|
PupsOfWar posted:If this were a concern, he could go with just his first name, John. I doubt he had it focus grouped, one of his friends came up with it and he just went with it. If anything, I have a feeling that all his political consultants tried to talk him into going by John. However if he did it was for Florida in the 90s. Which is a problem not only because it was the 90s, but because it was Florida. Jeb carries a lot less baggage in the South than the rest of the country.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
BristolSOF posted:Our lives are centered around the internet: banking and finance, news and information, medicine and insurance, goods and service all have advanced to the internet so why shouldn't voting be the same? The current model seems outdated to me, which is why such few people vote; it's a bigger hassle than it needs to be. Yes, the reason so few people vote is because it's inconvenient, no other explanation necessary.  quote:I just don't buy the reasons against online voting. Addressing your points, could there be corruption? Sure. But that's no reason to not attempt to create an online system voting system that reduces corruption (for example you could have separate companies involved in the election, or government departments, acting as a check and balance. As for reliable and cost-effective, it would take time, but it would be better than what we have now. As if corruption (which you handwave away) is the only problem with online voting that needs to be solved. Authentication, lack of internet access/mailboxes, stealing the votes of family members, etc. But no, we'll just have two companies do it! That solves everything! quote:Take NYC for example. Last mayoral election's turnout in 2013 was 24%, the lowest turnout in 50 years. So with so few people showing up, you'd be shocked that poll workers want a raise when they already make the highest salaries in the nation. And then, you have random issues like this - the City setting aside 1 voting machine for 1 person - who didn't vote - manned by 2 poll workers. A raise, to $300. The mind boggles at the thought of these fat cats rolling around in their cash in their penthouse apartments. Maybe if they lived in one of the most expensive cities in the country it would make sense...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:
you've got to keep doing the things that brung ya this far, as Brett Favre once said in an interview for a news outlet
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Yes, the reason so few people vote is because it's inconvenient, no other explanation necessary. The #1 reason why people don't vote is a lack of interest or non-competitive races. Turnout in mainly white presidential battlegrounds tends to be very high. Wisconsin, for example, broke 70% in 2012 which is quite high for the developed world. More diverse battlegrounds, like Florida and Ohio, still hit around 65%. However, convenience is a major reason why certain people, especially from politically vulnerable communities don't vote - they're working and unable to get to the polls, hours are strict, voting is intimidating, they didn't register to vote on time, etc. Giving people more and new ways to vote would go a long way to dealing with it. quote:As if corruption (which you handwave away) is the only problem with online voting that needs to be solved. Authentication, lack of internet access/mailboxes, stealing the votes of family members, etc. I mean, all of these things are issues that exist now with mail voting and it still works as another option you can use to vote. I would argue that the risk of corruption for online voting is no greater than the risk that currently exists in the status quo, if it's administered properly. I don't think the argument is so much to move exclusively to online voting as it is that we could add it to the ways people can turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Hey, I heard you like the American flag...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:The #1 reason why people don't vote is a lack of interest or non-competitive races. Turnout in mainly white presidential battlegrounds tends to be very high. Wisconsin, for example, broke 70% in 2012 which is quite high for the developed world. More diverse battlegrounds, like Florida and Ohio, still hit around 65%. However, convenience is a major reason why certain people, especially from politically vulnerable communities don't vote - they're working and unable to get to the polls, hours are strict, voting is intimidating, they didn't register to vote on time, etc. Giving people more and new ways to vote would go a long way to dealing with it. I'm fine with all of this in theory, but in practice I am incredibly skeptical that if it actually comes to be it will be in a form that is beneficial for what can still be called our democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
This upcoming presidential primary race and election has gotten me to re-watch Election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Moments of Wonder with Rick Perry
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
"On today's episode, we're going to find out about wind--like why you can't see it but it still makes flags go, and where does it come from and how much does it cost to make?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
"With all the online ballots now in, we can confirm that the winner of the 2024 election, and the next President of the United States, is Weedlord Bonerhitler."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Moments of Wonder with Rick Perry And this flag was just... dancing. With me. Like a little kid begging me to play with it. For 15 minutes. That's the day I realized there's this... entire life... behind things, and this incredibly benevolent force that wanted me to know there was no reason to be afraid. Ever. JPG is a poor excuse, I know. But it helps me remember ... I need to remember.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
In Bernie's America, she will be entitled to 12 weeks of paid family leave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Last night I was feeling nostalgic, so I decided to re-watch the 2nd Obama-Romney debate for the hell of it. I found myself struck by the realization that Mitt Romney was absolutely the best the GOP could ever hope to get; he's successful, well-spoken, looks completely presidential, and has at least some minute shred of potential to convince people he would govern as a moderate. He got completely ripped to pieces in that debate. Compared to Romney, every single one of the current GOP candidates is either more extreme, more insane, more dumb, or just plain dorky looking. How in the world do they expect to pull this off?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
.
BristolSOF fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Hey, I heard you like the American flag... Ok, this really made me crack the gently caress up. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
.
