5 votes

On the Blind Vote

In my opinion, with a blind vote there will never be a way to insure the accuracy of elections - especially with modern technology. Is anyone really afraid of getting attacked for voting a certain way these days? I doubt it (maybe a very small minority).

History demonstrates clearly that the only way to truly make contracts enforceable is to have an identifiable signature from all the parties involved (or their legal representatives).

By implementing an open vote, statistics would become much more difficult to manipulate. For instance - if the vote was completely public - there would be no reason to forbid a website where every voter could go on election night in order to verify their votes and ensure the validity of the data.

A real-time feed of incoming votes - including names and locations - should be publicly available. There is NO reason for a delay. VOTE COUNTS SHOULD UPDATE AS THE BALLOTS ARE CAST.

Try to lose a truck in Iowa in that system.

If the State is to persist, technology should be used to hold It accountable rather than being used to make Us more vulnerable.

I call for an open vote.

If you disagree, please list the practical advantages of blind votes that you believe are substantial and relevant.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes, I think blind people should vote.

Seriously, there definitely needs to be some measure of accountability.

Would that be an example of

Would that be an example of the blind leading the blind?

Yes, as always,

watch out cliff, here they come. lol

Switzerland and New England Town Meetings

have a tradition of open voting. Legislators do it.

Unfortunately, in the United States, most states had moved to secret ballots soon after the presidential election of 1884. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

If you can't stand up for your vote it can't have much weight. Fear of "reprisals" will lessen once you get used to it. Start at the local level and see for yourself.

Blind voting is a shell game for the timid.

I support an open vote, but...

If you are talking about making everyone's vote known, you will have some reprisal problems.

Imagine how getting movie rolls would go for some actors in Hollywood. How would your vote go over with your Union brothers? How many people are going to check you out as part of a job interview, and go with hiring someone they ideologically agree with?

Practically speaking you would have to have some anonymous number to keep some anonymous nature to it, but if everyone could go back anytime after the vote and verify their personal vote was counted correctly, that would be a good thing. I think that the electoral college system needs to be eliminated, and that there should be direct internet voting. In Washington state, the state always goes blue in a presidential election. Why not have a popular vote, one person, one vote, screw what state you are in.

The value of having a state-weighted election...

is that it allows geographical influences to be more pronounced in the decision of the style rule of the federal government practices over the People. For instance, the population density in agricultural states is naturally much lower than around places dominated by large cities.

If this weren't reflected, the rule of the federal government would be even further skewed towards a one-size fits all approach. It would castrate the 10th Amendment.

One lesson that we should all learn from American History is that decentralization is a close friend of liberty.

Has it ever been legally

Has it ever been legally established that Ron Paul or any other unconventional candidate was subject to election fraud?

I don't mean around the margins as occurs in every election, but a targeted fraud that tipped the election and was then documented.

I remember during the campaign there were lots of claims without any follow through, legal action or proof.

I don't know that this is a major issue, but if it is it would be a result of voting machines being compromised.

If a truly dangerous candidate was potentially going to win, I think a public ballot would be used to target supporters.

Also, the only people who would use the live feed would be people who suspected their vote might be miscounted, so you could accomplish this just by allowing it to be optional.

Then anyone who wanted a public vote could sign off for it without effecting anyone else, and the people who did not suspect or worry about their vote being stolen would retain the secret ballot.

Rephrasing,

your question asks, "Has the two party duopoly that runs the elections ever produced damning evidence against itself so that it may be prosecuted?"

There is strong mathematical evidence supporting that Dr. Paul was cheated in 2012.

The courts are open to any

The courts are open to any candidate that feels cheated. Journalists are free to investigate solid leads. Leakers are freer than ever to anonymously leak. Private polling is prevalent enough to reveal huge disparities in polls vs outcomes in elections.

If a candidate does not pursue claims that they were cheated, they are tacitly admitting there isn't a strong enough case, or that whatever degree of fraud existed wasn't enough to matter.

You can always just say The Conspiracy won't allow itself to be exposed. Look, the Conspiracy stopped me from being president. Want proof? The Conspiracy isn't going to allow me to prove it.

