Microsoft anounces encrypted voting system - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 06:30:51 pm
content: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/05/06/protecting-democratic-elections-through-secure-verifiable-voting/QuoteMy opinion is that encrypted voting systems have been possible for a long time but people do not trust them because they do not understand them.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 06:33:08 pm
content: David Chaum introduced (invented?) "blind signatures" in 1983.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 06:42:47 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 08, 2019, 06:30:51 pmBrought to you by the same people that gave us Windows, the most bloated, buggy and virus prone software in HISTORY! Oh, and let's not forget how windows 10 is stealing everything that we type into a PC and is shipping it off to MicroSoft in Ireland.People understand encryption just fine, they just don't TRUST MicroSoft!

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 06:57:55 pm
content: https://xkcd.com/2030/

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 07:00:31 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on May 08, 2019, 06:42:47 pmBlind signatures were invented in 1983 by not-MS and got no traction.MS is now introducing a new open-source system which has had no time yet to be implemented in real life.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 07:01:15 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on May 08, 2019, 06:57:55 pmGood one!

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 07:22:12 pm
content: Tom Scott has something to say too:

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 07:23:51 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 08, 2019, 06:30:51 pmTransparency is important. Everyone understands how paper ballots works, from start to finish. It has worked just fine for hundreds of years. It doesn't need fixing.

author: windsmurf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 07:39:53 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 08, 2019, 07:23:51 pmAutomated Ballot counters are still in the mix, with hackable software/data.Humans are still in the mix with corruptible influence, etc.Just sayin...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 07:40:03 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 08, 2019, 07:23:51 pmTransparency hits the nail on the head. The problem is that whatever is digital cannot be re-counted like a physical paper ballot. Of course there is a whole flurry about hacking and being able to spy on how and what people vote but the main issue is and remains that paper ballots are physical things.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 07:56:46 pm
content: Yeah, right. Microsoft, exactly the company to trust with something like this.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 08:01:06 pm
content: Quote from: windsmurf on May 08, 2019, 07:39:53 pmHere at least, all votes are counted by hand more than once and by different people.Quote from: windsmurf on May 08, 2019, 07:39:53 pmWhich is why voting fraud happens and why as much transparency as possible is a good thing.

author: ElectronicSupersonic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 08:11:51 pm
content: We have presidential elections coming (this weekend). I personally don't trust local voting system (paper based) or any voting system for that matter. Neither I trust politicians - both those that are in place now and those whoo will replace them. Born in soviet union, I've seen different people in charge (and different systems they kept in place) and I came to the conclusion, that politicians can't be trusted regardless of the system or people in place. The state is run by people they say, only these people are "the people".As they say in Russia (pardon my half assed translation - it rhymes perfectly in Russian):Vote you do or vote you not,Fuck you get no matter whatAny voting system where humans are involved (mainly on the receiving end) can and will always be susceptible to "influence". Since there is no biological beings (on this planet) that are capable of creating voting system for humans, humans do that themself, with predictable results obviously.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 08:49:15 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 08, 2019, 07:23:51 pmLiving in caves worked fine for hundreds of years and didn't need fixing. We still fixed it.Quote from: nctnico on May 08, 2019, 07:40:03 pmAbsolutely not true. Digital ballots are discrete "files" which can be counted as many times as you like. They could even be printed on paper if that satisfies anybody.Many posts here confirm the unreasonable distrust. If techies and representatives of all participant political parties say they trust the system why would I not? If all parties say they can check the results and they trust the system why would I not?Again, this is a case of ignorance and distrust. Paper ballots can be manipulated even more but we are familiar with them.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 09:07:31 pm
content: QuoteI'm not sure that's true. Our counting is pretty transparent, can involve people from all sides of the political spectrum etc. While I'm sure there's place enough for some mischief, I can't imagine doing it on a mass scale.At the end of the day, if you don't trust your government enough to provide a proper counting of votes, what makes you think that it would count them properly when software is involved?QuoteDistrust yes, ignorance, not sure about that one. Just look at personal data leaking left and right, hacks big and small all over the place... and when you open your dictionary in Slovakia and look up the equivalent of fuckup you will find "see: government IT project". Not sure about the rest of the world.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 09:13:11 pm
content: As far as the software goes... Since it's open source people are free to pick it apart and find flaws and fix or at least suggest fixes. You don't have to trust Microsoft explicitly. Like most of these things it'd probably have a limited roll out. Could do it here in California during presidential election. If it doesn't turn out blue you know it was hacked.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 09:21:41 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 08, 2019, 07:23:51 pmBingo! And if a paper ballot needs to be "encrypted" you place it inside of a paper jacket. Not everyone "understands" computers but everyone over the age of 5 understands a simple paper ballot.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 09:23:37 pm
content: Would anyone have trusted it more if it came from Apple, Amazon or Google ?

