Another “great” voting method. Hard to imagine a less secure method.
1 Like
Banking by phone is a thing, and is pretty secure. I wouldnt trust the typical election official to pull it off, but it seems like it would be relatively easy to impliment for someone competent.
Sure, it’d be hard to prevent someone from calling in for someone else. But how is that any different than someone filling out and mailing someone else’s paper ballot?
Considering he said “If we can do our taxes…” I don’t think he was talking about calling in your votes, but about using the “smart” part of a smartphone.
Last I checked Estonia was the only country in the world that allowed internet voting, but that’s because their ID cards are chipped (I’m guessing they also all have smart card readers attached to their home computers in order to authenticate themselves using their own smart card). A few US states have Enhanced Driver Licenses with some kind of chip, but I’m not sure if it’s usable this way and CA isn’t one of those states.
1 Like
Less secure than what? He is obviously not implying that you just call in your vote, or visit a website one time to click on your favorite candidates. Obviously you’d have to be authenticated somehow, and obvoiusly it would still have to be auditable. Imagine harder.
My understanding is that each individual vote can be verified by the individual voter, but nobody else. Privacy!
I can’t tell if you’re playing dumb or poking fun. Yes it is funny that it happened, hilarious even, since this particular group of people should know better. No it is not a broken voting system or even a poor implementation. They’ve been using it for 15 years and this is the first time someone lost a key. He also did the right thing by resigning. It’s refreshing when people do the right thing after a major screw-up.
Tennessee has banned RCV in state and local elections and a conventional plurality system was used in yesterday’s congress election. The election results were available within hours and will be certified on December 5, three days after the election. Contrast that with Maine that uses RCV and takes 20 days to certify their elections.
The Tennessee Democrats complained that the quick certification was unseemly but with a simple system like Tennessee’s it can be done reliably. Maine, who uses ranked choice voting, takes 20 days to certify their congressional elections.
Except this wasnt an election, it was a special election that has it’s own timeline. With exactly one position being voted on, they will get through it much much quicker than when they have dozens of contests to tabulate.
For regular federal elections, Tennessee and Maine have they same state-level deadline to certify elections, roughly 3 weeks following election day. And local officials in Maine need to certify their local results 18 days BEFORE local officials in Tennessee are required…..
These stories seem to be all over the place
Of course, very little effort is put into making it clear the warning is to withhold reimbursement of staffing and administration costs, not individual benefits.
My feelings is that if a state doesn’t want to tell the Feds who is receiving benefits, the state can pay for the benefits themselves. If they want the federal money, the Feds have the right to whatever data they want. It isn’t at the state’s discretion. Besides, we all know they don’t want to give the info because of who they’ve been approving for benefits, and they’re concerned the info will then be forwarded to ICE.
My takeaway is the fact North Carolina apparently spends over $75 million per quarter (over $300 million annually) merely administering the SNAP program. I know it’s a big program, but first reaction is that seems horribly inefficient.
3 Likes