Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Methais]

When you think about it the electoral college has saved us twice now by keeping two nitwits out of the executive who would have royally fucked things up against the will of the people.

This is correct.

[Stumplicker]

re: internet voting: It sounds good in theory but we've got people in the highest levels of government that don't follow basic internet security precautions, so it's pretty much dead in the water. If you thought the hyperventilation over voting machines and physical ballots was bad, imagine how 'black box' a completely online voting system would be to the average person.

FPTP/winner-take-all voting is balls, though.

I dunno. I'm sure there would be plenty of backlash and vitriol about it while people adjusted, but I'd bet (I'm not gonna bother to look it up) people had the same things to say about filing your taxes over the internet. Now 90% of people e-file, and those contain every piece of information you'd give voting, plus all your financial information. It's safe and secure, and people got used to it.

Don't forget that "the highest levels of government" is comprised of people who spent the first 30-40 years of their lives without computers. The generation that grew up in a household that has always had computers as part of their everyday life is turning 30. They pay their bills online. They file their taxes online. They bank online. They apply for jobs online. Hell, a lot of the applications I get come from people's damn phones. I know this because autocorrect frequently changes the word Penquis to Penis on applications I get. Voting takes an ID and a vague idea of who you'd like to vote for. We have much more stringent and critical systems online already. We're ready for online voting.

[Taernath]

I dunno. I'm sure there would be plenty of backlash and vitriol about it while people adjusted, but I'd bet (I'm not gonna bother to look it up) people had the same things to say about filing your taxes over the internet. Now 90% of people e-file, and those contain every piece of information you'd give voting, plus all your financial information. It's safe and secure, and people got used to it.

Don't forget that "the highest levels of government" is comprised of people who spent the first 30-40 years of their lives without computers. The generation that grew up in a household that has always had computers as part of their everyday life is turning 30. They pay their bills online. They file their taxes online. They bank online. They apply for jobs online. Hell, a lot of the applications I get come from people's damn phones. I know this because autocorrect frequently changes the word Penquis to Penis on applications I get. Voting takes an ID and a vague idea of who you'd like to vote for. We have much more stringent and critical systems online already. We're ready for online voting.

At a vaguely defined point in the future when our physical shells are discarded and our consciousnesses are all uploaded into the OverMind, it might be possible. Until then, I think there will always be a segment of the population that will remain ignorant of security, and that's what I'm trying to get at. It doesn't matter if 90% of people don't click on random email links when you've got Senator Steve who left his email password as 12345. Beyond that you've got to wonder at the kind of infrastructure/design needed to support potentially hundreds of millions of people trying to access the voting site all at once (or over the course of days/weeks).

I dunno. I just feel like I've seen enough hacked polls to know that I would really rather not see "Gushing Granny" win the election.

[Methais]

autocorrect frequently changes the word Penquis to Penis on applications I get.

I hope you at least use this to create awkward situations on interviews. +1 if you add a casting couch.

Senator Steve who left his email password as 12345.

[Gelston]

I don't know what you mean with him by not applying, but I'm gonna use it as a springboard to mention why I dislike the electoral college.

Candidates write off a bunch of states as sure wins or losses, and then focus in on swing states. That morphs the race into this big ball of bullshit where the candidates absolutely must champion causes important to those specific states, not the nation as a whole. If you're courting people, not swing states, you're championing causes important to a wider base. Don't get me wrong, you're still pandering, and that's not going to stop ever, but why is every presidential candidate talking to me specifically about what Florida wants to hear? Shouldn't you be talking about what the greater portion of the nation wants to hear? This lasts all the way through the first election and first term, because hey, you've got to please Florida again in four years. Can't do anything that might upset them, even if it's for the betterment of the nation on the whole. That's half of every presidency, sat fretting over and pandering to a small percentage of swing states.

With out the Electoral college, they would ignore a lot more states. ALL Campaigning would happen in California, Texas, and New York.

[Stumplicker]

At a vaguely defined point in the future when our physical shells are discarded and our consciousnesses are all uploaded into the OverMind, it might be possible. Until then, I think there will always be a segment of the population that will remain ignorant of security, and that's what I'm trying to get at. It doesn't matter if 90% of people don't click on random email links when you've got Senator Steve who left his email password as 12345. Beyond that you've got to wonder at the kind of infrastructure/design needed to support potentially hundreds of millions of people trying to access the voting site all at once (or over the course of days/weeks).

I dunno. I just feel like I've seen enough hacked polls to know that I would really rather not see "Gushing Granny" win the election.

I mean, if you think about it, if that was going to happen, it already could be happening. 90% of people are e-filing taxes already, so more than enough info can be stolen in order for someone to file an absentee ballot for you long before you get to the polls to place your vote. Heck, in some states it'd be enough for a cashier at 7-11 to snap a picture of your license when he cards you then mail in a ballot. A high voter turnout is what, 50%? That means right off the bat there's a 50/50 chance you'd never even know someone cast a vote in your name.

I say for the transition period, leave polling stations open, let people who want to vote that way vote that way. Like taxes, it'll start with a minority and very quickly move to a majority voting online once people become comfortable with it. If such a widespread fraud network existed to get Gushing Granny into the presidency, there are more than enough loopholes in the current system for it to happen. I'd argue that trusting partisan individuals with boxes of ballots is more damaging and open to fraud than any potential abuse of a secure online system.

[Gelston]

Besides, to get rid of the Electoral College it would take an Amendment, not a Bill. The Electoral College is in the Constitution. I'm not seeing any state other than California and New York agreeing to that Amendment.

[Astray]

Internet voting is an awful idea.

[Gelston]

Internet voting is an awful idea.

I agree. I think people can get off their fat lazy asses once a year for something this important.

[Astray]

I agree. I think people can get off their fat lazy asses once a year for something this important.

Anyone even remotely familiar with the internet knows that polls online are subject to some of the worst tampering.