In the event your reading is also frustrated by a non-dismissable overlay and non-clickable download links, the webpage is merely a brief introduction to a 12 page PDF article here:
Summary of the article: Republicans bad, Democrats good.
It's a shame that partisanship makes it impossible to notice certain issues. The article completely ignores the erosion of journalistic standards, censorship on social media, "woke" takeover of academia and demonization of white males.
It's not a surprise that the situation keeps getting worse.
By making it clear that the problem is not that one side has the "right" beliefs and the other side has the "wrong" beliefs, and that the way to make progress is to convince the people with the "wrong" beliefs to fix their beliefs.
Ironically, the title page of the article (by contrast with the actual article) gets this right: it says the point of democracy is that it "enables people with different beliefs and ideas to coexist". You don't do that by one set of people trying to forcibly get another set of people to change their beliefs, by shaming them or canceling them or using the legal system against them. You do that by accepting the fact that people are going to have different beliefs, and that if you can't justify a particular policy on the basis of beliefs that everybody (or at least enough of a majority of both sides) shares, that policy should not be enacted by a democratic government. The biggest problem we have with democracy today is that whichever party is in power thinks that they thereby have a mandate to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats. The way to fix it is to stop doing that. This article does not help.
This horse seems to have left the barn. A significant portion of politically engaged people in the US and other countries will never believe electronic voting is legtimate again. Interesting that Bruce Schneier is a co-author, and the paper seems timed to be positioned for a reckoning about the integrity of those systems, and perhaps a justification of them because an election with physical integrity could have had problematic results.
Unsure how a technologist with any understanding of security questioning the integrity of electronic voting could be considered a conspiracy theory, instead of the default position on which the integrity of the most important election in the world is based.
The entire history of elections is defined by the mechanisms for corrupting them and the rituals used to preserve their integrity and proof of chain of custody. The burden of proof is on the election authorities and using electronic systems did everything we predicted it would, which is sow the discord that results in civil unrest.
When you take the integrity of that process away, the results are predictable.
Just as an interesting note. Here is Bruce Schneier stating that electronic voting systems by their nature are not secure and it is possible votes were hacked in the 2016 election ( by Russia ):
This document is about silencing people who don't agree with the 'norm' which should be handled by independent parties ( 'gatekeepers' ) with oversight from the government. ( yes I read the entire document ).
This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem.
"""Our prescriptions are not intended to weaken the Republican Party, but instead to redirect its
energies so that its extremists don’t undermine a basic shared understanding of democracy."""
> his document is about silencing people who don't agree with the 'norm'
Apparently you're implying "The norm" is always nothing more than just another possible range of opinions, or worse, that it's some arbitrary standard that outsiders are forcing upon you.
Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a norm may represent a well-established consensus should be readily apparent. As should the idea that there is such a thing as "noise" that obscures true signal and it's desirably sometimes to filter noise out of well-functioning systems.
Is that tricky when it comes to the marketplace of ideas? Sure. Does that mean every effort to come to grips with the problem is censorship? Nope.
> This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem.
Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the political spectrum. It doesn't have to be that way -- there are conservatives who are capable of advocacy on honest merits -- but it is that way right now.
> Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a norm may represent a well-established consensus should be readily apparent.
So which view is the 'well-established consensus'? In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle on the 'well-established consensus'.
> Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the political spectrum.
This seems bit naive. The statement at the beginning of the document is simply a vail the author is using in order to proceed with a reprogramming plan for republicans and conservatives.
"How do you know a politician is lying, [their] mouth is moving."
We just had a full year of misinformation from all directions. To single one group out is disingenuous at best. ( Recent news is proving this to be very true ).
The nation is split ideologically. How do you create a way to have conversations which lead to understanding? That is the real question that needs to be asked.
This is where my original comment was intended. It would seem anyone reading this document in its entirety and extracting the focus on any group or any specific event should see that the premise is a prescription for censorship.
It's understandable that censorship is not a good thing. But when we talk about "the marketplace of ideas" it's easy to forget that marketplaces can have scammers and bad actors.
I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that flooding the market with fakes is a good thing. I do know that most people don't like to be wrong and there's a human tendency to double down rather than admit a mistake.
I've tried to engage in conflicting opinions here trying to find a common ground and have failed every time. I'm stupid enough to try again but shit gets ugly fast and I don't want dang to have to scold me yet again.
I think the big question here is who should then 'regulate' the marketplace of ideas? In a free speech society is this the government? Is it corporations?
In either case or a combination thereof the regulation will undoubtedly contain bias. Thus why free speech is supposed to be free speech.
In economics it is understood the only way to accomplish a true monopoly is through government regulation. If we allow government regulation of in the marketplace of ideas we run a very real risk of seeing monopolies of ideas.