I think you guys want to believe in major fraud because you don't want to admit that the voters have not been persuaded. To admit that you'd have to conclude your tactics have failed, your views aren't persuasive, or the voters are successfully manipulated. Those conclusions are hard and require changes of tactics. Much easier to say we've done our job, but the Conspiracy robbed us.

Or potentially, they have a son they are trying not to cause

problems for in upcoming elections.

Quite possible, but I don't

Quite possible, but I don't imagine that every candidate that has been cheated has a son who is running for president, as that would just be improbable.

Although, it is possible that in an infinite number of universes, at least one would have such a state of affairs, and so it would seem highly improbable, but that would just be an example of the cheated-candidate-with-son-running-for-president Anthropic principle at work.

It is clear I was using Ron Paul as an example

and not some hypothetical candidate.

Ross Perot provides another example of an electoral threat to the duopoly. Allowed to debate, Perot was polling at close to 40% in a three man race. Once the Establishment found ways to deal with him, they proceeded to change the rules governing the invitations to debates with the intentions of choking out any competition that fell outside of the two major parties.

This is one of the major reasons Ron Paul refused to run as a third party candidate in the last couple of elections.

Now you're shifting ground. I

Now you're shifting ground. I said that the issue of electoral fraud, stealing votes, fixing machines, flipping votes, is something that can be documented in court, or by journalists, etc. You countered that Ron Paul specifically wouldn't do so because of Rand. Is Ron the only one who was subjected to election fraud?

Then you move to Perot.Of course the establishment oppose candidates they can't control, that has nothing to do with election fraud per se. Stay on point. It's like pinning down an eel. No one said the establishment don't try to make their opponents ineffectual. I said no one has presented solid evidence of election fraud.

If it is, why not show it? The question of Rand doesn't explain why other people active in the campaign, or outside journalists, wouldn't pursue leads if they were good leads.

Why to no avail? I respect

Why to no avail? I respect the video link but it is not substitute for a proper response.

You said...

"I said no one has presented solid evidence of election fraud."

Unless you're calling the fellow in the video a liar, then the above statement is inaccurate. The testimony clearly demonstrated the ability for elections using voting machines to easily be rigged without much chance of detection. It would be naive to believe that such measures have not been used.

By the way, nothing ever happened to the representative that was mentioned in the video.

The willingness to screw your fellow man is considered a virtue on the Hill.

I know it is possible, I

I know it is possible, I don't know of any case where it's happened demonstrably.

There likely will never be one

One would have to verify the integrity of the source code at each polling location and compile it locally. Otherwise, at least with a blind vote, it is too easy to get away with.

Besides, even when damning testimony is given, nothing happens - even to a Representative. It's out of the question that a President or Senator would ever be punished.

That's an inherent problem in any system where a certain group of people are given special rights to rule over subjects. For instance, why are the people in Congress able to be the only Americans exempted from Obamacare? Why do policemen tend to get lighter sentences than regular folks for committing identical crimes? Why are powerful political figures rarely if ever prosecuted and only get a slap on the wrist if found guilty of an accusation?

Why do people claim that humans are too bad for government not to exist but agree that a small group of those same people (and often the most corrupt) should rule over everyone else?

Didn't Ron Paul win

Didn't Ron Paul win reelection every time, but one? Didn't Rand Paul win? Didn't Amash?

Don't all these campaigns run internal polling, and wouldn't a huge divergence make cheating obvious, and provable in court?

Every 2, 4, 6 years there are elections with two or more candidates. Which one controls the voting machines...? The incumbent? Does the incumbent always win?

If we're going to claim such conspiracy theories we're going to need at least some hard evidence.

The mathematical evidence from the last primary season

that I linked to in an earlier comment is pretty damning.

In my work, I've seen a lot of mathematical data over the years. I'm pretty good at interpretation given the nature of the information and the way(s) it was measured - especially when good control data is available for comparison.

For that matter, given the difficulty of detecting vote flipping through the use of poll workers, mathematical evidence will be all that is available in such cases. And the data I referenced is precisely what one would expect in a vote-flipping scheme.