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 09:46:58 pm
content: The XKCD is right. And there's a good reason that no one seems to understand which is distribution of trust.A paper ballot by nature has distributed trust. You would have to corrupt a significant number of people to sway a vote outcome and every aggregation point and that is extremely difficult (unless your name is Ergodan or Duterte)A software ballot by nature has centralised trust. You only have to corrupt the source or the aggregator. Single point of failure.If we zoom out somewhat, really the issue is that the whole election concept is biased towards voting in one arbitrary power rather than proportional representation thus minor count differences and sways can tip a whole system over rather than being an acceptable error percentage. This means that the entire ballot voting system requires crazy amounts of security and attracts crazy amount of compromise attempts. It's self defeating and usually ends up in a two party race which everyone loses.tl;dr: humans are idiots.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 09:52:31 pm
content: Like paper ballots ever stopped rigging elections. It is an established tradition in some parts. "Vote early and vote often!"https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161019/downtown/vote-rigged-elections-history-fraud-stolen-trump/https://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/Not to mention some other countries where the practice of rigging elections is well established and maintained. Paper ballots can easily be rigged.In fact, electronic voting could be made more secure than paper voting.And, again, nobody has to trust anybody. Representatives of parties can check that everything is working correctly.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 09:59:19 pm
content: The point is that paper elections need a bigger and more obvious effort to be rigged. Paper elections require many people distributed across many places to be impacted, while electronic voting can be easily influenced by a single person. Probably as important is that anyone can attend paper voting and counting and see irregularities. With electronics, there's little to see and more specific knowledge is required.As long as any and every electronic system turns out to be full of holes sooner or later, electronic voting being safer than paper is out of the question.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 10:08:27 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 08, 2019, 09:46:58 pmActually most countries use proportional representation. It's mainly the UK and the former British colonies that use first past the post voting.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 10:21:25 pm
content: Sorry to be clear on my point, proportional representation should only account for the ratio of winning party members in a council at the end of the process. There should be no absolute winning party or political ideology post election and no damn figurehead.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 10:22:54 pm
content: Seems like a great thing to try right in time of rising political tensions and accusations of election fraud. Nevermind some Russian hackers caught in the networks of a voting machine vendor in America around 2016. (Supposedly didn't gain access to actual voting machines though. This time.)Quote from: soldar on May 08, 2019, 06:30:51 pmRendering them useless.Quote from: soldar on May 08, 2019, 06:33:08 pmOK, how is that supposed to work in practice? You write your ballot to a file and have it signed anonymously by some authority to ensure what actually? You hand it to, well, whom? Who counts it and how, why would you assume it will get counted at all?Quote from: Stray Electron on May 08, 2019, 06:42:47 pmLess than 1% of 1% understand anything about crypto and less than 1% of those I would expect to get anything like that even remotely correct. I'm a software developerQuote from: soldar on May 08, 2019, 08:49:15 pmYou know, YouTube headquarters has recently been shot up for political bias. Maybe Microsoft will fare better. Maybe.Quote from: soldar on May 08, 2019, 08:49:15 pmYes, that's what we currently have with paper. Question is, will you get those parties to trust you and your computers?Quote from: maginnovision on May 08, 2019, 09:13:11 pmYou have to trust somebody that the code Microsoft published is actually the same code which runs on some opaque machine somewhere. That the machine hasn't been backdoored, hacked, subverted, etc.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 10:37:00 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on May 08, 2019, 09:59:19 pmBanks move millions every day on the Net with digital signatures. People have millions in bitcoins and they seem to be safe. If you find a hole which would allow me to get a few thousands please let me know by PM because I am interested.Any new system cannot be asked to be perfect, only to be competitive with what it is being compared to.IMHO, electronic voting can be made secure enough and has advantages like internet voting and it will be implemented in due time, sooner or later. One day people will laugh at the idea of voting by mail.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 10:38:52 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 08, 2019, 09:23:37 pmNo way, I don't trust any of those companies.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2019, 11:44:25 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 08, 2019, 10:08:27 pmAre you sure of that? Spain does not use straight proportional representation but an extremely complicated system which nobody understands but, surprise, surprise, favors the big parties. We just had elections (who do you prefer to be raped by?) and I calculated the number of votes needed to get a seat and it went from 52K to like 120K. Not all votes are made equal.I believe most countries use similar systems.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_methodhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_averages_method

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 12:33:10 am
content: Wikipedia lists these countries as using proportional voting systems at least:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 07:11:05 am
content: Quote from: apis on May 09, 2019, 12:33:10 amWhat countries? That's a world map with colored countries and none of the colors is listed as strictly proportional. From what I gather Germany and Bolivia get closest and that's it. I am not about to study the whole issue because it is complicated and could take hours. There are innumerable voting systems and they can be very complicated.As I said, I believe most countries use weighted systems that favor majorities. From the extreme "first past the post" through a range of other less weighted systems but I do not know any country that uses strict directly proportional representation. They all use one method or other to favor the creation of majorities and take away power from minorities.In any case, as a rhetorical question, would you prefer your vote be stolen or your money from the bank? If we protect money how come we can't protect votes? The answer is we can.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E?t=0

