this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
782 points (98.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

8163 readers
2465 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ReadyUser31@lemmy.world
aeronmelon@lemmy.world
needanke@feddit.org
782
Sorry, it's 2025 but you can't vote bc we didn't print & cut enough small pieces of paper 🤷‍♀️ (europe.pub)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Post on Mastodon

Very detailed Lemmy post I wrote about this fuckery and more

Local news article containing the quote about the voter registrar

On Homer Plessey Way, board member Daniel Milojevic stood outside the Bywater polling place in the Press Street Gallery suggesting people try the two Jefferson Parish locations.

He said the local registrar of voters gave the district only 300 ballots per location and told them they could expect about 20 people.

“We had to confirm the number of ballots weeks ago,” he said, before it was clear how high the turnout would be. Milojevic conceded that planning had clearly missed the mark.

As one astute gentleman asked while defending Reddit, and accusing me of spreading misinformation:

If hardly anybody knew, how did turnout exceed expectations within 2 hours?

Because the "expectation" provided by the registrar was literally 20 voters per location (60 voters in total) for the entire fucking city.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're thinking about the voting problem wrong, specifically not including all of the requirements

The algorithm isn’t a black box like you’re saying, it’s fully auditable and decentralized so any fuckery is immediately visible.

Their point is that even in this system, there is both a small and finite number of people who are skilled enough/qualified enough to perform that audit. I'm not sure I've got the math to be able to validate a blockchain transaction by hand without referring to a (potentially tainted) source repo. There's a world where blockchain voting can solve this problem, but the competing requirements make it the less-optimal solution compared with paper voting.

Specifically, there are 3 potentially competing requirements for a secure voting system in a functioning democracy:

  1. Votes must be accurately recorded and tallied
  2. Votes must not be attributable to any specific individual
  3. Votes must be auditable for an arbitrary amount of time

Blockchains, potentially, optimize the voting problem for #1 while introducing explicit exposure in #s 2 and 3, while paper ballots optimize for 2 first, then 3.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Woah woah woah, I said nothing about blockchain. That would almost certainly be the wrong, overly complex solution. The systems that exist for cryptographic voting do hit ALL your points while having the additional benefit of being perfectly auditable.

Cryptography is a much larger field than blockchain, and people use it for trusted communication every day.