Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheMotorcycleBoy t1_iuf4l2c wrote

Reply to comment by BadBunnyYonaguni in Brazil’s highway police carry out massive voter suppression in Northeast region by New-Program7948

Yeah. Because there aren't billions of completely secure banking transactions going through effortlessly every day?

Almost all fraud is the consequence of poor user practice / weak passwords / personal security failings etc.

Don't buy into those lies, dude. If online voting was insecure we wouldn't have online banking and online commerce.

It's just a line sold to get the older (more Conservative) people to agree to restrict voting access to mobile / time-poor / poor (more left-leaning) voters.

(And no, voter fraud is not bad now and never has been more than a small percentage of total votes cast.)

11

PaxDramaticus t1_iugo3j6 wrote

With ebanking, you want your name attached to every transaction you make. The whole point of voting is to detach your name from who you voted for.

Systems that are anonymous, easy to access, and hard to cheat in are quite difficult design challenges. Framing the fact that they haven't been implemented on a wide scale as a conspiracy doesn't make those design challenges easier.

5

Fine_Fault_8232 t1_iufam23 wrote

But with ebanking there are many checkpoints. you can see who sent money, who received it, time and date, the amount. With evoting you would only have the preferred candidate, which would make it harder to verify the authenticity of the ballot.

−6

TheMotorcycleBoy t1_iufbygr wrote

What? That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works.

All those transmitted variables you cited are (pretty obviously) present in both types of transactions. (Apart from the ‘preferred candidate’ thing - but you could substitute ‘value’ for that couldn’t you? Same deal.)

6