Can we use this for voter ID?
replies(2):
It is true that every scheme out there (that I've read about) has some flaws. But I'd rather have NSA spending their budgets and talent working on this kind of stuff, than spying on citizens or whatever they do.
The current discourse is all about identification during registration vs when voting. Which is meaningful but feels like avoiding the actual issue, as it is still not really secure either way.
Last time I checked, Party X only cared about Party Y’s voters who are voting illegally. They’re perfectly fine with their voters doing it.
Technology is a tool against corruption not a cure for it.
To date, every audit, recount, signature review, and court case has found illegal voting rates so low they have no statistical impact. Meanwhile, multiple Republican-backed laws have been struck down by federal courts for intentionally or disproportionately disenfranchising specific groups of eligible voters.
So one side is dealing with documented, court-verified disenfranchisement. The other is raising a theoretical scenario that has no evidence behind it. Hypotheticals do not outweigh the real, observed effects of restrictive voting laws on lawful voters.
1. Unfalsifiable claim.
2. Reversed burden of proof.
If fraud is real at meaningful scale, you show it. You don’t assume it, declare the system rigged, and treat every failed audit or court case as part of the conspiracy. That’s not analysis. It’s a closed loop designed to protect the claim from scrutiny.
1. Do everything you can to make it difficult or impossible to prove fraud.
2. Justify doing nothing to increase confidence in the electoral system by pointing to the lack of detected fraud.
3. Enjoy a system where fraud can go undetected.
The fact that half the country (or more) has low confidence in the electoral system is itself a problem that needs to be addressed.
I would simply work to create an electoral system that people could feel confident in, as in other countries.
We already have an electoral system which people who aren’t actively mislead trust. The problem is the same as in other areas where something established far beyond reasonable doubt, such as the reality of climate change or vaccine efficacy and safety, is questioned not because facts are lacking but because a multi-billion dollar propaganda network pushed false claims for political purposes.