Public-Choice v. Oromagi - The 2020 Election Should Be Decertified

Author: Public-Choice

Posts

Total: 83
#61
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
1.) I didn't say "stupid" I said "ignorant", you for instance are probably not stupid but you are ignorant and/or biased (or at least doing a good job of conveying that impression)

fine.  Let's agree that you fallaciously poisoned the well by ad homming any who disagree with you as  ignorant or corrupt.

#62
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,161
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
1.) I didn't say "stupid" I said "ignorant", you for instance are probably not stupid but you are ignorant and/or biased (or at least doing a good job of conveying that impression)
fine.  Let's agree that you fallaciously poisoned the well by ad homming any who disagree with you as  ignorant or corrupt.
Let's agree that you pretending that was the case constitutes ceding my original point.

#63
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Yes, a National Academy of Sciences paper  a good example of a non-stupid, non-corrupt contradiction to Dream's ad hom.   You can object to that assertion all you want but given the National Academy's reputation and  their paper's relevance to the subject,  I'm more likely to prove persuasive .
except that the paper you quoted contains demonstrably false claims
#64
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I do not care if Alex Jones or Albert Einstein said the 2 + 2 = 5. It doesn't, and I can prove it so I don't need to rely on authority.
well stated
#65
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
how are they going to fake the receipt that the voter takes home ?
I'm thinking less about fake receipts then anonymity.  If you have a list of voters who showed ids in the order they voted and then you have the anonymous votes in order, you can crack anonymity.
the names of the voters who are verified IN-PERSON BY ELECTION OFFICIALS is NOT online and is NOT on the blockchain

the IN-PERSON verification is EXACTLY THE SAME as the current IN-PERSON verification already used at polling places
#66
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,161
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
the IN-PERSON verification is EXACTLY THE SAME as the current IN-PERSON verification already used at polling places
Which is not perfect but much better than mail in.

The in-person verification is based on the accuracy of voter registration; i.e. the assumption that people who aren't going to vote will remove themselves from the voter roles.

In my county name, address, and date of birth will get you a ballot; but obviously in person means you would have to go to different polling places lest you be recognized by the poll watchers/judges.

So if you want to cheat in person (without inside help) you need to know name, address, apparent gender, and age of a registered voter who probably won't vote in any other poll district.

#67
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
except that the paper you quoted contains demonstrably false claims
I did not quote anything.  I am 100% confident that you did not read the National Academy of Science's report.

#68
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,161
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
except that the paper you quoted contains demonstrably false claims
I did not quote anything.  I am 100% confident that you did not read the National Academy of Science's report.
You didn't quote anything? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

You linked to an article by one person but you advertised as "3) The National Academy of Sciences" :

Here is a link to that actual NAS document: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25120/chapter/7#103

You sure as hell did quote from something, and if 3RU7AL was mistaken about it coming from NAS that would only be due to you misleading him about who you quoted. Above you said "I'm more likely to prove persuasive .", clearly honor and truth isn't particularly persuasive given the history of politicians, or perhaps like Biden you've forgotten the first page of this thread.
#69
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@3RU7AL
except that the paper you quoted contains demonstrably false claims
I did not quote anything.  I am 100% confident that you did not read the National Academy of Science's report.
Sorry.  Ignore that last.  Obviously I did quote directly from the NAS paper.  I was thinking of the fact that Dream addressed made his arguments to David Jefferson of Verified Voting blogging in at the US Vote foundation.

Since you can't link directly to NAS papers (you need an account) I just linked a blog where the link was given in the second graph.  I thought it would have been obvious that a voting blog was not the NAS but I guess I was wrong.

Go to   https://doi.org/10.17226/25120  make an account and the blockchain stuff is pg. 103-5

Again, I wasn't trying to express an opinion or make an argument, I was just responding to Dream's foolish ad--hom.  That is, when he says There are two types of people who don't immediately agree:
1.) People who don't understand the technology and distrust those who do.
2.) People who fear democracy, and deep down know their interests and ideals are best served through fraud

I was just pointing out that puts people like Josh Benaloh, Senior Cryptographer at Microsoft Research and Ronald Rivest (NAS/NAE),  at Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in that ignorant or corrupt bucket.

I know you don't care but the National Academy of Science was founded by Abraham Lincoln to advise Congress and the President on scientific and technical issues.  They don't get paid for it, you can only become a member by being invited by the consensus of existing members and they're just publishing their papers for the honor of advising American public policy.  It just means that the top thousand or so scientists in America think you are one of those thousand scientists and have asked you to advise the top decision-makers regarding the future of America.

