Post on Mastodon

Very detailed Lemmy post I wrote about this fuckery and more

Local news article containing the quote about the voter registrar

On Homer Plessey Way, board member Daniel Milojevic stood outside the Bywater polling place in the Press Street Gallery suggesting people try the two Jefferson Parish locations.

He said the local registrar of voters gave the district only 300 ballots per location and told them they could expect about 20 people.

“We had to confirm the number of ballots weeks ago,” he said, before it was clear how high the turnout would be. Milojevic conceded that planning had clearly missed the mark.

As one astute gentleman asked while defending Reddit, and accusing me of spreading misinformation:

If hardly anybody knew, how did turnout exceed expectations within 2 hours?

Because the “expectation” provided by the registrar was literally 20 voters per location (60 voters in total) for the entire fucking city.

  • osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    You’re thinking about the voting problem wrong, specifically not including all of the requirements

    The algorithm isn’t a black box like you’re saying, it’s fully auditable and decentralized so any fuckery is immediately visible.

    Their point is that even in this system, there is both a small and finite number of people who are skilled enough/qualified enough to perform that audit. I’m not sure I’ve got the math to be able to validate a blockchain transaction by hand without referring to a (potentially tainted) source repo. There’s a world where blockchain voting can solve this problem, but the competing requirements make it the less-optimal solution compared with paper voting.

    Specifically, there are 3 potentially competing requirements for a secure voting system in a functioning democracy:

    1. Votes must be accurately recorded and tallied
    2. Votes must not be attributable to any specific individual
    3. Votes must be auditable for an arbitrary amount of time

    Blockchains, potentially, optimize the voting problem for #1 while introducing explicit exposure in #s 2 and 3, while paper ballots optimize for 2 first, then 3.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Woah woah woah, I said nothing about blockchain. That would almost certainly be the wrong, overly complex solution. The systems that exist for cryptographic voting do hit ALL your points while having the additional benefit of being perfectly auditable.

      Cryptography is a much larger field than blockchain, and people use it for trusted communication every day.