> So which view is the 'well-established consensus'? In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle
A well-established consensus isn't just about how many people believe it, it's about why they believe it, the observations and reasoning behind it, and to some extent the depth of any relevant domain expertise in approach the problem and formulating the conclusions.
When many Americans believed smoking was harmless or even healthy, that didn't make it so. The eventual consensus (smking is harmful) was founded in expert-reviewed but publicly available statistical observations connecting smoking with higher probabilities of cancer or other disease, first hand observations by doctors, and eventually models of how/why it happens. Of course, you can have those things and still have a population that doesn't understand them because tobacco companies engaged in disinformation campaigns to provide cover for their business interests, and that brings up the question of how you address it. The answer seems to have been limiting advertisement of tobacco in some media, requiring clear labelling about the hazards, and in some cases subsidizing efforts to communicate consensus information.
Now, do you want to reject the consensus here as some arbitrary norm? Do you want to be as full-throated in your free speech advocacy for the right of tobacco companies to present any picture they like of how the world works through whatever means their wealth can provide?
Or would you acknowledge that at least sometimes, as this case illustrates, matters of public interest -- even public health -- include matters of public information? And that there's reasons to rely on expertise and try to amplify it?
> In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle
You may be mixing up the issue of how people vote with the issue of confidence that the vote was accurately represented.
Elections are contests. People take different sides. That's expected and explicitly allowed. The consensus isn't that people should all vote one way or all vote another, the consensus is that accurately represented vote counts should decide who holds public office.
Are you going against that consensus?
> We just had a full year of misinformation from all directions.
misinformation involving mistakes or communication gaps arguably is part of the human condition.
disinformation is something else entirely, and no, it doesn't come from all directions.
> ( Recent news is proving this to be very true ).
Presumably you're talking about revived talk about outbreak sources as if it's some matter of controversy or coverup. It's not, and it doesn't matter much.
> A well-established consensus isn't just about how many people believe it, it's about why they believe it, the observations and reasoning behind it, and to some extent the depth of any relevant domain expertise in approach the problem and formulating the conclusions.
Ok, let's apply this to, say, this claim at the start of the paper:
"In states such as Georgia, paper records and auditing procedures made it possible to verify the count’s accuracy."
What does "verify the count's accuracy" actually mean? It means that, when you manually count up the votes on the paper ballots, the count matches the original count that the machines gave.
What it does not mean is that it has been verified that every single paper ballot corresponds to an actual eligible voter and accurately reflects that voter's intent. Our system makes it impossible to audit that after the fact; we purposely destroy that information as soon as a ballot is put into the system. And that is where the problem lies; when neither side trusts the other not to attempt to cheat in any area where it's impossible to audit after the fact, the only way to have a really secure and acceptable voting system is to not have any such areas.
If we want to maintain secret ballots (which I agree is a good thing to maintain), then the best way to verify that every ballot put into the system corresponds to an actual eligible voter and accurately reflects that voter's intent is to have the voter vote in person, have their identity and eligibility to vote verified, preferably by agreement among representatives of all parties running candidates in the election, keep a record of that verification process for every voter, and then have them cast their ballot and have it checked for accuracy (so they can discard it and try again if there's an error) before it is put into the system and enters the chain of custody for paper ballots (which no longer have any link back to the voter who cast them). Which means that every voter who is physically capable of voting in person should do so. (Note that this does not mean they need to do it on the official "election day"; we should have early voting, preferably starting at least a month before election day, everywhere. For extra points, all candidate debates and any other events the voters might use to make decisions about how to vote should happen before early voting starts anywhere; and for even more points, all election ads, editorials, opinion pieces, and any other election-related reporting other than straight factual information about when the polls are open and where to go to vote, and when the vote counts will be complete, should be prohibited from the first day early voting is allowed until all the votes have been counted and all election results are decided.)
For people who absolutely cannot physically vote in person, the next best way to verify their ballot is to have a group of election workers, one representing each party running candidates in the election, go to that voter's residence (or whatever other place they are voting from), verify their identity and eligibility to vote, keep a record of that verification process, and have them cast their ballot, have it checked for accuracy, and have it put into the chain of custody then. No jurisdiction that I'm aware of even tries to do anything like this. But any other method of so-called "verification" is so obviously hackable that no election system with any pretense to security should even consider it.
For people (such as military deployed abroad) who absolutely cannot be reached by local election workers, mail-in absentee ballots are the only option; but the ballots should be contained in an extra envelope which, on the outside, is signed by the voter and notarized (meaning that a notary public has verified the identity and eligibility to vote of the voter). That envelope then goes inside the mailing envelope and the whole thing gets s...
> What does "verify the count's accuracy" actually mean? It means that, when you manually count up the votes on the paper ballots, the count matches the original count that the machines gave.