BristolSOF fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Bucswabe posted:Compared to Romney, every single one of the current GOP candidates is either more extreme, more insane, more dumb, or just plain dorky looking. How in the world do they expect to pull this off? By portraying Hillary Clinton as a scandal-ridden, dynastic, candidate of the past who's tied to some of the largest foreign policy failings of the Obama Presidency and hoping that, combined with a pendulum swing in voters and her inability to turn out minority votes as effectively as Obama is enough to add 3% to the vote Mitt Romney got and win the White House. It's not a crazy plan. I'd say it's less likely than her winning at this point in time, but that's by no means inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:In Bernie's America, she will be entitled to 12 weeks of paid family leave. I mean, the benefits of Bernie's America are great but I'm just not so sure about the hedonistic culture that encourages 12 year olds to get pregnant. BristolSOF posted:Everything Concerned citizen said and - Out of curiosity are there any comparisons of voting rates from before and after states offer early voting? Something that could show the impact difficulty getting to polls has?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Well, these are all issues that can be largely mitigated. It's not like it's impossible to make tamper-evident databases, and there's no reason why a ballot choice should ever be connected to a real person's name, except for a receipt. The goal isn't making a totally 100% secure election - this is impossible under any format - but to make it so difficult & risky to do without being detected that it isn't worth it. Online voting will inherently require an IP address for your internet connection, which is traceable to an individual household. Authenticating the user as a valid voter means some sort of authentication process will need to take place, giving you the individual's name or other identifying information alongside it. The secret ballot is the foundation of a modern democracy, and this can't be guaranteed in an online system the way it is now. The entire voting process becoming centralized means that any flaws in the system will impact the entire election, instead of a single polling station in Wisconsin. And security issues may not even be found out until after the election. Also, a reminder that, not two weeks ago, four million federal government employee's identifying data was stolen. As far as "risk of being detected" goes, Chinese government hackers won't need to worry about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Moments of Wonder with Rick Perry Countdown to rick_perry_waving_flag.flv showing up in an ad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:By portraying Hillary Clinton as a scandal-ridden, dynastic, candidate of the past who's tied to some of the largest foreign policy failings of the Obama Presidency and hoping that, combined with a pendulum swing in voters and her inability to turn out minority votes as effectively as Obama is enough to add 3% to the vote Mitt Romney got and win the White House. Out of curiosity, do polling organizations ever try to assess whether voters are being more motivated by excitement for a candidate, vs fear of the other guy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Joementum posted:By portraying Hillary Clinton as a scandal-ridden, dynastic, candidate of the past who's tied to some of the largest foreign policy failings of the Obama Presidency and hoping that, combined with a pendulum swing in voters and her inability to turn out minority votes as effectively as Obama is enough to add 3% to the vote Mitt Romney got and win the White House. This is a good strategy, which makes me think that the actual strategy will be "fire communications directors if they tweet the word 'oval office,' but not if they tweet the picture of Hillary in a witch costume."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:By portraying Hillary Clinton as a scandal-ridden, dynastic, candidate of the past who's tied to some of the largest foreign policy failings of the Obama Presidency and hoping that, combined with a pendulum swing in voters and her inability to turn out minority votes as effectively as Obama is enough to add 3% to the vote Mitt Romney got and win the White House. It also plays well with the GOP banking, again, on depressing the opposition's vote rather than winning converts over to their own side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Bucswabe posted:Out of curiosity, do polling organizations ever try to assess whether voters are being more motivated by excitement for a candidate, vs fear of the other guy? Yeah, wondering this as well. My Obama enthusiasm dropped hard during his first term, but my disgust with his opponents skyrocketed at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
BristolSOF posted:Everything Concerned citizen said and - Then do mail in. What does online get you that mailing in a ballot doesn't? quote:Why are you skeptical this would beneficial? Are you suggesting that some people shouldn't vote? Oh good lord, how do you look at everything else that actually occur in our political system, and think that your "answer" to corruption will actually make it an incorruptible or less corruptible system? That's my problem - if the political will is there to get it done, it isn't being done in the interests of the common person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Then do mail in. What does online get you that mailing in a ballot doesn't? Nerds who have already had no reason not to vote, finally voting. Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nerds who have already had no reason not to vote, finally voting. Maybe. Vivian James (D-Calif.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Vivian James (D-Calif.) I think you mean (R-Calif)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Anyone who think that Jeb's first name is the anchor around his campaign might want to take a step back and think for a moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nerds who have already had no reason not to vote, finally voting. Maybe. The Right Wing is already all over ethics in political journalism too. Stephanopoulos is the new Kotaku.