I read the document about the

I read the document about the vote flipping algorithm back when it was originally published and I didn't find it persuasive. Do you know of any reputable experts who endorsed or followed up its claims? I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

There's nothing to a vote flipping algorithm

For example:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Candidate_1_vote = 0
Candidate_2_vote = 0
Name_1 = "Joe"
Name_2 = "Bob"

while (receiving_votes == TRUE ) do

read vote

if (vote == Name_1 || Candidate_2_vote >= (Candidate_1_vote - 1))
{
Candidate_1_vote = Candidate_1_vote + 1
}
else if (vote == Name_2)
{
Candidate_2_vote = Candidate_2_vote + 1
}
else
{
print "Invalid Choice"
}

done

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Congratulations Joe! Well run campaign!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This could easily be written to guarantee a certain percentage victory.

As for the data I referenced, I'm perfectly comfortable with my interpretation, and my mathematical background is certainly adequate for me to give an educated assessment.

Look, just because there's

Look, just because there's nothing to a hypothetical vote flipping algorithm doesn't mean there's nothing to placing it into 500 voting machines without anyone knowing. If I'm wrong, you try it.

Nothing to it if you happen to be the company

making the voting machines.

So then this only applies to

So then this only applies to candidates who are executives in the voting machine company of their respective races?

That's a ridiculous statement

With enough cash or clout, one can gain influence over all types of organizations - MSM, voting machine companies, etc.

So now you're positing

So now you're positing another layer, a functional bidding market between candidates for buying the vote machine company executives who then remote control into the hundred of voting machines unbeknownst to anyone to flip the vote. In a close race, flipping the vote of course wouldn't be a sure win. And you'd end up with elections nearly always turning out the opposite of exit polls and pre election polls, since the lagging candidate would be the one to pay the exec to flip the vote. And both sides could pay for the vote to be flipped back and forth. Sure, it's possible. I'd just require more evidence to believe it was happening.

For Me, It's About My Right to Privacy and Personal Protection

The argument presented in this post, "In my opinion, with a blind vote there will never be a way to insure the accuracy of elections - especially with modern technology. Is anyone really afraid of getting attacked for voting a certain way these days? I doubt it (maybe a very small minority)." Well I'm in that minority; I do believe open voting would lead to violence, just as practitioners who openly express their religious views are persecuted by others.

I only vote in local elections since the national and state electoral systems are corrupt beyond repair. The reason I support the secret ballot is to protect my person from those that would use intimidation and coercion to seek retribution against me should I vote in the minority or the majority, for or against a balloted item.

We all know the government is trying to tear down our right to privacy as one of our natural rights implied in the 9th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I view this open voting issue as another intrusive attempt to control people under the pretense of "open government". The temptation by those in the mob rule of the democratic majority is too great to ignore the potential abuse put upon the citizenry.

People register to vote. On election day a count is taken of every person who desires to vote. The citizen votes for or against proposals on the ballot. The votes are tallied and the majority of voters who favor a proposal give sanction to it and it becomes the law or regulation. What is important as far as accuracy is the count of people and their vote. Does it matter to know the gender, age or name and address of each person who voted for or against a balloted item? For what purpose other than to question that person's motivation or to go further, to influence them in the future, perhaps with physical threats? If it can happen it will happen because powerful people stoop at nothing to maintain their control over the people.

Where open voting becomes important is how the representatives vote in the legislature. That's how we judge them not the other way around.

Flipping votes keeps the count constant which makes the count

a poor measure of the accuracy.

This is the weakness of the blind vote that electronic voting machines capitalize upon.

The 'Flipping Vote' Issue is a Red Herring

The fact that electronic voting machine counts can be illegally altered cannot be solved by revealing who voted for or against a ballot item. Even under an open ballot system a person's vote could be changed unless you are suggesting the voter certify their vote using some electronic verification system which is costly and is no guaranty against cheating. In the age of electrons there will always be a way to corrupt the system.

Perhaps a solution may be a receipt printed after voting. Such a document may have a certified watermark with a voter sequence number, date/time stamp and poll location showing a snapshot tally before a person cast their a vote and afterwards. The anonymous receipts are collected by one of the poll workers and recorded in a separate ledger. The ledger and machine tally must match.