That does appear to be the claim they made. And it matters. Notably, some "anti-consensus" material out there forwards the idea that electronic tallies were modified, or that secret watermarks or hidden paper composition tricks caused machinery to intentionally miscount ballots. So, manual paper counts are one way of refuting those claims, and the problem of what to do about it when those counts don't seem to make those claims go away because there are parties that push the claims regardless of evidnce is one of public information.
> What it does not mean is that it has been verified that every single paper ballot corresponds to an actual eligible voter and accurately reflects that voter's intent.
Voter registration systems constitute a control that should produce more confidence than skepticism here while maintaining effective privacy. If you try and walk into a polling place where you're not registered, your best case scenario is that you get a provisional ballot which will require review to be counted and likely faces extra challenges, especially in a close or contested election. If you try to walk into a polling place where you are registered and vote multiple times, you're going to have to convince poll workers that they shouldn't have marked you as having already received a ballot.
Similar controls exist for mail-in ballots.
What's your plan for influencing an election at scale by acquisition & submission of ballots that don't correspond to an eligible voter?
I agree that some of your suggestions could provide extra security. Perhaps some should be adopted.
But given that most voices that don't accept Biden's victory don't seem to go as far as pointing out any plausible (let alone proven) mechanics for how the existing system was compromised, I don't think proposed but as yet missing extra layers of are the reason why people don't have confidence in the outcome, and that's reason to think that enhanced security wouldn't solve the real problem, which is one of discourse and disinformation.
No, they don't. Nobody checks to make sure that the actual person who fills out the mail-in ballot is the registered voter attached to that name. The process currently used for mail-in ballots before they get into the chain of custody system is nothing like what I described in my post. That's a big reason why so many people distrust mail-in ballots, particularly in such large quantities.
> What's your plan for influencing an election at scale by acquisition & submission of ballots that don't correspond to an eligible voter?
First, you don't have to influence an election "at scale" for the US presidency. A close election can easily come down to just a few key precincts in a few key states, as it did in 2020.
Second, the US already has a long history of various forms of skulduggery with voting. So anyone's Bayesian prior should be that, if there is any way of doing it, someone will try it, particularly in a close election where both sides have strong beliefs about how much is at stake. It should definitely not be that, well, as long as all the officials say it's okay, it must be okay.
> I don't think proposed but as yet missing extra layers of are the reason why people don't have confidence in the outcome
If there are obvious ways to make a system more secure, and every time they get proposed they are violently resisted, you have to wonder why. (And note that this is a problem on both sides: Democrats are violently allergic to things like voter IDs, but Republicans are just as violently allergic to things like early voting and expanding the hours that polling places are open.) I agree that the widespread lack of confidence in, for example, the 2020 results is not due to anyone having a detailed picture of how things could have been manipulated; it's a more general feeling that the system as a whole is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. And when measures to make the system act more in everyone's interest are violently resisted, that feeling grows stronger.
> the real problem, which is one of discourse and disinformation.
I don't think that's the real problem. I think the real problem is what I said above: the system in fact is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. The feelings that many people have along those lines are justified. Yes, fixing the voting system won't entirely fix that problem; but it would be a nice step in the right direction.
I am going to post this here again as it is relevant. To question whether it was possible or even that tampering of electronic voting systems occurred is not an irrelevant.
The author of the paper actually made that claim in 2016:
So it is obviously something that should be questioned, criticized, reviewed, etc. as it does pose a true risk.
Should people storm the capital, no. Should there be dialogue around the subject? Absolutely. Even if the fringes of that dialogue are extreme, it is not time to mute the conversation.
> whether it was possible or even that tampering of electronic voting systems occurred an irrelevant.
Electronic voting security is a topic of concern, and people have been talking about it for a while and should continue to talk about it. Personally, I've been calling out people who think digital security concerns are overblown since 2000, and every computer professional I know thinks that at a minimum every voting machine needs to produce a readable paper receipt, and a significant portion I know think paper+pencil ballots should be the way things are done.
But ... unless there's places in the recent election where people who were concerned about it didn't have the opportunity for a manual recount and where there's enough combined votes to have changed the outcome and where statistical sampling looks fishy... electronic count tampering is irrelevant.
And as far as I know, all the manual recounts done have verified a Biden victory.
So, sure. Continue to talk about methods. At some point, there doesn't need to be more dialogue around the outcome of the last election. Especially from the actors -- fringe and media outlet alike -- who aren't actually pointing to any of the concrete concerns, who can't actually bring up a good reason, but are clearly stretching out the game of "just asking questions" or "just making dialogue" to give the illusion that there's still any kind of reasonable countercase in play.