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Bucswabe posted:Out of curiosity, do polling organizations ever try to assess whether voters are being more motivated by excitement for a candidate, vs fear of the other guy? Not really. They might include something like that into the correlation they use, but again... not really. Think about how things poll. Obamacare is unpopular, but why? Because people hate big government or because people didn't think it went far enough? Polling just measures attitudes, it doesn't (generally) ask why people have that attitude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Online voting will inherently require an IP address for your internet connection, which is traceable to an individual household. Authenticating the user as a valid voter means some sort of authentication process will need to take place, giving you the individual's name or other identifying information alongside it. The secret ballot is the foundation of a modern democracy, and this can't be guaranteed in an online system the way it is now. The entire voting process becoming centralized means that any flaws in the system will impact the entire election, instead of a single polling station in Wisconsin. And security issues may not even be found out until after the election. Well, first, an IP address is only traceable to an individual household if you have a subpoena to the ISP, which puts it out of the reach of mostly everyone. Knowing how an individual voted is not particularly useful information unless you're in a position to intimidate a particular voter, or buy their vote. Not exactly valuable if you're a Chinese government hacker. (As an aside, I don't think you can call secret ballots foundational for a modern democracy, since some democratic processes - such as the famed Iowa caucus! - require you to publicly state your support for a candidate. And many states have partisan registrations.) If I were storing data, I would store it separately - law requires only that I record that you voted, and I record your ballot. There's no reason for me to add your name to a database indicating how you voted. I'd like to note that it's very rare for an entire polling station to be invalidated or have ballots go missing, so I don't find myself particularly concerned about centralizing elections. If anything, it would likely improve the overall administration of the election. That said, you should remember that with online voting there is very little added expense to extending voting days and hours, so there's no reason why you'd even need to centralize it if you really did not want to. You could authenticate, vote, and then receive a receipt. The fact that you voted would be electronically transmitted to the County (or whoever administrates elections locally in your state) and the physical ballot which indicates who you voted for would be transported by mail to the precinct as if you had voted absentee. Fraud would be evident if the tallies from paper receipts did not match the tallies brought to a precinct, if the number of votes did not match the number of voters, if there were statistical anomalies, or if any of the dozens of potential mathematics-based security measures were triggered. Risk of being detected matters because a fraudulent election is pointless if the fraud is detected. Then you can do the election again without fraud, or throw out fraudulent votes. So a Chinese government hacker's plan would badly backfire if they attempted to rig an American election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Anyone who think that Jeb's first name is the anchor around his campaign might want to take a step back and think for a moment. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
You don't understand how continuously forcing a new election is what an election fraudster would be happy to do? A whole bunch of people might not bother to vote again, or be confused how to vote again. And that's to say nothing of how, for example, 20% of Americans have no internet access at home and if they're voting at work their boss could easily exert undue influence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
What's O'Malley like as a candidate? I haven't really heard much about him, or from his end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You don't understand how continuously forcing a new election is what an election fraudster would be happy to do? A whole bunch of people might not bother to vote again, or be confused how to vote again. The scenario of someone continuously rigging an election would assume that a hacker broke into a server multiple times using novel approaches and at no point did you attempt to fix the issues that allowed it to be rigged in the first place. Comical idea, but pretty unlikely. And my argument is that it's not really any less secure than paper ballots under lock and key, especially if you're familiar with how "secure" physical ballots tend to be. American elections are already tamper evident, not tamper proof - with or without paper ballots. As far as "boss exerting influence" - again, no one is saying online voting is mandatory and what you're talking about can already happen with mail ballots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:What's O'Malley like as a candidate? I haven't really heard much about him, or from his end. He really doesn't like marijuana and he has the personality of cardboard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
I can't wait for the 2020 election, online, with the usability of the original healthcare.gov and the information security of the OPM.Concerned Citizen posted:The scenario of someone continuously rigging an election would assume that a hacker broke into a server multiple times using novel approaches and at no point did you attempt to fix the issues that allowed it to be rigged in the first place. Comical idea, but pretty unlikely. And my argument is that it's not really any less secure than paper ballots under lock and key, especially if you're familiar with how "secure" physical ballots tend to be. American elections are already tamper evident, not tamper proof - with or without paper ballots. So how long are you going to delay redoing the election to fix those flaws? What's everyone going to think, besides, of the legitimacy of the eventually accepted election? "Oh, surely now the vote is correct! Start putting up the pictures of President Bonerhitler!" ohgodwhat fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:The scenario of someone continuously rigging an election would assume that a hacker broke into a server multiple times using novel approaches and at no point did you attempt to fix the issues that allowed it to be rigged in the first place. Comical idea, but pretty unlikely. And my argument is that it's not really any less secure than paper ballots under lock and key, especially if you're familiar with how "secure" physical ballots tend to be. American elections are already tamper evident, not tamper proof - with or without paper ballots. Well we don't have years to fix the election system after a problem occurs, genius. You need to do a reelection close up and any first go at fixing the problems is likely to fail - have you ever even played any online games? They have people fuccking around with it just for the hell of it, instead of the added incentive of actually affecting a government. The difference is that there is no one who only has mail access at work, who is also currently registered to vote. You don't seem to have any goddamn idea how hard computer security is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
goose fleet posted:What's O'Malley like as a candidate? I haven't really heard much about him, or from his end. He spoke at my wife's graduation in 2011. I was not particularly impressed. He wasn't bad, just very bland and non-engaging. He seems like more liberal version of Evan Bayh and destined to be a perineal VP option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:31
|
|