#70
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
sorry, I was still writing my correction when that came in.  All of your remarks this morning were addressed to David Jefferson's blog, not the NAS paper, right?
#71
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,161
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
sorry, I was still writing my correction when that came in.
I regret making an insult out of the possibility of a mistake.


All of your remarks this morning were addressed to David Jefferson's blog, not the NAS paper, right?
I attributed the quotes to him because that's the person who was marked as the author of the page you linked to. The text I responded to was from your quote and your quote contained a copy-paste from pages 103 - 105 of the NAS article.

David Jefferson used full paragraph quotes from the NAS document while in no way marking it as a quote. Such as "The use of blockchains in an election scenario would do little to address the major security requirements of voting, such as voter verifiability. The security contributions offered by blockchains are better obtained by other means. In the particular case of Internet voting, blockchain methods do not redress the security issues associated with Internet voting."

To people who are focused on authority following back links wrapped in other links might seem a worthwhile endeavor, but I engage with arguments. The only link I agree has a place in a useful debate is a link to hard data. If you had posted the link alone I would have probably ignored it, and wisely so because a person who cannot make his own arguments in the first place will likely not be able to respond in a coherent way.


I was just pointing out that puts people like Josh Benaloh, Senior Cryptographer at Microsoft Research and Ronald Rivest (NAS/NAE),  at Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in that ignorant or corrupt bucket.
Whoever wrote the NAS article carefully couched their claims to mislead by giving the impression of a problem without claiming there is a problem. For instance:

https://doi.org/10.17226/25120 pg 105:Blockchains do not provide the anonymity often ascribed to them.

https://doi.org/10.17226/25120 pg 105: Blockchains do not provide ballot secrecy.
This article was written in 2018, Monero was launched in 2014. An expert in cryptography could not possibly have missed that, and when I say "expert" I mean an expert. I'm not talking about the position they may have been given or the degrees they have been assigned.

So there is again a dichotomy, the author in 2018 either knows damn well that ballot secrecy and anonymity can be statistically guaranteed by the a blockchain system designed to have that feature, in which case this is misleading (intellectually corrupt) or they didn't know that in which case they are ignorant.

A truly ignorant writer would have made more mistakes, some of the mistakes would directly contradict reality instead of deception by omission. See also:

https://doi.org/10.17226/25120 In particular, if malware on a voter’s device alters a vote before it ever reaches a blockchain, the immutability of the blockchain fails to provide the desired integrity, and the voter may never know of the alteration.
What a strategic word "may", yes they may never check; but a properly designed system would allow them to check.


That is not to say that 3RU7AL is incorrect about demonstrably false statements:

https://doi.org/10.17226/25120. While it is true that blockchains offer observability and immutability, in a centralized election scenario, observability and immutability may be achieved more simply by other means.
This is equivocation or it is false. Equivocation if the "observability and immutability" referred to in the later part of the sentence is different from the observability and immutability that a properly designed voting blockchain system offers. False if they mean the same thing.

Now you seem to believe that what you've quoted qualifies as "people who don't immediately agree" with the system I described, but if I ran into one of these guys in a coffee shop they would almost certainly claim that they were not thinking about the system I described.

If after giving the description I have in this thread they still made these allusions, then my dichotomy would hold. If they were a Senior Cryptographer at Microsoft I would ask how they conned that job, well no I would maneuver them into displaying their ignorance to be sure and then I would not ask because I don't like to embarrass people without cause.

There is no claimed authority that I will ever place above a sound argument. I know too much history to have faith in social norms and what you find so compelling about the a job title is a social norm. You call it arrogance, and so would the priest trying to sacrifice young children. I will endure being called arrogant for the sake of reason.

#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
One of the main reasons for the upgrade is scalability. The current Ethereum network can only support around 30 transactions per second; this causes delays and congestion. Ethereum 2.0 promises up to 100,000 transactions per second. This increase will be achieved through the implementation of shard chains.
Sounds good.  The cost would fall heaviest on rural voters but such infrastructural improvement usually end up paying for themselves.
we're talking about simple text

voting does not require high-speed-internet

if you have a regular telephone line or a cell phone, you can send the amount of data required to vote
#73
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
but a properly designed system would allow them to check.
why is this so difficult for people to understand ?
#74
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Monero was launched in 2014
i was waiting to bring this up

since most voters already register as "democrat" or "republican" or "independent"