> because that's where people are relying not only on noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the political spectrum
"Since this is an engineering forum", I hope you'll forgive me if I ask for an empirical and quantitative source to back up this assertion. The phenomenon of social media bubbles is well-established, as is the fact that anecdotal evidence is not data, so a person simply noticing that the people spreading disinformation in their particular social media feed seem to be of a certain political bent means slightly less than nothing.
> Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a norm may represent a well-established consensus
...is daft. Any real engineer knows that you don't do engineering by consensus. You do it by having models with proven track records of correct predictions, that you then use to verify that the design you've engineered will meet the required specifications. If you're engineering a bridge, you don't take a vote on the structural strength of the design; you use proven engineering methods to verify and test it.
The "marketplace of ideas" is supposed to work the same way: you don't figure out which ideas are right by consensus. You figure it out by testing them, and throwing away the ones that don't work. So whenever I see anyone claiming "consensus" as the basis for shoving some idea down my throat, I know they're up to no good.
> You do it by having models with proven track records of correct predictions
Yes. And the process by which one conceives, tests, refines, reviews with peers, and converges on settled models and practice as in engineering is one of consensus.
Some societies or organizations may reach a specific consensus that decision making is to be done by plurality vote, but consensus is not a synonym for plurality vote.
> So whenever I see anyone claiming "consensus" as the basis for shoving some idea down my throat, I know they're up to no good.
Like, again, the consensus that smoking is bad for you, right?
> the process by which one conceives, tests, refines, reviews with peers, and converges on settled models and practice as in engineering is one of consensus.
No, it isn't. It's one of testing and evaluating the results. That is an objective process; it does not require consensus. If I have signed off as the engineer of record on a bridge, and someone asks me for the basis of my doing so, I'm not going to say, well, I had a consensus. I'm going to show them my measurements and calculations.
The same goes for models. If someone asks why I believe that the structural engineering model I used to design the bridge is valid, I'm not going to say, well, the consensus of engineers says it's valid. I'm going to point to its track record of past correct predictions.
> Like, again, the consensus that smoking is bad for you, right?
I don't believe smoking is bad for me because there's a consensus. I believe it because I've looked at the evidence and how it was gathered and used my own judgment and common sense. (Plus the fact that just the smell of cigarettes, when my dad and grandmother smoked them while I was a kid, made me feel ill.) That's what every citizen of a free society should be doing.
> Like, again, the consensus that smoking is bad for you, right?
As far as shoving some idea down my throat, the fact that society shoved bans on smoking down everyone's throat did not affect me personally at all, because I don't smoke and have never had any desire to. To the extent I saw any effect, it was less smoke in public areas, which of course was one of the stated reasons for it in the first place, and which of course I consider an improvement, taken in isolation and not considering any of the broader social effects.
However, as Miss Manners once pointed out, the fact that society ended up having to do this at all is more a reflection on lack of manners than anything else. Up until the early 20th century when cigarettes started to be mass produced, smokers did not impose their habits on non-smokers; they smoked in separate rooms (or entire separate buildings, such as clubs) to avoid disturbing non-smokers with the smell, and wore special clothes, such as smoking jackets, so they wouldn't carry the smell back with them to non-smokers. In exchange, non-smokers agreed to allow smokers to have those separate places and not complain as long as smoking was confined to them. In other words, smokers and non-smokers both exercised reasonable manners when dealing with each other.
At some point, though, the manners went away on both sides. Smokers got more and more insistent on smoking wherever they went, with no regard for non-smokers, and non-smokers got more and more insistent on pointing out how unhealthy smoking was, and since the unhealthiness was now being imposed on non-smokers through things like second-hand smoke, the non-smokers' case got a lot stronger and harder to ignore. Finally, society said enough is enough, and used the studies on the health impacts of smoking as the rationale to bring in the power of government.
In other words, this example is actually not a good one as an argument for "consensus" being a good basis for forcing people to accept something, because even though the medical "consensus" was used as the excuse, it wasn't the real reason society accepted smoking bans. The real reason was that the implicit agreement, based on manners, between smokers and non-smokers had broken down, and once it became a matter of open conflict, the non-smokers simply outnumbered the smokers. In other words, it was a case of might makes right. The side of might happens to have been the "right" side in this particular case, as far as the medical aspect goes, but when that happens, it's just luck; it's not something you can depend on.
What the paper calls for is the definition of censorship.
A group of individuals with government oversight decides what is allowed to be published. The document expressly states this is to quiet certain voices.
Definition of censorship: "he suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
Unless I've misread something, that's not what the paper calls for at all. In fact the paper seems particularly concerned with avoiding excessive centralization of gatekeeping powers.
Decentralizing gatekeeping power is the opposite of censorship.
how about the authors of this paper exposing their own political biases, how they voted etc? Similar to how financial analysts who write on a stock have a disclaimer about their relationship with the stock?