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 08:43:21 am
content: Quote from: soldar on May 09, 2019, 07:11:05 amBank accounts get hijacked all the time. Hacking an election is worth much more than hacking a bank. A voting system would be more complicated than SSL encryption. SSL provides satisfactorily protection from local criminals and script kiddies, but not from state actors. The NIST standards had weaknesses introduced by the government for example. State actors try to influence elections all the time.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 09:29:00 am
content: Quote from: apis on May 09, 2019, 08:43:21 amAn yet it has been decades since banks changed from paper records to electronic. How do you explain that?I fully realize the opposition to electronic voting is not rational and you cannot reason a person out of a position to which they did not arrive by reasoning. Humans are resistant to change. Electronic voting will be accepted and implemented not by explaining it but by cute PR campaigns by those who think they have an interest in it.It is interesting to see human nature at work. Some people are afraid of flying and feel safer driving their car because "they are in control" and this is in spite of statistics showing flying is much safer. We are terrible at assessing risk. Terrible.Some people are afraid of heights, or of dogs, and no amount of reasoning is going to change that fear.Electronic voting will come not when people understand it and believe it to be safe because that day will never come. Electronic voting will be accepted by the people when their leaders say it is OK. People follow their leaders. People are not qualified to judge the merits of most things around us and vote for what their leader and peers sponsor. People do not trust or distrust things because they understand them but because they have been lead that way by their group and leaders.Paper voting might be more intuitive but, in fact, has a lot of drawbacks we overlook. Absentee voting can be complicated, expensive and forgeable. Electronic voting can be much better in many ways.With paper voting the voter loses control of his vote at the moment of voting. You can be morally sure a majority voted for X but the results say Y won. Now what? There is nothing that can be done. Y won and that's it.President Kennedy is said to have influenced results in Illinois. How can you know? You can't. You can only be suspicious. Suppose a candidate buys the representatives who do the vote counting or tallying. You have no way of knowing your vote and all other votes were counted correctly.The result is in the hands of the vote counters. They can be honest or, maybe, if there is enough at stake they could be bought. There is no way I can prove my vote was changed.Now let us imagine a new system.To put in in terms of paper voting let's say each vote has the name of the voter encrypted on one side and the vote on the other and only the voter himself can read both sides. The vote counters can only read the vote side but not the voter which is encrypted.Imagine all the votes put up on a virtual bulletin board. Anybody can count them now. The (encrypted) name of the voter is not readable but any individual voter can confirm his vote is still what he voted.Now, let us imagine a digital voting system that works like this:Three candidates, A, B and C are running.I, the voter, cast my vote for one of the candidates and I digitally sign it with my key (so it is unforgeable).Representatives of A, B, and C all use their digital blind signatures to sign my vote thereby validating it. They cannot see who I voted for but they blindly validate the vote and they can only validate one vote per voter.The vote counters can read who the vote was for but not who cast it. In fact anyone can tally the results because the votes are public.The voter can always check and confirm his vote is intact. All voters can do this after the election has been counted.Voters can conveniently vote from anywhere.Voting by mail becomes obsolete.It is much cheaper and easier.Voters can confirm their vote is intact.Recounts can be done instantly by anyone.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 09:53:41 am
content: Saying the opposition to electronic voting is not rational is a straw man. Sound reasons have been given why electronic voting is a risk. You may not consider the risk as big or may be unable to properly assess the reasons given, but dismissing an opposing view as irrational because it doesn't suit your views isn't quite acceptable.Systems favouring big parties is a trade-off. Having very few big parties in your system is a risk as we see in the news every day. Having too many little parties is also a risk, as it leads to too many chefs in the kitchen and a lack of maneuverability to solve problems effectively. It helps to have a vision and somewhat of a consensus to keep things moving. A fair few systems are or have been tweaked to find a reasonable balance that suits both ends.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 10:22:34 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 08, 2019, 10:38:52 pmThen we need multiple companies building an arbiter, three concurrent voting systems getting the same vote and in the end the results are compared and should be equal.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 10:25:33 am
content: That's not a bad solution.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 10:36:24 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on May 09, 2019, 09:53:41 amI do not see any "sound reasons". I only see gratuitous affirmations that "it could be hacked". With the same basis I can say that a hacker can break into the American nuclear arsenal and detonate all the nuclear bombs.Paper voting has a long record of being subverted. Electronic voting does not have to be perfect, it only has to be better and that is a pretty low bar.My prediction is that electronic voting will come and it will only come to America after many other countries have adopted it because America is more resistant to change. It will probably start small in some smaller countries and expand as other countries see that it works and there are no complaints. America, as with so many other things, will hold out as long as it can.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 10:48:07 am
content: Quote from: soldar on May 09, 2019, 10:36:24 amThe arguments discussed are quite a bit more sophisticated and nuanced than "it can be hacked". If you're maliciously ignoring that which doesn't suit you or are unable to understand the arguments, no further discussion is possibly or necessary. Without acknowledgement of the arguments there is no discussion. Good luck with the monologue.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 10:49:46 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 09, 2019, 10:22:34 amI agree, that's a good idea.Even if electronic voting is perfect, people trust Microsoft, Google, Apple etc. less than any government, so the only way would be to use multiple, independent systems, by different vendors. There might be a small variance in results, due to user error, if it's possible for someone to vote for one party with the MS system, and another with the Apple system, but it should average out.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 11:02:37 am
content: Quote from: soldar on May 09, 2019, 09:29:00 amBank accounts get hijacked, but not the bank, they just 'compensate' for the shortageBanks have the monopoly on all the money handling, there is no vote or say in it,it's their system to do with as they please,you are 'encouraged' to either use it or barter for a livingPolitics means electing who wields POWER, including awarding banking privilegesi.e. vote all you want with any system, paper or digital,it's a total waste of anticipation and expectation unless you can be 99% sure who's doing the counting and checking,and who checks on the checkersYou can expect whatever the powers that be (and to be again) serve up whilst many sit on ass at home watching the ballgame scores,keeping a corner tab open for the voting scores---------------------------Re: Microsoft anounces encrypted voting systemNot sure if I want to wait for 6 hours of security updates to load on Win 10 first,to ensure a 'secure vote',all that MS BS just to tick one vote boxand then tick the 'Are You Sure?' boxand 'Last chance to change your mind mate' boxThen another 12 hours of security updates and leak patches to load on Win 10 again,just in case a new back door vote worm' HokeyPokey Trojjanus' squiggled in to wreak global havoc...

