Michigan Votes to Require Warrants for Police to Seize and Search Digital Devices
Michigan votes to require warrants for police to seize and search digital devices:
Voters in the US state of Michigan have decided that searches of laptop, phones, and associated electronic data will require a search warrant going forward.
Michigan Proposal 20-2 to require a search warrant to access a person's electronic data and electronic communications passed overwhelmingly, with 88.7 percent (nearly four million people) voting "yes," and only 11.3 percent voting "no."
At the same time, the proposal amends the Michigan Constitution to bring the existing protections from unlawful and unreasonable searches of homes, documents, and other personal possessions up to date, and include electronic data and communications on people's devices.
The goal of Proposal 2 was to make sure the new rules explicitly state a private citizen's electronic data is equally protected, thus removing any vagueness and various interpretations. Currently, law enforcement must have a warrant before searching a home and somebody's personal belongings, including papers and other items, but electronic versions of these stored on devices like phones and laptops are not mentioned in the language of the legal solutions that far predate the technological transformation of society.
Massachusetts Voters Approve Ballot Expanding Open Repair Data in Blow to Auto Industry
Massachusetts voters approve ballot expanding open repair data in blow to auto industry:
(Reuters) - Voters in Massachusetts on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure forcing automakers to provide expanded access to mechanical and electronic repair data and allow independent shops to repair increasingly sophisticated technology.
The decision delivers the first significant win in a fight over who will control the $390 billion U.S. auto data aftermarket in the digital age.
[...] "This referendum...means that despite advances in technology, owners will be able to have their repair data shared directly with their trusted independent shops," Bill Hanvey, president and CEO of the Auto Care Association said in a statement, adding the group worked with cybersecurity experts to ensure privacy during data transfers.
Under the state's ballot measure, approved by 75% of voters, on-board diagnostic and mechanical data will have to be made available via an open-platform app for 2022 vehicle models and beyond.
Four states vote to legalize marijuana.
Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota and Montana all passed legislation Tuesday permitting the possession of weed by adults, which means 15 states have legalized recreational weed or voted to legalize it.
See more on the story here.
As a life long resident of the red state of South Dakota, I'm glad to see people who need this for medical purposes can have access and the police can spend their time on serious crimes instead of wasting it on recreational marijuana users.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Friday November 06 2020, @07:39PM (24 children)
Selected approved ballot initiatives from here [ballotpedia.org]. More local initiatives here [ballotpedia.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday November 06 2020, @08:11PM (10 children)
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status [nationalpopularvote.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Friday November 06 2020, @09:45PM (9 children)
That's not going to stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The first time a state tries to force its electors to choose a candidate that didn't win their state election it will result in a lawsuit and the law will be ruled unconstitutional. Although, I think it might be interesting to see what would happen in those deep blue states if a republican wins the popular vote.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 07 2020, @12:22AM (8 children)
Electors can vote in whatever way their state law says they can.
That's why Faithless Electors [wikipedia.org] are a thing in certain states and the Supreme Court has ruled that it's fine.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday November 07 2020, @05:25AM (7 children)
Huh? I thought I had read that the courts have ruled that faithless electors can be prosecuted by their states.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday November 07 2020, @01:49PM
They can. But in some states, it's not illegal to be a faithless elector. Also, in some other states, the penalty for being a faithless elector is only a fine, so sometimes somebody will be a faithless elector, plead guilty to the charges, and pay the fine.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Sunday November 08 2020, @04:36PM (5 children)
Even if they can prosecute faithless electors, someone voting for the candidate their state selected is not a faithless elector.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday November 08 2020, @08:30PM (4 children)
No, but I thought the implication from the post I was responding to was that it was OK for faithless electors to vote in a way different from what their state expected of them.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 09 2020, @03:20PM (3 children)
That's true, but the whole premise of the national popular vote initiative is that the states who sign on would be expecting their electors to vote for someone other than who their residents voted for. The electors would be forced to be faithless, either to the voters in the state or to the state law. Which is why I don't think it would hold up in court.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2020, @04:51PM (2 children)
That doesn't make sense. If a state passes a law in accordance with the national popular vote initiative, then electors can't be forced to vote against state law, because the law now says they to vote according to this initiative. Obviously, this new law would supersede any old laws about binding electors to the state's own popular vote. As for the voters in the state, if this is what the state law says, the voters have no say. They elected a government (in this scenario) that passed this law, so that's the law. If they don't like it, they can elect a new state government that repeals the law.
