| | | Are you arguing to be arguing, or are you serious?
As I have mentioned myriad times, in my exchanges with you I am rarely arguing for or against anything but reason. I wrote that again as recently as yesterday. I'm mostly just vetting your stuff. I have offered no preference for or opposition to an on-line system. The most I have said about the substance is that the climate is not right for one so it's not feasible. Politics is the art of the possible.
Your comments are so focused on the piece of the system where voters sign onto the system rather than going to the polls or using the mail. For example...
Have you thought about how people will register, how that is made secure?
In this last election some folks were all exercised over the voting machines, now they had been corrupted by a dead Venezuelan dictator. They went after a couple of manufacturers. Now, a voting machine processing is pretty simple, almost mechanical. As black boxes go, not too complicated, something anybody can understand at least generally. And you have a print-out at the polling place to show them and to recount if necessary. How do you think that cohort would react to the code it would take to put the system on line, particularly the security part? The distrust of that would be exponential. And what could you show them to settle them down?
And then there's the constitution, the bit about the states determining election stuff. They'd all have to collaborate.
And then what if Z or community organizations decided to loan phones or computers to everyone who didn't have the equipment. How would you feel about that? Surely you'd think that those devices were rigged.
And what about the Russians or Chinese or whoever?
Biometric data is local; it never goes to any agency.
If not an agency that is responsible for matching, then where? How would that work? Somewhere you have to match.
Those are just a few things off the top of my head. There are lots more. |
|