What the author excuses is clear. Their intent is something all together different.
For instance:
I say to a group of people, "I am really not trying to single anyone out here but half of the people in this room do x,y and z. Therefore we need to reprogram how people like that think."
Although I stated my "intent" I was actually excusing my actions ahead of time.
It's not clear to me whether the text could reasonably be perceived as causing harm to anyone, even if it does criticize a specific group of people... So, what is there to excuse?
Is there some expectation that whenever criticism or advice is written down, that there must be something in there that applies to everyone and every group?
They're not using the word "criticism", but they're being very clear about it:
> Throughout the paper, we focus on the problems among conservatives, because these are the problems that are most urgent to American democracy. Our prescriptions are not intended to weaken the Republican Party, but instead to redirect its energies so that its extremists don’t undermine a basic shared understanding of democracy.
That first sentence defines what the authors think is the biggest problem. The second sentence narrows and refines the scope of the problem, it doesn't apologize for the text.
If by "intent" you mean "convince people that Republican beliefs are bad, so as to increase public consensus around Democratic beliefs", then yes, I agree it's pretty clearly laid out on the first page.
Whether that is the right intent for helping improve "information flow" in order to improve democracy is a different question.
I hope some small state can be convinced to do proportional legislation for its state legislature. I think that would have a large effect in the long term.
At this point I honestly ignore anyone who tries to talk about "democracy", because that term has already become to mean, not what democracy actually is, but whatever political ideology the author supports. If the author supports an ideology, then it's "democracy", if they don't support it, it's the "end of democracy". Which, ironically, is the exact viewpoint that IS the end of democracy.
45 comments
[ 8.2 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadhttps://snfagora.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Rechanne...
It's a shame that partisanship makes it impossible to notice certain issues. The article completely ignores the erosion of journalistic standards, censorship on social media, "woke" takeover of academia and demonization of white males.
It's not a surprise that the situation keeps getting worse.
Ironically, the title page of the article (by contrast with the actual article) gets this right: it says the point of democracy is that it "enables people with different beliefs and ideas to coexist". You don't do that by one set of people trying to forcibly get another set of people to change their beliefs, by shaming them or canceling them or using the legal system against them. You do that by accepting the fact that people are going to have different beliefs, and that if you can't justify a particular policy on the basis of beliefs that everybody (or at least enough of a majority of both sides) shares, that policy should not be enacted by a democratic government. The biggest problem we have with democracy today is that whichever party is in power thinks that they thereby have a mandate to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats. The way to fix it is to stop doing that. This article does not help.
The entire history of elections is defined by the mechanisms for corrupting them and the rituals used to preserve their integrity and proof of chain of custody. The burden of proof is on the election authorities and using electronic systems did everything we predicted it would, which is sow the discord that results in civil unrest.
When you take the integrity of that process away, the results are predictable.
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/08/599452050/the-u-s-voting-syst...
This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem.
"""Our prescriptions are not intended to weaken the Republican Party, but instead to redirect its energies so that its extremists don’t undermine a basic shared understanding of democracy."""
Spin it how you want, it is censorship.
Apparently you're implying "The norm" is always nothing more than just another possible range of opinions, or worse, that it's some arbitrary standard that outsiders are forcing upon you.
Since this is an engineering forum, though, the idea that a norm may represent a well-established consensus should be readily apparent. As should the idea that there is such a thing as "noise" that obscures true signal and it's desirably sometimes to filter noise out of well-functioning systems.
Is that tricky when it comes to the marketplace of ideas? Sure. Does that mean every effort to come to grips with the problem is censorship? Nope.
> This document only and substantially focuses on Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, NewMax, etc as the problem.
Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the political spectrum. It doesn't have to be that way -- there are conservatives who are capable of advocacy on honest merits -- but it is that way right now.
So which view is the 'well-established consensus'? In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle on the 'well-established consensus'.
> Yes, because that's where people are relying not only on noise but on outright disinformation most right now along the political spectrum.
This seems bit naive. The statement at the beginning of the document is simply a vail the author is using in order to proceed with a reprogramming plan for republicans and conservatives.
"How do you know a politician is lying, [their] mouth is moving."
We just had a full year of misinformation from all directions. To single one group out is disingenuous at best. ( Recent news is proving this to be very true ).
The nation is split ideologically. How do you create a way to have conversations which lead to understanding? That is the real question that needs to be asked.
We could start by having dialog that tries to find commonality rather than division.
I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that flooding the market with fakes is a good thing. I do know that most people don't like to be wrong and there's a human tendency to double down rather than admit a mistake.
I've tried to engage in conflicting opinions here trying to find a common ground and have failed every time. I'm stupid enough to try again but shit gets ugly fast and I don't want dang to have to scold me yet again.
