6939
posted ago by RatioInvictus ago by RatioInvictus +6939 / -0

I knew the moment that I compared voter turnout in CO and found that primary voter turnout from 2016 to 2020 increased by over 140% despite population increasing less than 5% that something was off. Now, I'm digging into all the connections, but it's a lot.

The more I dig, the more shit bothers me.

E.g.

All of these companies' employees, BTW, donate almost exclusively to ActBlue, Biden, Warren, etc, though some hide it (e.g. Monica Childers donated and the FEC log says she said she was unemployed, but her LI profile said she was employed by Democracy Works in that same timeframe).

Anyway, could use some help.

Comments (363)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
4
WesternOperative 4 points ago +6 / -2

Agreed. Except maybe blockchain.

3
luckyfunk13 3 points ago +3 / -0

Even blockchain doesn't help if the system is originating the entry. That just cements it in the chain. Changing it later becomes difficult, depending on who/how peers are controlled.

It could help, but would need a complete change on how a ballot is scanned and tabulated - once a scan is in between the intent and the count, control over them matching is removed.

0
ClokworkGremlin 0 points ago +0 / -0

It needs to be independently verifiable. The signature on the transaction needs to depend on how you voted, and use a unique private key known only to the voter. That way you can check your own vote later and verify that it was tabulated as you intended.

1
Klyuchak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even ignoring anonimity problems and assuming the blockchain itself works as perfectly and securely as intended, that doesn't mean the systems that make the block chain work won't be comprimised. Add blockchain those systems themsevles and you just move the problem further down the line.