I don't see how this could possibly be unconstitutional: the constitution doesn't say anything about how states choose electors, and in the old days, in wasn't by popular vote at all, but rather the state legislature chose the electors. States can choose electors any way they want. If the people don't like it, it's their job to elect new legislators. There's nothing that prevents a state from removing the popular vote altogether and, say, having the governor choose the electors himself.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 09 2020, @05:36PM (1 child)
Do you really think this would fly with voters?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2020, @07:46PM
Sure, why not? If the voters vote for it, then yes, it would fly. If they vote against it, then obviously it won't fly. I guess we'll find out eventually if the voters want this or not.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday November 06 2020, @08:15PM (7 children)
Liberal policies win. Proof that if the DNC would allow liberals on their ballots, they would win by the same margins, none of this chronic 50-50 bullshit, which, come to think of it, is becoming just a little suspicious
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 07 2020, @12:24AM (6 children)
The only way Biden could be doing much better right now would be to have won Florida.
Yeah, I'm sure Bernie would've done so much better with the folks that though Biden was a socialist!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday November 07 2020, @01:19AM
Mass media bullshit hysteria. A lot of those people voted for the 15 bucks an hour. All this kind of stuff makes the DNC primary look very suspicious. People who vote for liberal policy will be very happy with a liberal politician. The Party does not seem to want to offer that choice. They don't just meddle with republican primaries.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @01:26PM
If they hate Biden already a more socialist candidate won't do worse. And Biden is barely winning in swing states against the biggest buffoon in US history. He is winning, true. But he should be crushing. Nobody thinks he's serious about expanding ACA, raising minimum wage, implementing student loan debt relief, or expanding rent assistance. I voted for him, but I understand why he isn't trusted.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday November 07 2020, @01:55PM
From the perspective of the right-wing noise machine, *every* candidate with a (D) after their name is somewhere on the spectrum between Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin, with Fidel Castro and Pol Pot also in the mix. It doesn't matter whether they, for instance, bent over backwards to protect capitalism from prosecution and bailed out major corporations when those major corporations broke the law and crashed the global economy.
What's changed significantly is that it's a lot harder to scare the generation that didn't grow up hiding under their desk from Reds with the idea of socialism or communism. That's why you see big age divides on how Americans react to the word "socialism".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @03:41PM (1 child)
Sanders would have got the votes from people on the left who abstained from voting for Biden aka Trump lite. Biden is a solidly right-wing candidate not even center-right. He ticks all the boxes for a Republican candidate pre-Trump era, like catering to racists by voting against desegregation, catering to the rich by voting against workers rights, attacking Roe v. Wade because of his religious "values", openly against providing a civilized social safety net including being against state healthcare that every modern economy offers its citizens, and don't forget, being a war monger who was instrumental in his party's support of the illegal war of aggression against Iraq that ended / destroyed millions of lives and destabilized the entire region. It looks like he may even have a corruption scandal with the Ukraine thing, which is also a very Republican sort of thing (just look at the current Republican president-- I've lost count of the corruption scandals he has been involved in).
Bernie was problematic in several ways, but he was a million times better than Biden. He would have been the first presidential candidate, on a major party ticket, in my lifetime (I'm old), where the good outweighs the evil for a net good.
Personally, I couldn't force myself to vote for Biden even as the lesser of evils when compared to his fascist authoritarian opponent-- Biden though a lesser evil was still so very evil.
My hope, but not counting on it, is that the right-wing Democratic party leadership realize that courting the right when there is a batshit crazy far-right/fascist party competing for and winning those votes, and doing everything they can to alienate the left, is a losing proposition. And, even if only for the sake of self-preservation, they change their ways and allow the party to move left as their constituency obviously wants it to do.
I can't prove a counter factual, but I think Sanders would have trounced Trump in either of the elections.