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 11:05:25 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 08, 2019, 09:23:37 pmGoogle Voting already knows what you will be voting, so you don't have to!Apple iVote asks $99 to be able to register.Amazon voting is only available to Prime Government members.Microsoft Government Office Vote 2020, this page works best in Microsoft Edge.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 11:19:22 am
content: 'Encryption' means nothing these days, when the U.S. Government these days enforces'back-door' access options/availability to any such 'data', when/if 'required'Don't care if I'm shot down for saying that. No-one can convince me otherwise.I understand their reasons, in this 'Terrorist' world we live in now, but it's open to manipulation.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 11:53:10 am
content: Quote from: rdl on May 08, 2019, 07:56:46 pmAnd to think that I’d trust Microsoft in this FAR more than the companies that have made electronic voting systems so far!! Look at the crap made by Diebold, etc. They make Windows look impenetrable by comparison.Quote from: Kjelt on May 08, 2019, 09:23:37 pmApple, yes, absolutely. Amazon... probably not. Google? Not really.And if we wanted the prizes for the companies I’d trust the least for this: Facebook and Uber

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 12:05:44 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on May 09, 2019, 11:05:25 am

author: plurn
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 12:20:45 pm
content: I would like to see electronic voting taken to the extreme of giving us real democracy - rather than this representational system that people incorrectly call democracy.By this I mean that each citizen is given some easy access to a voting system (online via computer in some cases, dedicated voting appliance in other cases, permanent voting centres, etc).Rather than voting on politicians, we remove the need for politicians and we each get to vote on all policies, rather than a representative politician voting on our behalf as she/he sees fit. We could just get in the habit of voting on a bunch of proposals every week.Any policy proposal (put together by bureaucrats or perhaps even by the public) would need clear details on budget costs, tax change requirements, outcomes etc, along with full reports on studies that have been done relating to the proposal. If a member of the public wants to put forward a proposal, they could get crowdfunding to help pay for it to be put together in a suitable format with reports etc.If a decision on a proposed policy needs to be made, you need at least 50% (or some reasonable percent) of citizens to participate in a vote or the policy is rejected.Of the voters that participate, you need say 75% (or some reasonable percent) to approve, or the policy is rejected.Rather than lobbyists needing to influence/corrupt just a handful of politicians in a single capital city in order to get their way, they would need to convince a huge portion of the population across the country to get their way. Much harder to do.I expect to many, this sounds stupid. It is just a broad outline of an idea and would need a lot of finessing to be workable. But it could bring real democracy to us, and remove some of the biggest sources of corruption.Will never happen of course - no politicians would allow it.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 01:02:44 pm
content: Quote from: plurn on May 09, 2019, 12:20:45 pmThat's a terrible idea and would never work in practice. Representative democracy has the best record. Populist direct voting has a terrible record and we could go into why this is so but I would rather try to keep this thread about electronic voting systems.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 01:32:48 pm
content: And most people, and I mean most people do not understand law at all, including me.I am always flabbergasted when a patentlawyer sents his patent proposal to me, is this what I invented ?Same with many laws, they are so full of jargon and abstracted from real life that it is hard to understand.Try your local civil code law books, something each civilian should actually know is very hard to digest.

author: plurn
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 02:32:21 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 09, 2019, 01:32:48 pmOk. So a requirement of any proposal could be that it has passed a legal review, before it even gets to the voting stage. Therefore any outcome from the vote is legal. Solved.But really I have heard excuses like this before. That politicians are smarter than average people and most people are stupid. It is rubbish. Politicians are smarter at getting votes perhaps. Smarter at abusing their power (if they are corrupt). Smarter at helping themselves at the expense of the population (if they are corrupt). Do you think all politicians understand the law? Knowledge of the law is not a requirement to be elected typically. Many politicians don't have real world experience running businesses either but that does not stop them trying to control the economy.I would think if democratic voting became commonplace for the population, the people would take more interest in learning what they need to, to help their own situation. If they are happy they might not bother, but if they live under a bad system and had the option to vote to help themselves, many would learn what they need to learn to be able to vote appropriately.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 02:47:38 pm
content: Regarding direct democracy: you guys should look into how it’s done here in Switzerland. It’s almost exactly the way you guys are speculating about.And yes, it works well most of the time. And badly on rare occasion. (The tyranny of the majority is a real thing.)

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 02:56:09 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 08, 2019, 07:23:51 pmExcept the people in Florida, USA

