harry snape

They have.
ATMs also have the added advantage of cameras aimed at the user.
I'm pretty sure that people don't want to be videoed while they vote.
But what the heck, in this insane dream world you live in that will just
be another ignored compromise, perhaps the banks will turn off the
cameras as part of the wider community service they are making by
letting their ATMS be used for your system. (do I hear laughter in the distance)


So you can separate the ATM's computer into a "voting" portion and a
"bank" portion. Excellent. So which part does the keyboard driver fit in?


It isn't technically feasible. Do some reading.

As for special pleading, you are the one who dismisses every problem
with a wave of the hand. Apparently if we adopt your system everyone
becomes wonderful, so we don't need to worry.

How would supporting an insecure vote promote security? You do remember
that bank security exists by establishing a direct correlation between
an ID and its actions. You plan to implement a system where there is no
such correlation. The banks wouldn't participate.

Have you bought a PC? Have you tried getting identical hardware 3 years
later? The revision cycle for most devices is in the order of 6 months.
You can't buy disk drives that were on the market 18 months ago.
How long would these systems remain "identical"? Your systems will
break. Another of your assumptions that just doesn't match reality.


In your "arm waving" security system, what stops the software from
simulating the "correct" activity without the voter being present.
It is difficult to be "more specific" because your descriptions to date
have been laughably simplistic.

Yeah I recall labor got 54%, oh wait, no they didn't ...
You are the one attempting to show how your system would be transparent
to all and that any anomolies would be found. This presupposes a
discussion on the anomalies. Perhaps I should have remembered that
everyone is wonderful in your system, so security, auditability and
scrutiny are no longer required. It sure makes building a voting system
easier. Just don't claim that it is something that works in practice.

Blind faith with no basis is always so difficult to argue against.
You assert that something is achievable but have no idea how to achieve
it and you still think that this somehow is a useful position.

Strangely however, you arrive at a conclusion you believe is
unassailable despite knowing even as many technocrats as I do.
Every problem becomes an article of faith for you.


Most technocrats think laws ****, they wouldn't be the people I would
put in charge of framing them.

They are there because we charge them with the job of running the
country. It is a full time job, most politicians would argue that it is
more than a full time job. Even the politicians specialise and have vast
departmental resources to perform their duties well. There is no way
that the average person wants to devote themselves to this level on each
and every item of policy. Your system requires that level of dedication,
otherwise it isn't democracy it is the rule of the mob.


Look's like your fevered mind just blew a gasket.
I can cook, but I go out for dinner.
I can read law books but I still hire a lawyer.
I can render walls but I still hire a mason.
I can do woodwork but I still hire a carpenter.
I don't want to spend my every waking moment reading and researching
policy. I'd rather spend it with my family. Your system requires people
to understand policy detail, if not it fails as a system.


The majority aren't competent nor do they wish to be. I read more than
most on a range of political, social and economics areas and I wouldn't
expect that my understanding would come close to the detail required to
make any sensible policy decisions.


The system has succeeded because the people have the confidence to hand
over the reigns of power because they know that in the end they are the
final arbiter of the success of those policies. The people get to spend
their leisure time doing something useful for themselves.

Can you come back to planet earth? That's where the rest of us are.


Like I care what a whacko like you thinks.
Your ideas don't have a hope in hell of ever being popular, mainly
because they are grossly stupid and unimplementable. I have never said
that Australians are stupid and venal, you did. I said they are not
interested in learning the policy detail. They neither have the time or
the inclination. The system we have allows them to choose people whos
responsibility is the policy detail. They chose accordingly.

There seems little point in discussing things with you, I'd rather limit
myself to sensible discussions. Nothing you have offered so far gets
past even the slightest inspection before it is revealed as an
unworkable mess.