And, any moron who thinks Biden is a socialist isn't going to vote for any Democrat even if the Democrats ran a full on fascist like the Republicans. There are no votes to lose here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @05:45PM
I argued with my brothers about this. Biden is terrible. But his election makes a difference for LGBTQ+ people - even if only by appointing more judges that view them as human beings - and abortion rights, and maybe most of all he hasn't openly attacked the integrity of the election process. Sanders' successor won't matter in 2024 or 2028 if votes completely stop mattering.
My metaphor for the situation is that the ship is sinking, and none of your choices will keep it afloat. But you still have an obligation to get people onto the life boats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2020, @12:02AM
And this is why I call you a Democratic partisan hack.
Bernie would do well, because he supports overwhelmingly popular policies and markets them well. I think he would win in a general election with a poorly-handled pandemic and economic depression decisively, which is where those who support fundamental change tend to do well. Bernie's biggest hurdle was always defeating the corporate Democrats in the primary and their massive corporate media propaganda apparatus, which he proved unable to do. Hopefully the next Bernie Sanders will be more vicious.
Also, Biden's vote margins in various swing states aren't that great, they lost seats in the house, and are likely to not win the senate. The people who lost their seats were overwhelmingly corporate Democrats.
Pete Buttigieg said one thing during the primaries that was interesting. He said something like, 'We shouldn't worry about what Republicans will call us, because they're always going to call us socialists no matter what we do. So we should just do what we believe in.' He was correct, and you should take his words to heart.
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Friday November 06 2020, @08:19PM (4 children)
Yes. For if the Americans need something foremost, it's more hallucinogen drugs. And pitbulls.
To keep the surrealism sustainable a bit longer...
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @08:53PM (3 children)
Uh, weed is not a hallucinogen. A minority of people may experience some visual effects at high doses when first exposed, but not many.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @09:05PM (2 children)
takyon linked - Oregon legalized magic mushrooms. I'm 99% sure that was the hallucinogen being referenced.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Friday November 06 2020, @09:16PM (1 child)
Washington, D.C. effectively decriminalized the posession, use, and non-commercial cultivation and distribution of magic mushrooms, making it the lowest enforcement priority.
Oregon authorized its state health department to permit licensed therapists to administer magic mushrooms or psilocybin as a treatment.
Separately, Oregon "decriminalized" the non-commercial possession of ALL drugs, including magic mushrooms, cocaine, heroin, meth, or whatever. There is a maximum $100 fine for getting caught but it gets dropped if the violator agrees to get a "health assessment".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @01:29PM
Thank you. That's informative - and awesome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @07:46PM (10 children)
Lots of weed decriminalization, a few firsts in congress, some police and privacy reforms. Yay, maybe we can skip the social doomsdsy and focus in the real one. Weather patterns are so fucked right now and have been for at least 5 years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @08:37PM (9 children)
5 years? Seriously?
Because you're not old enough to remember the dirty thirties? https://www.legendsofamerica.com/20th-dustbowl/ [legendsofamerica.com]
Or the Medieval Warm? Period https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period [sciencedirect.com]
Or the transformation of Egypt from a lush tropical paradise to the desert it is today? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161130141053.htm [sciencedaily.com]
I could go on. But hey, if you want to bet your money 5 years of weather change, it's yours to spend.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday November 06 2020, @10:02PM (3 children)
It's not like the weather started being weird, and only afterward did anybody say that it's carbon emissions. Climate scientists predicted that this would happen 50 years ago. We're in the beginning stages of feeling the effects, which they have always said would happen dangerously close to the point of no return on some pretty catastrophic global shifts.
Hedge: they weren't specific about severe weather events or local climate. I think once they figured out about melting ice caps raising the sea level and putting most major cities underwater, they assumed society would do something about it. Research into local climate shifts is more recent, and far from universal.
Major climate change is implicated in the fall of nearly every civilization in history. That alone should get you to take the possibility seriously.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 07 2020, @04:18PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @08:41PM (1 child)
Tooooooooooooooool
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 08 2020, @02:38PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @10:04PM
*flat earther has joined the chat*
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Saturday November 07 2020, @02:46PM (3 children)
5 years of weather change = a climate change. Which is the thing you are saying isn't happening.
But, even assuming we're all completely wrong about climate change, it's still a good idea to do stuff like:
- Insulate our buildings better.
- Use geothermal heating where that's a good option.