In either case or a combination thereof the regulation will undoubtedly contain bias. Thus why free speech is supposed to be free speech.
In economics it is understood the only way to accomplish a true monopoly is through government regulation. If we allow government regulation of in the marketplace of ideas we run a very real risk of seeing monopolies of ideas.
A well-established consensus isn't just about how many people believe it, it's about why they believe it, the observations and reasoning behind it, and to some extent the depth of any relevant domain expertise in approach the problem and formulating the conclusions.
When many Americans believed smoking was harmless or even healthy, that didn't make it so. The eventual consensus (smking is harmful) was founded in expert-reviewed but publicly available statistical observations connecting smoking with higher probabilities of cancer or other disease, first hand observations by doctors, and eventually models of how/why it happens. Of course, you can have those things and still have a population that doesn't understand them because tobacco companies engaged in disinformation campaigns to provide cover for their business interests, and that brings up the question of how you address it. The answer seems to have been limiting advertisement of tobacco in some media, requiring clear labelling about the hazards, and in some cases subsidizing efforts to communicate consensus information.
Now, do you want to reject the consensus here as some arbitrary norm? Do you want to be as full-throated in your free speech advocacy for the right of tobacco companies to present any picture they like of how the world works through whatever means their wealth can provide?
Or would you acknowledge that at least sometimes, as this case illustrates, matters of public interest -- even public health -- include matters of public information? And that there's reasons to rely on expertise and try to amplify it?
> In the last election for instance the population was split nearly down the middle
You may be mixing up the issue of how people vote with the issue of confidence that the vote was accurately represented.
Elections are contests. People take different sides. That's expected and explicitly allowed. The consensus isn't that people should all vote one way or all vote another, the consensus is that accurately represented vote counts should decide who holds public office.
Are you going against that consensus?
> We just had a full year of misinformation from all directions.
misinformation involving mistakes or communication gaps arguably is part of the human condition.
disinformation is something else entirely, and no, it doesn't come from all directions.
> ( Recent news is proving this to be very true ).
Presumably you're talking about revived talk about outbreak sources as if it's some matter of controversy or coverup. It's not, and it doesn't matter much.
Ok, let's apply this to, say, this claim at the start of the paper:
"In states such as Georgia, paper records and auditing procedures made it possible to verify the count’s accuracy."
What does "verify the count's accuracy" actually mean? It means that, when you manually count up the votes on the paper ballots, the count matches the original count that the machines gave.
What it does not mean is that it has been verified that every single paper ballot corresponds to an actual eligible voter and accurately reflects that voter's intent. Our system makes it impossible to audit that after the fact; we purposely destroy that information as soon as a ballot is put into the system. And that is where the problem lies; when neither side trusts the other not to attempt to cheat in any area where it's impossible to audit after the fact, the only way to have a really secure and acceptable voting system is to not have any such areas.
If we want to maintain secret ballots (which I agree is a good thing to maintain), then the best way to verify that every ballot put into the system corresponds to an actual eligible voter and accurately reflects that voter's intent is to have the voter vote in person, have their identity and eligibility to vote verified, preferably by agreement among representatives of all parties running candidates in the election, keep a record of that verification process for every voter, and then have them cast their ballot and have it checked for accuracy (so they can discard it and try again if there's an error) before it is put into the system and enters the chain of custody for paper ballots (which no longer have any link back to the voter who cast them). Which means that every voter who is physically capable of voting in person should do so. (Note that this does not mean they need to do it on the official "election day"; we should have early voting, preferably starting at least a month before election day, everywhere. For extra points, all candidate debates and any other events the voters might use to make decisions about how to vote should happen before early voting starts anywhere; and for even more points, all election ads, editorials, opinion pieces, and any other election-related reporting other than straight factual information about when the polls are open and where to go to vote, and when the vote counts will be complete, should be prohibited from the first day early voting is allowed until all the votes have been counted and all election results are decided.)
For people who absolutely cannot physically vote in person, the next best way to verify their ballot is to have a group of election workers, one representing each party running candidates in the election, go to that voter's residence (or whatever other place they are voting from), verify their identity and eligibility to vote, keep a record of that verification process, and have them cast their ballot, have it checked for accuracy, and have it put into the chain of custody then. No jurisdiction that I'm aware of even tries to do anything like this. But any other method of so-called "verification" is so obviously hackable that no election system with any pretense to security should even consider it.
For people (such as military deployed abroad) who absolutely cannot be reached by local election workers, mail-in absentee ballots are the only option; but the ballots should be contained in an extra envelope which, on the outside, is signed by the voter and notarized (meaning that a notary public has verified the identity and eligibility to vote of the voter). That envelope then goes inside the mailing envelope and the whole thing gets s...