author: plurn
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 03:14:02 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 09, 2019, 01:02:44 pmExcept for real democracy in ancient Greece, and the occasional rare referendum in modern societies, when has "Populist direct voting" ever occurred for it to even have a terrible record?What does having a "terrible record" or the "best record" even mean? Lets see, if someone is against brexit, then the populist vote for that referendum has a terrible record because they picked wrong. On the other hand, maybe it has a great record, because they picked right. That just depends on a persons opinion rather than any real thing. If the YES side won in the Catalan vote for independence, that is a terrible record if you are against it, or a great record if you are for it.Terrible record or best record is meaningless - just opinion.There are many many examples of representative democracy having a terrible record. A pervasive example, politician promises something, they get into office and deliver the exact opposite of what they promised. Happens all the time. To me that is a terrible record. Another, lobbyists convince a politician (through any means available) to vote a certain way without the politician taking everything into account, or with the politician voting for personal reasons rather than on what is best for the people. Again, to me that is a terrible record.You say "That's a terrible idea and would never work in practice." and I'll grant you that may be so. Or you could be wrong. I don't know for certain. I suspect it could eventually work better than our current systems but I don't really know.I would also say that the current systems are not working "in practice". Governments around the world are running out of other peoples money and are incapable of living within their means. State pensions for government employees are taking more and more of government revenue and are often unfunded. Many states are running out of money. This has lead to a worldwide hunt for taxes that is having a bad effect on economies and will only get worse. Is this the "best record"?I think government would be smaller, and taxes would be lower, and the economy would be more prosperous, and there would be less ridiculous laws. I don't know this for certain. The opposite could happen. Maybe people would vote for higher taxes and more oppression so they could have more socialism? I would not like that but if that is what most people want I would accept it as a democratic decision.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 03:25:07 pm
content: If I can file in my tax return online, why cant I vote? I live abroad, so I have to travel total about 3 hours to vote. And then the end results is a fraud, cause there will be invalidation of votes, and people voting in 3 different places.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 03:26:49 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 09, 2019, 01:32:48 pmWhen the people vote directly you get Brexit where everybody knows what they don't want and nobody knows what they really, really want. They've created a dead end situation with no exit.You want Brexit? 51% says yes.What kind of Brexit? Nobody really knows. No two people agree. Hard Brexit? Then many who voted for Brexit would rather vote remain. May's deal? Then many who voted Brexit and had a hard Brexit in mind will feel betrayed.It is ridiculous to think governing is just the people voting. Governing is politicians negotiating, giving and taking, not only within the country but outside. Politicians at Westminster cannot come to any agreement and you think several million could?You tell me what option you want to win and I'll tell you how to frame the questions.Anarcho-syndicalist communes have a very poor record.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vJxrf1r0ak?t=20

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 03:29:25 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 09, 2019, 03:25:07 pmYou can't because what is risked when things go wrong is of a completely and much more dramatic nature. It seems the topic is already going in circles.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 04:00:25 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 09, 2019, 03:25:07 pmreally? We have means to vote in the country we are living in, we have to be registered to an associaton. And if we live/work in italy at more than say 100km from our electoral district we get right to vacation (if we work during voting days) and free travel by public transport/plane to go to vote and get back the same day

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 04:05:40 pm
content: Quote from: plurn on May 09, 2019, 03:14:02 pmOK, here's my opinion: Anglo countries with representative democracy have a fairly good record of providing for the well-being of society while anarchist revolutions have a fairly good record of providing misery and suffering and, thank goodness, tend to not last long.So yes, if you are in favor of misery and suffering then anarchism is your preferred option. I understand that.You can read up on the Paris commune or the Barcelona anarchist revolution or many of the other anarchist local revolutions we have had in Spain. They all ended with the brotherly participants killing each other.I would rather this thread not develop into "but real communism has never been tried" type of thread and we stick to discussing electronic voting.And I will note that nobody yet has really addressed the technical issues involved and we really only have personal opinions of who each one would trust. I would really like to see some analysis of the technical issues involved.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 04:13:48 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 09, 2019, 01:32:48 pmThat is a very good point. Laws are complicated and require lawyers to make them. Take a law about real estate mortgages and ask a few people in the street their opinion and you will get blank stares. Being an elected representative is a full time job. You think people would leave everything and start studying laws? The results would be terrible.Laws are the product of much negotiation and give and take. It is utterly impossible to have everybody vote on everything. Even referendums are generally a bad idea as certain recent case has shown.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 04:34:04 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 09, 2019, 03:25:07 pmVoting has several requirements, for example: it shouldn't be possible to tamper with the result, you need to be reasonably confident everyone's vote gets counted and don't end up in a trash heap somewhere (or sent to /dev/null), people shouldn't be able to vote multiple times, the vote should be private and no one should be able to coerce you into voting for something or buy votes.So far I've never seen anyone propose an electronic voting system that can deal with all those problems satisfactorily, unlike paper ballots.More importantly, even if the e-vote is safe in theory (and I'm not saying they are), as has already been mentioned: paper ballots are simple, transparent and have distributed trust, while software voting machines are complicated "black boxes" with centralised trust.When you paper vote, you see the vote go into the ballot box, and after that moment there are several eyeballs that follows that box and makes sure all the votes are counted and reported correctly. When you computer vote you press a button and then who knows what happens...With online voting from home it would additionally be impossible to guarantee anonymity and that you're not being coerced or are selling your vote.I'm sure there are many other problems.

author: plurn
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 04:57:51 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 09, 2019, 04:05:40 pmWhat the f are you talking about? - I was talking about real democracy where every citizen gets the option to vote on policies (which could become possible with pervasive electronic voting). That has nothing to do with anarchist revolutions or anarchism or communism. For you to start bringing up other these things as though that is what I was talking about is deceitful.

author: Ducttape
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 05:09:25 pm
content: Personally, I think the best way to address the extreme difficulty of designing a robust electronic/digital voting system would be to make it essentially a public challenge/competition within the hacker community. Some in that community would enjoy coming up with ingenious ways of making it secure and fault tolerant, while others would get off on uncovering the vulnerabilities of suggested designs. Both personality types would be invaluable and everyone could have fun. Survival of the fittest at work.Although this would be pretty much an open ended exercise, at some point some company (or the government) might decide to produce an iteration.