- Add renewable power generation capacity.
- Use vehicles appropriately sized for the job they're doing (i.e. if your truck has clearly never seen a day of real work in its life, you don't need a truck, you need a sedan or a subcompact).
- Make engines more efficient.
Why? Because that all reduces the amount of money flowing from your pockets to the oil sheiks of the Middle East. As an example, my dad's utility bills are approximately $0, and his gas expenses are also approximately $0. Why? Because he has a fairly well-insulated home he heats with wood (some of which he cuts himself), his vehicle is a plugin hybrid so he doesn't have to burn gas driving into town, and his electrical power comes from a solar panel. And as an added bonus, as the demand for oil goes down, there's less and less of a reason to fight wars over it, and wars are expensive.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 08 2020, @02:42PM (2 children)
Last I heard it was times scales of 30 years or more.
And we've already done a lot of that. The problem is that like everything else, there are diminishing returns to doing more of it. Existence (or not) of catastrophic climate change greatly changes where the point of negative returns starts. There's also a bunch of mitigation efforts that simply don't make sense in the absence of catastrophic climate change such as halting all use of fossil fuels.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2020, @04:59PM (1 child)
And we've already done a lot of that.
We've done a rather poor job of it.
1. There's tons of older homes in the US with terrible or non-existent insulation. Adding insulation to an old house isn't cheap, because of labor costs.
1a. Our houses have grown larger and larger, so even with better insulation and windows, our McMansions still require an enormous amount of energy to heat and cool. Doubling efficiency with insulation isn't all that helpful when you triple or quadruple the size of the house.
1b. We could be living in more multi-unit buildings, instead of freestanding houses, but we don't want to do that. It's a lot more energy-efficient to have multiple living units packed into a single building (like a mid-rise condo), because of the smaller building envelope. Not to mention the energy savings from not needing to drive around as much because of better density.
2. Geothermal still isn't used much. It's quite a bit more expensive to install than a regular HVAC unit, so house builders don't bother, and home-buyers don't want to spend more money up-front for less square footage, since that metric ($/s.f.) is the *only* thing that matters to American homebuyers.
3./4. We're not doing this one at all. Even "compact" cars now are over 3000 lbs., and much larger than they were in decades past. But they're hard to sell because everyone wants a huge SUV. Engines are more efficient than they used to be, but it doesn't help when the vehicle weighs twice as much and has the aerodynamics of a brick.
So, no, I don't believe "we've already done a lot of that". The gains we've made have been more than made up for by bigger losses, because we're greedy and always want more.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 09 2020, @05:11PM
So you claim. The obvious rebuttal are those diminishing returns. And what exactly is wrong with what people want? I certainly would prioritize it over nebulous climate change alarmism, for example.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @08:28PM (10 children)
This is why we need a federal ballot initiative.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 06 2020, @09:19PM
This is the closest you're going to get:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday November 06 2020, @10:32PM (8 children)
Or we could return the power to regulate most of these things to the states. Then a federal initiative system wouldn't be needed and different states could choose to have different laws that their residents preferred.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @10:40PM
I agree but, unfortunately, the federal government has assumed too much power.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday November 06 2020, @11:32PM (6 children)
It will take some serious voter initiative to seek out, nominate, and elect the politicians that can do that. Gotta be more active in the primaries if they want to steer the Party in the right direction.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by slinches on Saturday November 07 2020, @12:02AM (5 children)
True. The most realistic way I can think of is a constitutional amendment that repeals the 16th and requires the federal budget to be funded out of the state treasuries. The most abusive way the federal government leverages the states is to tax the citizens directly and then put conditions on getting that money back through federal programs. That would end and federal programs would have to stand on their merits, weighed against how that funding could be spent within the states.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @02:44AM (2 children)
Great post. I never thought of this. Not that I agree or disagree but it's great out of the box thinking.
So if I'm understanding this correctly you are trying to say that the federal government should tax states based on how much in tax states collect from their citizens. This also gives the state governments incentive to tax their citizens less so that they pay less in taxes and keep their money within their borders.
Some comments.
Under this system each state can decide how it wants to implement its tax plan directly to the citizens. One state may have a progressive tax with tax brackets and another state may just have a flat tax.
The federal government may also decide how to implement its tax plan against the states. It could have a flat tax. For instance if the federal government levies a ten percent annual flat tax against the states that means that if one state hypothetically collects a total of $1,000 from its citizens (for simplicity) and another state collects $10,000 then the federal government would collect $100 from the first state and $1,000 from the second state.
If the federal government wants to levy a progressive tax against the states then that progressive tax should be on taxes collected on a per capita basis. A state that collects more in taxes only because it has more dependents to collect taxes from shouldn't be in a higher tax bracket than a state that collects less in taxes only because it has fewer dependents to collect taxes from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @08:55PM
No, it was IMPOSSIBLE for the federal government to levy a progressive tax. That was the entire problem, or at least by my reading. here is what happened:
1) tax was passed
2) unfairly targeted poor people because it was a flat tax
3) got repealed because flat tax is garbage
4) progressive tax passed, and lasted five minutes
5) feds did not try to tax income
6) amendment passed to allow feds to tax income
The feds could tax income, but ONLY on an x per citizen basis.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 09 2020, @05:01PM
A lot of the possibilities you stated and questions you are posing are the things that I think our federal elected representatives should be discussing. What's the most fair way to divide up costs between states? What are the benefits/drawbacks of making a law or program apply nationally? Can we use that money better within our home state?
I don't know what the end result would look like exactly, but to me it seems to focus the efforts of our legislators in a more fruitful direction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @02:54PM (1 child)
I think it's a great idea, but how do you get it through when MIC lobbyists own DC?
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 09 2020, @05:11PM
Good question. I don't really have an answer for that. The best I have come up with so far is to organize groups within the states to draft up a constitutional amendment and then push to have that ratified by the states. If enough states do that, then maybe the states could pressure their legislators to take up the amendment or call a constitutional convention if there's too much resistance in Washington. Of course that's a really challenging path, which is why I haven't tried to organize the effort myself.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 06 2020, @08:40PM (16 children)
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts referendum granting the right to access wireless data transmitted by your car poassed by a wide margin.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @09:01PM (15 children)
But ranked choice voting in MA did not pass. Somehow people are scared to change from the current disastrous anti-democratic voting system to one that is significantly better, even if not perfect.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @11:22PM (2 children)
You are saying Chocolate ice cream is not ice cream because it's not your favorite flavor? You are the fucking retard here.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @12:25AM (1 child)
Yes, a two party system which de facto forces many people to vote for the 'lesser evil' is anti-democratic. People are not being represented, and the US is functionally closer to an oligarchy than a real democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @03:33PM
We also need to transition away from a faith based voting system towards a proof based voting system. A list of everyone's pseudonym along with who they voted for should be listed online so that everyone can tally the vote and know that their vote was tallied along with all the other votes.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @12:21AM (11 children)
I think too many people don't really understand the advantages and they get confused and so they just choose to keep the current system. You can partly blame the mainstream media for that since they mostly do absolutely nothing to actually educate people about anything. The mainstream media is not journalism it's propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @03:14PM (10 children)
What also need to be done is there needs to be a system where everyone can individually tally votes. For instance when I receive a ballot I could get a pseudonym associated with it (each election I will be given a different pseudonym). If I want to change my pseudonym I can log into a website after entering some credentials (perhaps my first and last name, birthday, etc...) and I can have my pseudonym changed. I can select my own pseudonym as long as it's not taken for that election. Some time before the election is finalized and the votes are listed I can change my pseudonym if I want either online or at the poll station that I turn my ballot into just before I turn my ballot in and present my ID.
Or better yet the only time I can change my pseudonym (and either select one that's not taken or have one selected for me) is when I go to the polls to turn in my ballot and I present my ID. There would be a computer at the poll station and I would type in a code that comes with my ballot. My name and perhaps photo would appear on the screen. Someone would check to make sure that the name that appears on the screen matches with the ID before giving me my privacy to get my pseudonym and that same person would have to type in a code in the computer after I got my pseudonym before it transitions to the next voter. I would turn my prefilled ballot into a box afterwards or perhaps I would vote on the computer after getting my pseudonym instead and after I submit my vote on the computer and leave the election guard would then enter a code on the computer to transition it to the next voter (so basically when I first get to the screen I am given an option. Do I just want to get my pseudonym and turn in my ballot or do I want to get my pseudonym and vote on the screen).
The argument for allowing me to choose my own pseudonym and change it could be that I don't want someone else to open my ballot and read my pseudonym before I even filled out my ballot. Changing it would make the one that comes with my ballot moot. Sure vote buying is still possible but under the current system vote buying is also possible. I can show someone my ballot before mailing it in. Making vote buying illegal and making it illegal for employers to ask anyone to prove who they voted for is, for the most part, good enough (though not perfect). The much bigger problem we face is obscurity. I have no clue if my vote counted or not after I submitted it. No idea. With the current system I just throw my vote away and pray. That's nonsense.
After all the votes are in everyone's pseudonym gets listed online along with who they voted for. I can tally the votes myself and know that my vote is tallied along with all the others.
It's too bad the mainstream media won't educate us about different possible voting systems and their pros and cons. The mainstream media never tells us about ranked vs FPTP voting and it never goes into an in depth discussion about the above topics. They just keep us ignorant. ON PURPOSE!!!!!! It's all propaganda. Surely not journalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @03:27PM (9 children)
The current voting system is called throw your vote away and pray. It's a faith based voting system. I have to have faith that my vote counted and that it counted the way I wanted it to count. I don't want faith that my vote counted. I want PROOF that my vote counted. I want to see my vote listed along with everyone else's vote (albeit under a pseudonym so no one can easily identify me) so that I can tally all the votes myself and know for sure that my vote was tallied along with everyone else's. Anything short is absolute unacceptable garbage.
Another note. The argument in favor of letting me select my own pseudonym is to make it harder for the system to try to combine two people with the same pseudonym that voted the same into one pseudonym (and it could subsequently create another fake pseudonym and add a vote). People should be encouraged to create their own unique pseudonyms that no one else would create and it should include a random set of characters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @06:03PM (8 children)
Why bother with pseudonyms and all the security issues associated, when you could have a "ballot stub" or receipt which would allow checking your vote against a database while preserving anonymity?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @07:36PM (7 children)
"all the security issues associated"
Can you be more specific? Read what I typed and explain the security issues and how they compare with our current system where ballots are mailed in. With a mail in ballot I can still prove to someone how I voted by simply showing them my ballot before mailing it in.
"when you could have a "ballot stub" or receipt which would allow checking your vote against a database while preserving anonymity"
A pseudonym system also preserves anonymity no worse than what we currently have. My employer won't know my pseudonym to be able to know who I voted for. Sure I can show them but I can just as easily show them my ballot before mailing it. Be specific, elaborate. I want details. Look how detailed my post is.
Sure there are better crypto systems but based on how much difficulty I had explaining basic cryptography to relatively tech savvy people on this blog in the past trying to convince the average person/the general public that such crypto systems are better is an impractical challenge. The general public doesn't understand cryptography whatsoever and trying to get them to understand this relatively simple pseudonym system above would be challenging enough.
If you can elaborate on a better voting system that doesn't involve crypto please enlighten us. It needs to be able to allow me to tally the votes myself with my vote included or somehow provide proof (and not faith) that my vote was tallied.
The ballot stub would have what on it? Information that lets me look up my vote (ie: that information is basically a pseudonym ... duh)? Is the information associated with everyone else's vote also listed so I can tally my vote with everyone else's and know my vote was counted in the total? Or am I supposed to have faith that it was added into the total? I don't want a faith based system. I want a proof based system. A faith based system is nothing short of fraud.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @09:10PM (6 children)
Because someone needs to maintain a database linking pseudonym to real human, and they can track your vote too. And knock you off if you vote wrong, which is the entire point of anonymous voting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:16PM (5 children)
I don't think that's necessarily different than our current system. IIRC, the ballot that I received in the mail and submit back has identifying information on it. If the current system is supposed to prevent me from voting twice then it has to.
So someone could take that information and use it to identify me. Also there is a way to see if your vote was counted.
"Under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, every voter who casts a provisional ballot is entitled to find out from his/her county elections official if the ballot was counted and if not, the reason why it was not counted."
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status/ [ca.gov]
I believe, at least in some states, you can check online if your vote was counted (but there is still no proof to you that it was actually tallied and which candidate it was counted for. It's still faith based). So your point is moot regardless.