That does appear to be the claim they made. And it matters. Notably, some "anti-consensus" material out there forwards the idea that electronic tallies were modified, or that secret watermarks or hidden paper composition tricks caused machinery to intentionally miscount ballots. So, manual paper counts are one way of refuting those claims, and the problem of what to do about it when those counts don't seem to make those claims go away because there are parties that push the claims regardless of evidnce is one of public information.
> What it does not mean is that it has been verified that every single paper ballot corresponds to an actual eligible voter and accurately reflects that voter's intent.
Voter registration systems constitute a control that should produce more confidence than skepticism here while maintaining effective privacy. If you try and walk into a polling place where you're not registered, your best case scenario is that you get a provisional ballot which will require review to be counted and likely faces extra challenges, especially in a close or contested election. If you try to walk into a polling place where you are registered and vote multiple times, you're going to have to convince poll workers that they shouldn't have marked you as having already received a ballot.
Similar controls exist for mail-in ballots.
What's your plan for influencing an election at scale by acquisition & submission of ballots that don't correspond to an eligible voter?
I agree that some of your suggestions could provide extra security. Perhaps some should be adopted.
But given that most voices that don't accept Biden's victory don't seem to go as far as pointing out any plausible (let alone proven) mechanics for how the existing system was compromised, I don't think proposed but as yet missing extra layers of are the reason why people don't have confidence in the outcome, and that's reason to think that enhanced security wouldn't solve the real problem, which is one of discourse and disinformation.
Yes, for in person voting. I said so in my post.
> Similar controls exist for mail-in ballots.
No, they don't. Nobody checks to make sure that the actual person who fills out the mail-in ballot is the registered voter attached to that name. The process currently used for mail-in ballots before they get into the chain of custody system is nothing like what I described in my post. That's a big reason why so many people distrust mail-in ballots, particularly in such large quantities.
> What's your plan for influencing an election at scale by acquisition & submission of ballots that don't correspond to an eligible voter?
First, you don't have to influence an election "at scale" for the US presidency. A close election can easily come down to just a few key precincts in a few key states, as it did in 2020.
Second, the US already has a long history of various forms of skulduggery with voting. So anyone's Bayesian prior should be that, if there is any way of doing it, someone will try it, particularly in a close election where both sides have strong beliefs about how much is at stake. It should definitely not be that, well, as long as all the officials say it's okay, it must be okay.
> I don't think proposed but as yet missing extra layers of are the reason why people don't have confidence in the outcome
If there are obvious ways to make a system more secure, and every time they get proposed they are violently resisted, you have to wonder why. (And note that this is a problem on both sides: Democrats are violently allergic to things like voter IDs, but Republicans are just as violently allergic to things like early voting and expanding the hours that polling places are open.) I agree that the widespread lack of confidence in, for example, the 2020 results is not due to anyone having a detailed picture of how things could have been manipulated; it's a more general feeling that the system as a whole is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. And when measures to make the system act more in everyone's interest are violently resisted, that feeling grows stronger.
> the real problem, which is one of discourse and disinformation.
I don't think that's the real problem. I think the real problem is what I said above: the system in fact is not acting in the interests of all the people, but only of a few. The feelings that many people have along those lines are justified. Yes, fixing the voting system won't entirely fix that problem; but it would be a nice step in the right direction.
The author of the paper actually made that claim in 2016:
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/08/599452050/the-u-s-voting-syst...
So it is obviously something that should be questioned, criticized, reviewed, etc. as it does pose a true risk.
Should people storm the capital, no. Should there be dialogue around the subject? Absolutely. Even if the fringes of that dialogue are extreme, it is not time to mute the conversation.
Electronic voting security is a topic of concern, and people have been talking about it for a while and should continue to talk about it. Personally, I've been calling out people who think digital security concerns are overblown since 2000, and every computer professional I know thinks that at a minimum every voting machine needs to produce a readable paper receipt, and a significant portion I know think paper+pencil ballots should be the way things are done.
But ... unless there's places in the recent election where people who were concerned about it didn't have the opportunity for a manual recount and where there's enough combined votes to have changed the outcome and where statistical sampling looks fishy... electronic count tampering is irrelevant.
And as far as I know, all the manual recounts done have verified a Biden victory.
So, sure. Continue to talk about methods. At some point, there doesn't need to be more dialogue around the outcome of the last election. Especially from the actors -- fringe and media outlet alike -- who aren't actually pointing to any of the concrete concerns, who can't actually bring up a good reason, but are clearly stretching out the game of "just asking questions" or "just making dialogue" to give the illusion that there's still any kind of reasonable countercase in play.
"Since this is an engineering forum", I hope you'll forgive me if I ask for an empirical and quantitative source to back up this assertion. The phenomenon of social media bubbles is well-established, as is the fact that anecdotal evidence is not data, so a person simply noticing that the people spreading disinformation in their particular social media feed seem to be of a certain political bent means slightly less than nothing.
