand...

No.

An "abstain" option is redundant with a secret ballot, since you can just spoil it or turn it in blank with no reprisals anyway.

My objection to mandatory voting is about opportunity cost. If I'm confident in the expected outcome, and comfortable with it (or don't see that my vote will affect it much anyway), then it's a waste of my time to go to the polls. I could spend the day earning money, or fixing up the house, or fishing on the lake, or playing with my kids, or any of the ten thousand other things I'd like to do with my time, if I had the time.

Mandatory voting takes away time that can't be replaced. I think that the choice of how to spend that time is properly the right of the individual citizen, to determine for themselves what is the most profitable action for them to take in their situation.

There's also an individualistic distaste for "mob morality". The argument for mandatory voting goes something like this:

- I think that voting is the most important thing you could do with your time.
- If you disagree, you're wrong.
- In fact, I think it should be a crime to disagree with me.
- So I'm going to make you spend your time according to my values.
- And I'm going to punish you if you resist.

Unlike automatic voter registration, I have a lot of animosity towards mandatory voting.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
What makes you think ATM’s are secure?
Click to expand...
They're obviously more secure than voting machines.

Setting aside the fact that many of the published hacks involve Wi-Fi or exposed USB ports that can easily be exploited using the type of access voters require. Even setting aside the fact that a myriad of people need access to the machines to move them, set them up and store them, and most of these have all the access they need to hack them.
Click to expand...
See what I mean? ATMs don't have these problems.

BY FAR the most common culprit for cheating in an election is the people running the election, in which case none of your points apply. Even plausibility of the reported results doesn't prevent the winning party from simply ignoring the complaints. TBH it doesn’t’ matter how many anomalies there are, you can bet that if Republicans win an election Fox will be on the air 24/7 telling the faithful that there is nothing wrong with the results, and most Republicans will not just accept it many will come to forums like this one and fervently defend the results even though they are completely bogus.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point: Maybe voting districts don't need to spend a lot of money on unhackable less-hackable voting machines, because that's not where the real voting fraud happens.

On the other hand, highly secure voting machines, combined with a rigorous process for moving, storing, setting up, etc. similar to how armored couriers handle money, would greatly increase public confidence in the honesty of the system.
 
theprestige said:
The question was about animosity. I said "no". You said you consider that animosity. I'm not interested in having a conversation on that basis. Change the basis, and we'll talk.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you'd rather be pedantic about a word that is synonymous with opposition than actually explain why you are against automatic voter registration.

So far we have one poster who is against it because automatically registering voters amounts to a naive faith in democracy, and another poster who is against it who would rather pointlessly bicker over which synonym for dislike is acceptable than explain why he opposes it. Neither is a very compelling argument at all.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
I'm sorry that you'd rather be pedantic about a word that is synonymous with opposition than actually explain why you are against automatic voter registration.

So far we have one poster who is against it because automatically registering voters amounts to a naive faith in democracy, and another poster who is against it who would rather pointlessly bicker over which synonym for dislike is acceptable than explain why he opposes it. Neither is a very compelling argument at all.
Click to expand...
Good thing I'm not trying to compel you re: automatic registration. Keep in mind that I'm not the one who proposed it. It's up to the proponent to make the compelling arguments, not me. Are you taking up the proposal? Then you should probably explain your animosity towards voluntary registration.

I don't agree that animosity is synonymous with those other things, nor with simple disagreement. I have animosity towards being accused of animosity where I harbor none.

I don't want to be pedantic, but I do want to understand what attitude you think I have, based on my simple "no" to automatic voter registration. If you think my attitude is simple disagreement, rather than hatred, resentment, or similar, towards the idea, then say so.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
I'm sorry that you'd rather be pedantic about a word that is synonymous with opposition than actually explain why you are against automatic voter registration.

So far we have one poster who is against it because automatically registering voters amounts to a naive faith in democracy, and another poster who is against it who would rather pointlessly bicker over which synonym for dislike is acceptable than explain why he opposes it. Neither is a very compelling argument at all.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Good thing I'm not trying to compel you re: automatic registration.

I don't agree that animosity is synonymous with those other things, nor with simple disagreement. I have animosity towards being accused of animosity where I harbor none.

I don't want to be pedantic, but I do want to understand what attitude you think I have, based on my simple "no" to automatic voter registration. If you think my attitude is simple disagreement, rather than hatred, resentment, or similar, towards the idea, then say so.
Click to expand...

If I may step in for a moment from the sideline, I just wanted to point out that I think both of you might be talking past each other a bit (though I can't speak for anyone other than myself).

My impression is that wareyin took ahhell's specific quote:

ahhell said:
Voting machines, ok so long as there is a paper back up.

Compulsory voting, no.

Automatic registration, hell no, though it pretty much exists everywhere I've lived.