Which means they can just as easily identify who you voted for.
Which leaves us to the question, how is it worse than the current system.
Also why does there need to be a database linking a pseudonym to a human. There doesn't have to be one and the assumption above is that no such database exists because there is no need for it. Sure you may not trust them not to make one but with the current system they can just as easily make a database tracking which mail in ballots voted for which candidate. So this is no worse than the current system and that's the key point here. It's still better than the current system.
Alternatively if you don't trust that they aren't secretly making such a database without your knowledge then you can go to the voting station, show your ID, they cross your name off a list, and when you go on the computer you make or get your pseudonym there. Then you vote on the computer and submit your vote. After you leave the election guards will then enter a password on the computer for the next voter and they will tell the computer system you voted. So there is no way that they can be secretly associating your pseudonym with your real identity. Such a measure would not include turning in a prefilled ballot but the option to turn in a prefilled ballot using a system similar to the ones I mentioned in my prior post could still be available.
There is no need to maintain a database linking the voter to the pseudonym. There are workarounds in the event you don't trust that such a database isn't being secretly kept. and it's still better than the current mail in ballot system where they can still keep track of who voted for what candidate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:42PM (4 children)
Anyways to elaborate here we go
"Voting Q&A: What prevents me or anyone from voting twice — in person and by mail?
First, ballots have barcodes unique to the individual. When ballots are received by clerks, they are scanned in and poll books are updated to show that the person has voted. So if someone sent in their mail ballot and it was processed, and then they showed up to vote at a polling place, the poll worker checking them in would be able to see that they had already voted."
https://www.summitdaily.com/news/voting-qa-what-prevents-me-or-anyone-from-voting-twice-in-person-and-by-mail/ [summitdaily.com]
So under our current faith based voting system they can link your ballot to you personally and they can secretly keep track of who you voted for once you submit your ballot by mail. You take it on faith they aren't doing so. So my above proof based system assumes that they aren't keeping track of which pseudonym is associated with which voter and that no such database exists (because there is no need to have such a database) but if your argument is that they can secretly make such a database under a proof based voting system then the counterargument is that they can secretly create one just as easily with the current faith based system and that it's possible to create a proof based voting system that gives the voter the option of voting in a way that makes it impossible to allow such a database to secretly be associating your pseudonym with your identity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:47PM
Our current faith based voting system contains absolutely all of the disadvantages of a proof based system with absolutely none of the advantages. We need to transition to a proof based voting system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:51PM (2 children)
If the system wants me to reasonably believe that my vote counted then I DEMAND a proof based voting system where I can tally my vote with the rest. Otherwise I will reasonably conclude that they aren't providing me one because they have something to hide. If they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. They won't give me a proof based voting system because they have something to fear. GIVE ME A PROOF BASED RANKED VOTING SYSTEM!!! I DEMAND IT!!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:54PM
(and I have the right to demand it because I pay taxes. This faith based voting garbage is nonsense. It's not acceptable whatsoever).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @11:22PM
err ... the quote should be that they fear giving me a proof based voting system because they have something to hide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @04:28AM (1 child)
But like 32% voted to keep it ....
What ... ?
https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/most-nebraskans-voted-to-abolish-slavery-as-criminal-punishment-but-32-voted-to-keep-it/article_69dbba59-11b6-5f29-b56e-8bc7d6097865.html [omaha.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @09:57PM
So frankly I have a rule to vote no on all amendments, unless I actually know about it. I don't live in that state but i suspect it was not super advertised the CA purchased amendment. So people just said no because.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @06:11AM (4 children)
Stop the votes! Stop the count! Just stop. Traitors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @07:30AM (2 children)
Abortion doctors are forcing aborted fetuses to vote for Biden! Rigged election!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @12:27PM (1 child)
Gay illegal immigrant abortion doctors are forcing aborted fetuses to vote for Biden! Rigged election!
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @01:32PM
Trans Muslim Latino gay immigrant abortion doctors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @08:45PM
Keep the votes! Continue counting! Traitors ignoring valid ballits!!
If you want to have successful messaging you can't have opposing stances. Break a leg next time, at least then you'll have some real sympathy.