author: Masa
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 06:35:11 pm
content: Main problem with electronic voting is the poor transparency of the system.Yes, the software in theory can be perfect. But if we cannot even trust the machines running that software or that people are running the correct version of the software, the network, that votes aren't getting lost, people's own devices that they use to vote, etc.Yes, of course banks move money in the internet and people moved out of caves. But both of these things offer major benefits and are very common daily activities for everyone.What are the benefits of electronic voting? I see almost none. Only in the case if the current system in a country is badly corrupt and not functioning, it might be an improvement.In most countries voting happens so rarely, that the efficiency that you need in baking, or other common things, is not that important. That efficiency that you would get from electronic voting, would not help normal people, instead it would mostly help those cheaters who want to alter the result.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 09:22:21 pm
content: Quote from: Masa on May 09, 2019, 06:35:11 pmIf you watch the international news you see there are many countries where people have to drive 30km or more to get to a place to vote.Many older or poor people who do not have the means to transport skip voting.Then you also see many countries where there are lines of several hours just to vote.This is a big hurdle for working people, for people who do not like to wait that long etc.In other not so open countries people are intimidated by the voting office to vote for a certain party, heck there are even countries that someone follows you in the voting booth to make sure you vote "correct".So there would be great benefits because more people will vote, more honest impartial votes and you get a better democratic representation.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 09:40:58 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 09, 2019, 03:26:49 pmBrexit is just one example. Perhaps the referendum on joining the EU was also another bad example?Switzerland seem to be doing pretty well with a more direct democracy than most countries.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 09:42:03 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 09, 2019, 09:22:21 pmThis isn't really an issue. A massive country like India manages to provide a voting booth within two kilometres of any voter. If India can do it, any country can. Electronic voting won't fix voters being pressured. If anything it's providing extra means for monitoring and pressure.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 09:49:45 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on May 09, 2019, 09:42:03 pmWeird deduction IMO. Because one country can do it so can all?QuoteI don't agree as long as you remove the single location to vote.If people can vote with their phone from home anytime they want it would be impossible to manipulate.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 10:03:18 pm
content: Walk around with a gun shouting vote for putin!Yeah right that’s even worse.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 10:04:41 pm
content: The point was that a massively expansive developing nation get it done, so few others have a valid excuse. Issues are not intrinsic to the process, they're the result of a lack of trying. Electronic voting won't fix that behavior. Electronic voting being impossible to manipulate seems rather overconfident, considering the torrent of critical issues found daily in all kinds of software or lives depend on. Any kind of software so far turns out to be a shitfest sooner or later. There don't seem to be any arguments why or how voting software would be the unicorn amongst the herd of turds.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2019, 11:36:29 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 09, 2019, 09:49:45 pmVoting from your home just means they come to your home and make you vote with a gun to your head. It also opens up the possibility of selling your vote, since others can observe who you vote for (vote buying is also common in banana republics). At home you have all kind of other people that can put pressure on you, or vote for you, like other family members. If it happens at a polling station it happens out in the open and can be observed and reported. That is how we know that kind of things happen. The reason we have anonymous votes is to prevent that kind of thing from happening.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 05:18:13 am
content: We have been voting from home for years, with paper ballots that are sealed in a tamper evident envelope and placed in the mail. I see no reason to go electronic, it opens the door to way too wide to fraud and tampering. Just look at how often personal information like credit card info, passwords, medical records, ID information and other private stuff gets leaked by entities that ought to know better. I've had free credit monitoring for about the last 15 years because by the time my complimentary reporting is about to expire some other data breach takes place and I'm awarded some more free credit monitoring.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 07:07:44 am
content: Quote from: apis on May 09, 2019, 11:36:29 pmSo they will sent hundred of thousands of armed people going door to door within a few hours terrorizing millions of people, get real!The reason they can now intimidate people is because they only need a few goons at the local voting office. They don't have the manpower to go individual.QuoteYes but is that so different than buying votes on public tv by spending hundreds of millions of $ on tv commercials brainwashing people with lies about the opponent ?In the end it is an individuals choice who to vote for. Offering people short term money is IMO exactly the same as promising tax cuts for the coming year.The first is illegal in the western world but in principle it is the same as the second. People that are susceptible to short term gain instead of long term strategy for the country will choose the first anyway, and if I see some poor countries at the moment I can not blame them. As Maslow hierarchy of needs states, first priority is food and water then safety and a roof above your head. You don't care about other long term political agendas if that is not in placeQuoteI agree that is a risk, if you can't trust family...... But our western way of anonymous voting is a big gap to those countries, as proven by video's a couple of years back where the manager of the voting office swapped a lot of voting bills he prepared earlier without knowing there was a camera placed. So if you can't trust the voting officials I rather place my bet on my family.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 07:49:41 am
content: if large social media has algorithms that influence, then what if voting systems are owned by large corporate companies?its well known that social media is politically biased.what is to stop corporate politics manipulating by algorithms and using encrypted systems to hide it.as a paper voting system as used in Australia is meant to be open and any manipulating seen, if the majority of volunteers are honest.not so with electronic voting systems that put the trust in unknown software engineers of a unknown corporate company.however the large largest problem with electronic voting systems is obsolescence!here is some of my research into electronic voting systems back in 2011. if tablet computers were used as a voting machinesthat would be obsolete by the next election. and the cost of replacing millions tablet computers that get used one dayin 3 or 4 years would be an astronomical cost, as even schools would be a bit hesitant to pay for them.as paper and cardboard are cheap. 100% recyclable, including the pencils!here is a art of an hypothetical electronic voting system, that I now consider a bad idea.the hypothetical voting system shown here, uses millions tablet computers inside plastic clam-shells in voting booths linked over the internetthe electronic polling station shows a paper roll back-up system. however I still consider a bad idea, knowingwhat is happening with social media algorithms.updateTo explain 2009 - 2011 two images intended as a kids school project idea but never used. this was before the smartphone app revolutionwhen any so called e voting system was to be a public place polling booth's onlyand NOT including any privately owned electronics devices that we have today, for then security reasons.as all tablet devices used was to be brand new & free from any potential tampering.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 09:50:37 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on May 09, 2019, 09:40:58 pmSwitzerland is more like a large Homeowner's AssociationAnd they are Swiss.If Spain were populated by Swiss people things would go much better.Even a small HOA in Spain is quite contentious. We seem to have a deficit of Swiss here.Maybe being Swiss should be made a requirement for any political post in Spain.Yes, jobs for which being Swiss is a requirement: (1) Vatican guard, (2) Spanish politician.I like that