Rank choice voting, I like that idea a lot.
Click to expand...

...to be animosity toward automatic registration. I also get the impression theprestige misinterpreted wareyin's post as saying theprestige was the one showing animosity, when actually it was ahhell.

I've got nothing more to add, just wanted to point that possible misunderstanding out.
 
theprestige said:
Good thing I'm not trying to compel you re: automatic registration. Keep in mind that I'm not the one who proposed it. It's up to the proponent to make the compelling arguments, not me. Are you taking up the proposal? Then you should probably explain your animosity towards voluntary registration.

I don't agree that animosity is synonymous with those other things, nor with simple disagreement. I have animosity towards being accused of animosity where I harbor none.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you'll have to take that up with the dictionary and various thesauruses.

theprestige said:
I don't want to be pedantic, but I do want to understand what attitude you think I have, based on my simple "no" to automatic voter registration. If you think my attitude is simple disagreement, rather than hatred, resentment, or similar, towards the idea, then say so.
Click to expand...

Are you under the mistaken impression that you are the only person opposed to automatic registration in this thread? The original question was a general one, and I did answer you when you began this semantic nitpicking by pointing out there was a range of negative answers.

If you are simply against automatic registration as some sort of a knee-jerk 'liberal proposed it therefore it's bad' reaction, fine. I was hoping you might have some sort of thought out position that you could explain.
 
Cabbage said:
If I may step in for a moment from the sideline, I just wanted to point out that I think both of you might be talking past each other a bit (though I can't speak for anyone other than myself).

My impression is that wareyin took ahhell's specific quote:



...to be animosity toward automatic registration. I also get the impression theprestige misinterpreted wareyin's post as saying theprestige was the one showing animosity, when actually it was ahhell.

I've got nothing more to add, just wanted to point that possible misunderstanding out.
Click to expand...

I thought I was pointing that out with the discussion of a range of answers up to "hell no", but I do appreciate you also bringing it up. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought I was.
 
OK, now that we determined

1) someone did in fact say "hell no" to automatic registration

2) such a repsonse indicates a visceral opposition to such a notion

3) it doesn't freakin matter

can we just get an answer as to why it is a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
Cabbage said:
If I may step in for a moment from the sideline, I just wanted to point out that I think both of you might be talking past each other a bit (though I can't speak for anyone other than myself).

My impression is that wareyin took ahhell's specific quote:



...to be animosity toward automatic registration. I also get the impression theprestige misinterpreted wareyin's post as saying theprestige was the one showing animosity, when actually it was ahhell.

I've got nothing more to add, just wanted to point that possible misunderstanding out.
Click to expand...
The question of automatic registration was asked. I said "no". ahhell said "hell no".

Wareyin then asked, of nobody in particular, why the animosity?

And then I asked wareyin, what animosity?

And wareyin explained that he considers everything from "no" to "hell no" to be animosity.

If wareyin had asked me personally why I said "no", without presupposing motive or attitude, it would have been a different conversation.

My mistake - which I now regret - was that I didn't just say, "oh, my 'no' was simple disagreement, not animosity" and leave it at that. I'm sorry, wareyin.
 
so, can you actually answer why you oppose automatic registration?
 
Donal said:
OK, now that we determined

1) someone did in fact say "hell no" to automatic registration

2) such a repsonse indicates a visceral opposition to such a notion

3) it doesn't freakin matter

can we just get an answer as to why it is a bad thing?
Click to expand...

It appears not.
 
I do have animosity towards it, mostly because I'm from CA where they've taken democracy to the its nearly stupidest extreme. Automatic registration wouldn't actually matter if you don't have mandatory voting, the initiative process, or legal vote harvesting.

I used work with a women who I would describe as stupid, ugly, lazy, and mean(I wouldn't bother with the first two if she hadn't been the last) any rate, she was registered to vote but had know idea what if any party she was registered in. Fortunately, she'd never voted. So, who cares really. I would be very concerned if she had actually been required to. And recently the state has made it legal for someone to go collect her vote, so she may actually be voting, or someone might just be collecting her ballot and turning it in. Sure, anecdote, I know but still. That does concern me, I really don't understand why anyone thinks its a good idea to register folks to vote who have literally know interest in doing so, unless its for just base politics in because they figure those folks, if they vote, will vote for their side.

I realize, I have pretty extreme here, as in, out on the fringe of thought not fringe of emotion, I don't really get all that worked up about it.

As I said previously, its a bad thing because if you don't care or are ignorant of the issues, you should not be making decisions about those issues, nor should you be given the opportunity to without some effort on your part to demonstrate at least an interest.
 
Last edited:
There is literally no downside in what you described.

But, again, there are several states that have made voter registration complicated and difficult. This prevent people who want to vote from doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom