Most active commenters
  • shiroiushi(4)
  • Vinnl(3)

←back to thread

319 points rcarmo | 19 comments | | HN request time: 1.289s | source | bottom
Show context
nneonneo ◴[] No.41909665[source]
Note: there are questions about this test's authenticity. Per a note on https://www.crmvet.org/info/la-test.htm:

> [NOTE: At one time we also displayed a "brain-twister" type literacy test with questions like "Spell backwards, forwards" that may (or may not) have been used during the summer of 1964 in Tangipahoa Parish (and possibly elsewhere) in Louisiana. We removed it because we could not corroborate its authenticity, and in any case it was not representative of the Louisiana tests in broad use during the 1950s and '60s.]

Each parish in Louisiana implemented their own literacy tests, which means that there wasn't really much uniformity in the process. Another (maybe more typical) test: https://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf

replies(7): >>41909723 #>>41909737 #>>41909771 #>>41911081 #>>41915908 #>>41918520 #>>41923809 #
InvaderFizz[dead post] ◴[] No.41909723[source]
[flagged]
kelnos ◴[] No.41909911[source]
> That literacy test seems reasonable

Except not, because any test whatsoever should be disallowed when it comes to voter registration.

replies(1): >>41911539 #
shiroiushi ◴[] No.41911539[source]
I think voter registration itself should be disallowed and banned. Why should voters need to register beforehand? You should be able to just show up on election day and cast a vote. The entire process of voter registration is nothing more than a means to disenfranchise voters.
replies(7): >>41911604 #>>41911731 #>>41912875 #>>41914058 #>>41914062 #>>41914620 #>>41916026 #
1. fragmede ◴[] No.41911731[source]
And indeed, the way it's done somewhere else on this planet is you show up, vote, get your thumb inked so you can't go to another poll and vote a second time, and that's all there is to that.
replies(3): >>41911793 #>>41912808 #>>41915243 #
2. shiroiushi ◴[] No.41911793[source]
In places with more modern technology, instead of relying on ink on thumbs, we can just have a computerized system informing all the voting precincts that John Doe has now voted at Precinct X, perhaps with a face photo in case someone alleges fraud.
replies(3): >>41912085 #>>41912722 #>>41914038 #
3. alexey-salmin ◴[] No.41912085[source]
Well good luck voting-out the government that controls that system.
replies(1): >>41912825 #
4. Vinnl ◴[] No.41912722[source]
In the Netherlands at least, you just get a voting card sent to you by mail, and you have to hand that in to vote. Since you just have a single card, you can only vote once.
replies(2): >>41914754 #>>41916583 #
5. fp64 ◴[] No.41912808[source]
So I can vote in these places when I am on vacation there? Of course just once.
6. tcMtn ◴[] No.41912825{3}[source]
This is what is done in essentially all of the Western world (except USA and the UK) and it works just fine with free and fair elections and peaceful transfers of power.
replies(1): >>41919999 #
7. cperciva ◴[] No.41914038[source]
We just had an election in BC, Canada, and the way it worked here is that everyone has a "home" polling location which is responsible for ensuring that their vote is counted once and only once.

If the distributed system is not partitioned, you can show up to vote anywhere and they tell your home precinct that you've voted; then during vote counting the precinct where you voted tells your home precinct "add the following to your vote totals".

If the system is partitioned -- either from network outages or remote polling locations or mail-in ballots -- then your ballot goes into an envelope and is physically sent to your home precinct in the week following the election, to be verified and included in the count.

replies(1): >>41916469 #
8. Cthulhu_ ◴[] No.41914754{3}[source]
Unless you get someone else's card and forge their signature on the back side, which is a permission form indicating that you can vote on their behalf; I don't believe there's enough checks and balances in place for this voting-on-behalf-of system, but then again I don't know what checks and balances there are.
replies(1): >>41915304 #
9. caeril ◴[] No.41915243[source]
> get your thumb inked so you can't go to another poll

This can't possibly be a serious solution. A quart of acetone costs $2.

replies(1): >>41917503 #
10. Vinnl ◴[] No.41915304{4}[source]
True, the guard rails there are that you can only do that for at most 2 people, limiting the impact of potential fraud there.
11. dh2022 ◴[] No.41916469{3}[source]
But what if I vote three times in three different locations all different from my "home" polling location?
replies(1): >>41916672 #
12. dh2022 ◴[] No.41916583{3}[source]
How does the electoral commission knows where to send the voting card? Does the voter need to register with some electoral commission (governmental agency)?
replies(1): >>41923442 #
13. cperciva ◴[] No.41916672{4}[source]
If the network is connected, the first time you vote succeeds and marks you as having voted; subsequent attempts fail because they know you've already voted.

If the network is not connected, your three remote ballots go into envelopes marked "dh2022" and in the week following the election they are physically transported to your home polling location, at which point they see that you tried to vote three times, set those ballots aside, and call the police.

replies(1): >>41916820 #
14. alexey-salmin ◴[] No.41916820{5}[source]
This breaks the anonymity of the vote, marks can be traced back to real people.

It also allows fraud by voting for people who didn't show up.

15. vntok ◴[] No.41917503[source]
Why would you assume that actual election ink is as easily washable as that? Surely other people thought about the problem at hand for more than a minute, right?

It actually stains fingernails in such a way that the ink only truly disappears when the nail grows.

From Wikipedia:

> Election stain typically stays on skin for 72–96 hours, lasting 2 to 4 weeks on the fingernail and cuticle area. The election ink used puts a permanent mark on the cuticle area, which only disappears with the growth of the new nail. It can take up to 4 months for the stain to be replaced completely by new nail growth. Stains with concentrations of silver nitrate higher than 18% have been found to have no added effect on stain longevity, as silver nitrate does not have a photosensitive reaction with live skin cells. This means that the stain will fade as new skin grows.

replies(2): >>41919768 #>>41920009 #
16. ◴[] No.41919768{3}[source]
17. shiroiushi ◴[] No.41919999{4}[source]
>and peaceful transfers of power.

Yep, this is something the US can no longer claim, sadly.

18. shiroiushi ◴[] No.41920009{3}[source]
This reminds me of college chemistry lab. The nitric acid was always interesting because when that got on your skin, it turned yellow, permanently. For skin, this would wear off quickly (on fingers at least), but if it got on your fingernails, those would turn yellow and it would never come out, until the nail had grown out.
19. Vinnl ◴[] No.41923442{4}[source]
The government already knows where people live. Every time you move, you have to notify your municipality.