...is daft. Any real engineer knows that you don't do engineering by consensus. You do it by having models with proven track records of correct predictions, that you then use to verify that the design you've engineered will meet the required specifications. If you're engineering a bridge, you don't take a vote on the structural strength of the design; you use proven engineering methods to verify and test it.
The "marketplace of ideas" is supposed to work the same way: you don't figure out which ideas are right by consensus. You figure it out by testing them, and throwing away the ones that don't work. So whenever I see anyone claiming "consensus" as the basis for shoving some idea down my throat, I know they're up to no good.
Yes. And the process by which one conceives, tests, refines, reviews with peers, and converges on settled models and practice as in engineering is one of consensus.
Some societies or organizations may reach a specific consensus that decision making is to be done by plurality vote, but consensus is not a synonym for plurality vote.
> So whenever I see anyone claiming "consensus" as the basis for shoving some idea down my throat, I know they're up to no good.
Like, again, the consensus that smoking is bad for you, right?
No, it isn't. It's one of testing and evaluating the results. That is an objective process; it does not require consensus. If I have signed off as the engineer of record on a bridge, and someone asks me for the basis of my doing so, I'm not going to say, well, I had a consensus. I'm going to show them my measurements and calculations.
The same goes for models. If someone asks why I believe that the structural engineering model I used to design the bridge is valid, I'm not going to say, well, the consensus of engineers says it's valid. I'm going to point to its track record of past correct predictions.
> Like, again, the consensus that smoking is bad for you, right?
I don't believe smoking is bad for me because there's a consensus. I believe it because I've looked at the evidence and how it was gathered and used my own judgment and common sense. (Plus the fact that just the smell of cigarettes, when my dad and grandmother smoked them while I was a kid, made me feel ill.) That's what every citizen of a free society should be doing.
As far as shoving some idea down my throat, the fact that society shoved bans on smoking down everyone's throat did not affect me personally at all, because I don't smoke and have never had any desire to. To the extent I saw any effect, it was less smoke in public areas, which of course was one of the stated reasons for it in the first place, and which of course I consider an improvement, taken in isolation and not considering any of the broader social effects.
However, as Miss Manners once pointed out, the fact that society ended up having to do this at all is more a reflection on lack of manners than anything else. Up until the early 20th century when cigarettes started to be mass produced, smokers did not impose their habits on non-smokers; they smoked in separate rooms (or entire separate buildings, such as clubs) to avoid disturbing non-smokers with the smell, and wore special clothes, such as smoking jackets, so they wouldn't carry the smell back with them to non-smokers. In exchange, non-smokers agreed to allow smokers to have those separate places and not complain as long as smoking was confined to them. In other words, smokers and non-smokers both exercised reasonable manners when dealing with each other.
At some point, though, the manners went away on both sides. Smokers got more and more insistent on smoking wherever they went, with no regard for non-smokers, and non-smokers got more and more insistent on pointing out how unhealthy smoking was, and since the unhealthiness was now being imposed on non-smokers through things like second-hand smoke, the non-smokers' case got a lot stronger and harder to ignore. Finally, society said enough is enough, and used the studies on the health impacts of smoking as the rationale to bring in the power of government.
In other words, this example is actually not a good one as an argument for "consensus" being a good basis for forcing people to accept something, because even though the medical "consensus" was used as the excuse, it wasn't the real reason society accepted smoking bans. The real reason was that the implicit agreement, based on manners, between smokers and non-smokers had broken down, and once it became a matter of open conflict, the non-smokers simply outnumbered the smokers. In other words, it was a case of might makes right. The side of might happens to have been the "right" side in this particular case, as far as the medical aspect goes, but when that happens, it's just luck; it's not something you can depend on.
A group of individuals with government oversight decides what is allowed to be published. The document expressly states this is to quiet certain voices.
Definition of censorship: "he suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
Decentralizing gatekeeping power is the opposite of censorship.
For instance:
I say to a group of people, "I am really not trying to single anyone out here but half of the people in this room do x,y and z. Therefore we need to reprogram how people like that think."
Although I stated my "intent" I was actually excusing my actions ahead of time.
Is there some expectation that whenever criticism or advice is written down, that there must be something in there that applies to everyone and every group?
> Throughout the paper, we focus on the problems among conservatives, because these are the problems that are most urgent to American democracy. Our prescriptions are not intended to weaken the Republican Party, but instead to redirect its energies so that its extremists don’t undermine a basic shared understanding of democracy.
That first sentence defines what the authors think is the biggest problem. The second sentence narrows and refines the scope of the problem, it doesn't apologize for the text.
Whether that is the right intent for helping improve "information flow" in order to improve democracy is a different question.