THE STATE OFFICIALS ALREADY KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU LIVE AND HOW YOU WILL VOTE

and they routinely share this information with private companies

so, it's not exactly considered "top-secret"

just think about it,

how could voting districts be so effectively GERRYMANDERED without this information ?
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
invited by the consensus of existing members
that's the very definition of institutional inertia
#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
  • How would overseas and US Military work.  Would you run servers on foreign networks?
do you think that maybe there might be someone on a military base or an embassy that might be able to conduct an IN-PERSON identification ?

the tokens are created and controlled by the local election officials

they can be assigned to individual voters if they are satisfied with an IN-PERSON identity verification

the records of exactly which token is assigned to which specific (remote) voter can be kept on PAPER-ONLY

no electronic records connecting a specific (remote) voter with a specific token would be allowed
#77
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,915
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
USA presidental vote most successfull valid vote ever, barring those conservative in conservative states, who attempted corrupt the votes in various ways.

I just read some articles on that recently. Several of these conservatives being charged or investigated for there misconduct around voting integrity.

Friggin Trumpet cultist need more Russian influence to really screw the USA voting integrity. Tho we know even the some if not all of the Russian attempts failed. More evidence for most successful USA election ever.

Electronic or any system of voting requires diligent oversight to protect integrity of vote.  Electronics so much easier, to access for most of humanity.

The paper trail is just part of the diligent oversight for integrity of electronic voting.
#78
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Electronic or any system of voting requires diligent oversight to protect integrity of vote.
the difference between "electronic voting" and "blockchain voting" is the difference between night and day

"electronic voting" is opaque and unauditable

"blockchain voting" is transparent and auditable
Topic's author
#79
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
Oh gosh. What have I done lol.

The purpose of this forum post was literally just so the arrival of the terms of the debate could be publically displayed so that people voting could have a publically available reference as to how the debate's rules were arrived at and how pro and con both refined the rules to something they both agreed to.

This being said. It perplexes me why an expert's opinion matters any more than the opinion of anyone else. An expert with a degree from Harvard can still know significantly less on a topic than a man who wrote a book on the same subject. It is the arguments and furnishings of evidence, and the methodologies used to arrive at the conclusions in the evidence, that count. Not who says them.

I've heard a great many experts state things that are fundamentally wrong about the topics they are experts on. And I've also been educated in casual conversation by people who beger received a degree in a field of study not eger held a formal job in such field, yet were able to cite studies, textbooks, manuals, and other white papers that backed their conclusion. 
#80
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,161
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Public-Choice
It is the arguments and furnishings of evidence, and the methodologies used to arrive at the conclusions in the evidence, that count. Not who says them.
Exactly.


I've heard a great many experts state things that are fundamentally wrong about the topics they are experts on.
Then were they really experts? What makes an expert?

Smart people say stupid things sometimes. That doesn't mean they're stupid nor does it mean the stupid thing is smart. They were not smart in that moment.

An expert can be an expert, but that does not mean everything they say is expert.

Thus the only definition for "expert" of use to a rational and virtuous person is "the one with the best arguments", and that depends on the context of the moment.

Or in other words, appealing to authority is a fallacy no less than appealing to popularity or appealing to force. They are all proxies of various kinds, proxies for the best argument and proxies don't beat the real deal. In almost any other context using the fuzzy logic of proxies could be forgiven, but not in debate. Debate is the one time to set aside as much fuzzy logic as can be set aside given the subject.

It's like relying on a weather forecast for the current moment instead of looking out the window. Raindrops falling on your head beat a theory that there wouldn't be any precipitation. The theory of authority is that they are right because they have the best argument, a debate is where the best argument should be brought forth.

#81
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
all of these "frightening scenarios" apply equally to the current "mail-n-ballot" system
well that's false.  In our present, less auditable, system Milo could offer his $20 but college voters could still vote for Bernie and claim they voted for Trump.  The  wife could still vote for  Elizabeth Warren but lie about voting for Trump to her abusive husband 
how exactly would any of this be made "worse" with blockchain voting ?
#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
registered voters could show up in person at some point, any point really, to present their credentials and be randomly assigned one of the official e20 tokens from their local election authority

and at that point they could vote from anywhere on the planet with their unique code and also verify their vote online
  • OK, but you'd have to agree that kill the number one advantage of mail-in voting, right?
  • How would overseas and US Military work.  Would you run servers on foreign networks?
hold on,

are you saying that mail-in-voters NEVER verify their identity ?

and if you're even slightly concerned about running "servers" on a "foreign network" you clearly don't understand the key advantage of blockchain
#83
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,164
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Have we established the debaters pronouns yet? Cant have a debate unless each participants pronouns are established. Improper use of pronouns is cause for cancelation of said offender thus automatic forfeiture of the debate. I don't make the rules , so don't kill or scream at the messenger.