O noes! The theme is gone!

Brian Noble:

The chances of building a system that an adversary cannot manipulate are vanishingly small. That’s particularly true if that adversary is a nation-state.

I can see that perspective for sure, but since most of the countries most sensitive material traverses computer networks, why not voting as well? You can do some decently secure stuff with tunneling and isolated systems and networks, along with certificates, and get it to the point where they would basically need physical access to tamper with it. Which with physical access can also tamper with the current system. Shoot, our darling soon to be commander in chief claimed that he had a fix in place to make sure he won. So for all we know the current system is possibly heavily compromised.

Turns out that NIST thinking about quantum-resistent cryptosystems, and has published standards for them (FIPS 203, 204, and 205). Several of those algorithms were based on work by another colleague of mine, using lattice cryptography.

https://cse.engin.umich.edu...is-peikert

TheMillenniumRider:

I can see that perspective for sure, but since most of the countries most sensitive material traverses computer networks, why not voting as well?

Because as noted above, everything else is verifiable some other way. For example, both parties to a financial transaction know the details of the transaction. Votes are secret, and that fundamentally changes the rules of the game.

Also: "The electrical power grid is sh*t and can be compromised easily by an adversary, so why not allow our elections to be compromised too?" is not a winning argument.

(I will note that hanging out with computer security people is not a way to feel good about the future.)

Brian Noble:

Votes are secret, and that fundamentally changes the rules of the game.

Yes, and I totally failed to account for this. For some reason I figured with what we already had in place it could be done, but nonrepudiation would not be possible to maintain anonymity. So yeah, I guess we are stuck with this lousy archaic process that is still in place.

Watch that Cleo Abram video I linked to above. If you're interested in the subject, I think you'll find it fascinating. Actually, most everything she shows is fascinating.

Yes. The system of voting we have in place now is archaic, but it’s currently the most secure we have. Unfortunately it does deter a lot of potential voters who don’t like having to drive to a particular location and spend time waiting in long lines. At least most states have early voting now to spread out the crowds. No perfect voting method.

Aww.

I was already looking forward to President McPresidentface.

The_Orient_of_Express:

No perfect voting method.

How do we feel about compulsory voting? Must submit a ballot or be fined? This is a thing in some countries.

Compulsory voting seems like a good idea, but it goes against the idea of freedom- this being the freedom of choosing NOT to vote. It's not illegal to be uninformed or not interested in our government. People (not me) have that right. If too many uninformed people vote, you end up with someone like Trump.

Also, some religions tell their followers not to vote, or have anything to do with government. Once again... freedom. Freedom of religion.

If you force everyone to vote, not everyone is going to know about the people running, and they are just going to vote for their party, the person with the best name, or the person at the top of the list.

(Finally I have something that I am able to add to this amazing conversation- my opinion about freedom. It's a good read about things I am not knowledgeable about.)

Compulsory voting is possibly a worse idea than internet voting.

LostKause:

this being the freedom of choosing NOT to vote

Well, you could write in Ronald McDonald, or submit a blank ballot and still exercise that freedom of choice. Australia does this for example, you have to submit a ballot, it doesn’t matter what you submit or if you even fill it out, and it remains anonymous, but you must submit that ballot.

If people were forced to submit something, I do believe it would increase engagement, some people would take note of things that presently don’t. Additionally, Australia is rated as a better democracy than the US, for whatever that may be worth.

TheMillenniumRider:

Australia is rated as a better democracy than the US

Perhaps because, as noted earlier, the US is a republic.

A republic on the slider toward oligarchy and authoritarianism.

The_Orient_of_Express:

Unfortunately it does deter a lot of potential voters who don’t like having to drive to a particular location and spend time waiting in long lines

That’s not a requirement of paper ballot voting. It’s a requirement of in person same day voting.

And the lines part is not even a requirement of that. If a county created a sufficient number of polling sites, lines aren’t an issue.

Vater:
Compulsory voting < Internet voting < RRR.

Fixed that.

The last time I voted in person was in 2011, when I moved back to Cleveland from Seattle. I probably did the next year too, but every year since, I've voted by mail. In Florida no less. You know, DeSantis' "freedom state," as long as you don't want to go to a drag show, give people water in line to vote, learn about slavery or get a book from the library with lesbians in it.

Is the U.S. a democracy or a republic? Seems to me that Republicans retort that it is a republic as some kind of blanket statement to discredit the Democratic party. Merriam-Webster has this to say about the topic...

Because democracy is an abstract name for a system and republic is the more concrete result of that system, democracy is frequently used when the emphasis is on the system itself. We could say that democracy is to republic as monarchy is to kingdom.

Read more here... https://www.merriam-webster...d-republic

I don't run a democracy, nor a republic. It's more of a Goncharchy. I don't make you do what I say, I let you realize I'm right, and then follow. 😉

Just wanted to follow up and share real quick:

I'm gonna be honest. I put that Sam Harris book in my Amazon cart and, once I dug in more on what it was, kind of had no intentions of actually buying it. I'm a dick like that. But I'm an honest dick.

Then I went back to Amazon just a day or three ago to grab a couple of things and the book was still in the cart and I noticed a $3.50 coupon for the effort of clicking a checkbox:

At $6.99, the book can be complete horse**** and who cares, right?

Well. It came today:

Aside from looking awfully bushy this morning, I did bushily read the first two or three pages real quick.

I dunno. I think I just fundamentally disagree with what he's already said and it's just giving us the very most basic gist of his argument.

But then, in an attempt to read 5 pages and claim an understanding of the book (again, dick, but honest dick), I jumped to the end and there's a nice break and summary. I read that too and I come across:

"If our well-being depends upon the interactions between events in our brains and events in the world, and there are better and worse ways to secure it, then some cultures will tend to produce lives that are more worth living than others: and some worldviews will be mistaken in ways that cause needless human misery."

...and I think, "Well, obviously."

There's nothing profound there. That's common sense.

But I think I just figured out the disconnect.

Morality can't be objective in his sense because he claims it's about the well being of conscious creatures. (on page 1)

Individual outcomes are a completely subjective thing. Your reality is different from mine. The same action could affect our well being in completely different ways. Different strokes for different folks. What may be right for you may not be right some. So on and so forth.

I don't have an ending. But that's my retort after reading 5 pages of a 191 page book.

(It's basically the same as before, reworded, but, shhhhhh!)

That was in reply to Vater's last comment. My YouTube channel isn't a republic or democracy either. It's a Travocracy. LOL