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 02:19:55 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 10, 2019, 09:50:37 amYou think an Average triple income has nothing to do with that?https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 03:28:32 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 10, 2019, 02:19:55 pmI am not sure what your point is. What is it?In any case, do you think the Swiss have a better culture because they have higher income or do you think they have higher income because they have a better culture?

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 03:44:48 pm
content: I don't think they have a better culture.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 04:04:22 pm
content: Well, they've managed several hundred years of democracy and brotherly love and they invented to cuckoo clock. (https://youtu.be/nyuJQ_UO7OE?t=3)At any rate, what do you think is the cause of their higher standard of living and productivity? Living in the mountains?

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 04:34:25 pm
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 04:39:25 pm
content: I remember time when Microsoft offered all email to be sent via their mail servers and they would charge for it. That was to control spam, they said. That was furiuosly rejected by everyone.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 04:41:44 pm
content: An electronic voting system will achieve one thing for sure. That is people like Mueller will always have job.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 05:04:14 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 10, 2019, 04:04:22 pmJust guessing,Since they live in a country where they always were dependent on the import of many agricultural products due to their mountain country they had to early decide to make products that added high value for export.I don't think they make very high tech innovative products but what they make is of excellent quality which is what they are famous for. If that will be sustainable in the lng run the way global short term throw away consumerism is going has to be seen.Concerning cultural differences, here in Holland the age we may retire has been postponed till 68 and growing with the average lifetime xpectancy and we are barely complaining ( no strikes nothing). We know that if we do not the economy will plummet and the future for our kids will be much worse because the next generation will have to pay for it.Compare that to France where an suggested increase from pension age of 60 to 65 or something like that results in massive strikes, you see there are lots of cultural differences.I am not saying one is better than the other. Having a more relaxed way of living might increase life expectancy and you may have a nicer life. I am also doubting why I am working 44 hours a week and still get less than my father in the 80s per hour doing more high educational technical job. Why our salaries were 0 increased the last 8 years while the economy florished. Why our government paid billions to save banks and so on. Sometimes I wish I was a simple hunter in the forest living of the land instead of getting up at six to work and pay for the mortgage that is insanely high in our country.Anyway putting the Swiss in your beautifull country is not changing anything IMO.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 05:13:50 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 10, 2019, 05:04:14 pmI have the feeling, if they would increase the income tax to 101% here, all would happen is: a bunch of people complaining.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 05:38:59 pm
content: QuoteThere's culture and there's political culture, or maybe public standards for politics and politicians.In one country a politician resigns due to failing to mention a ~3000$ gift.Here, the current Speaker of the National Council is quite frankly a corrupt moron, with a university degree that was at given to him 'in accordance with exceptionally low standards' (the whole thing is plagiarized). He comes from a family that had managed through some very interesting methods gain stuff from the state WELL below value. He did not resign after numerous scandals and projects an air of smugness about the whole affair. His political party had numerous scandals, employs under-qualified people for posts of vital importance... At the moment they have a 7.5% rating in the polls. And he's not the worst of the lot in our political spectrum.I'm guessing that in Japan someone like him would have been wordlessly handed a sword, locked in a small room and expected to know what to do. And would probably do it.I think that political culture has a LOT to do with the living standards and the success of a country. If nothing else, countries that vote awful people into positions of power get awful people into positions of power.

author: ElectronicSupersonic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 05:59:48 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 10, 2019, 05:04:14 pmHere people aren't happy either (Lithuania is one of the leading countries in EU by sluiced rate which is telling), but people don't protest (although do complain, but officials mostly don't give a shit) - people just emigrate to other EU member states (UK, Ireland, Spain) or elsewhere where life is presumably better. A silent protest if you will.Since there are less and less people to pay taxes (due to emigration), government has switched to a bulldozer mode by using the simplest and most effective means to increase tax revenue. That usually mean complete disregard of personal financial situation and other nasty things. Say there is a system in place, which allows certain governmental agencies (if you owe something to the state) to lock any persons bank account government is aware off or deduce founds owed without even asking/permission.As to Swiss, it's easy - they have banks. Good banks.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 06:12:19 pm
content: QuoteSounds familiarIt's why I have a friends at NIST, CERN and a few other interesting places.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 06:31:56 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 10, 2019, 04:04:22 pmI don't think it's possible to distill things like this down to a simple cause-effect relationship. There are many factors that contribute, culture, education, geography, luck, etc. Small countries with exceptionally homogeneous populations tend to have smooth running political systems because there is much less time spent fighting and less need for compromise to try to please everybody, an impossible task in a large and highly diverse nation.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 06:59:17 pm
content: This is hilarious.I've got a fair bit of Swiss blood in me and my father lived there for the first 15 years of his life. I've been there numerous times. Looking in from the outside, the Swiss only have the appearance of winning. A lot of people are living in abject poverty, it's full of racists and nationalists, everything is ridiculously expensive which pushes income disparity and a lot of people are utterly backwards including half of my family if I'm honest!

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 09:00:30 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on May 10, 2019, 06:31:56 pmYeah, it helps that the Swiss are totally homogeneous and all speak Swiss. (Or is it Swedisch? ... Swisschisch?...? )

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 09:08:29 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on May 10, 2019, 04:34:25 pmI guess every thread needs to have at least one post bashing the Chinese for no reason at all. Some people just can't get used to the new world order.I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords. (If you can't beat them, join them, and all that.)

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 09:53:06 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 10, 2019, 06:59:17 pmInteresting perspective, may I know which place in the world isn't?And... if we are at that, what's IRA? What's Brexit? What's "pack and parcel of living in a big city"?

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2019, 10:04:19 pm
content: Well we had a good stretch between about 2002-2014 where things were going in the right direction and they were marginalised and not given an audience. Then the insidious sewer grime behind the scenes worked out everyone was on social media now and started to pull the old tricks on that. The structure of society is kept only by dividing it as a distraction.@soldar: China. Yes. If I was going to learn a second language now I'd learn Mandarin. Aliexpress gets some of cut and pastes occasionally 混蛋!

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 08:10:31 am
content: Quote from: soldar on May 10, 2019, 09:00:30 pmI really hope that you are joking. They speak like 6 languages there, 3 of them is some kind of local dialect of German French or Italian, which is impossible to understand.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 08:30:10 am
content: And if you speak the wrong one to the wrong people they get offended. And if you speak plain German they ignore you. Found it was best to speak English.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 11:24:40 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 11, 2019, 08:10:31 amWhat leads you to believe I might be joking?

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 01:06:48 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 10, 2019, 09:08:29 pmYes i can see it in your avatar. Now you do not have to ship your products with all screw tightened.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 01:32:07 pm
content: I'm sorry, I'm a little confucious. Who's the one with the loose screw?

author: ElectronicSupersonic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 03:09:14 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 10, 2019, 10:04:19 pmI'd say it is kept by distraction itself (from the actual doings and actual state of things) - dividing is merely one of many ways to distract. "Wag the dog" movie dives a bit in to the subject (of distraction).In general, state-to-people relations remind me parents-to-kids relations, where kids are told a bed time stories to make them fall asleep, or are purposely being distracted by the parents when a kid is being capricious. Same goals - same technics.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 03:17:29 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 10, 2019, 10:04:19 pmIndeed, I have never realized until a few years ago to what extent the West relied on responsible journalism and regulated education just to maintain public orderQuote from: bd139 on May 10, 2019, 10:04:19 pmAdmittedly the whole point of bringing Internet to the masses was democratization of communications and giving voice to the marginalized, lol. The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it, Streisand Effect, I still remember the 2000s.I for one never liked that idea, too much of an elitist. But what the heck, at least I was generally in favor of freedom of speech.Seeing Americans all in favor of it too I sorta assumed their country / hopefully the whole West is designed around being able to handle it and they know what they are doing.Then the 2010s came

author: ElectronicSupersonic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 04:23:35 pm
content: Quote from: magic on May 11, 2019, 03:17:29 pmI remember back in mid to late 2000's local government was giving tax refunds (VAT) to everybody for every PC purchased with legal OS (read Windows). Officially it was to stimulate IT development amongst common people. Knowing that government is not a charity organisation, it looked suspicious but I couldn't tell why. Then much later Snowden stuff happened, that solved the puzzle.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 09:44:04 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on May 11, 2019, 11:24:40 amWell, either you know Switzerland and it’s a joke, or it’s not a joke and you just showed that you don’t know Switzerland at all. Homogeneous?!? The Swiss don’t even like their countrymen from the next valley over...And there is no language called “Swiss”.Are you sure you’re not confusing Switzerland and Sweden, as so many people do? (After all, in Spanish they’re “Suiza” and “Suecia”, respectively.)

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2019, 09:58:24 pm
content: So true. My uncle moved to a different canton and when they found out where he came from, none of his neighbours would speak to him. I understand the younger generations are somewhat better but when I have been there they're all missing and in other countries. Tells a tale that does.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 12, 2019, 01:18:59 pm
content: I think a country is as good as1) it's people2) it's leadership that are elected by the people.Unfortunately people on the whole are selfish and short sighted, and this is where national democrazy falls down. It's a greed that democrazy is the best way of doing things, but it is only agreed that it is the best way. No one ever promissed that democrazy was going to be fair, it's simply the best we have and relies of fair voters to make the best choice for the collective. And this is where things become political because you will have a party or politician that target a particular majority and gains their trust and vote by telling them what they want to hear or promissing their "type" something better than what is on offer to everyone else that won't vote for them. And because most voters are not that clever and only looking at themselves in a very selfish way in the short term they vote for people that do not have everyones interests at heart. And so the cycle repeats. Until making false statements in political campains is made illegal and until people stop voting with their next day's pay packet in mind there will always be a problem.