Nevada Democrats To Use iPads Loaded With Google Forms To Track Caucus (cnet.com) 145
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Nevada's Democratic Party said Thursday it plans to use iPads loaded with survey app Google Forms to calculate voting results in next week's caucuses. The system is an effort to avoid a repeat of the Iowa caucus chaos. The app will be loaded onto 2,000 iPads purchased by the party and distributed to precinct chairs, according to a memo signed by party Executive Director Alana Mounce seen by the Associated Press Thursday. Google's app will calculate and submit results electronically, while a second step will rely on submissions also being made by phone. Nevada's caucuses will be held on Feb. 22.
chromebook? (Score:3)
Re:chromebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
would have been too easy to just use chromebooks if everything you do is a google service?
No, it would be easier to use paper to ensure integrity remains intact in our most important democratic process, but then you wouldn't be able to use a liberal mega-corp who represents the establishment to change the outcome based on whomever is providing the most tax breaks.
Why do we keep asking about various flavors of digital voting when it's obvious all of them will be abused?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately gerrymandering, voter suppression and corruption in general is tolerated and even applauded today.
If you are suggesting that Democrats are worse than Republicans, you're just trolling. They are both as a group guilty and out of control. These partisan tirades are what empowers these parties to get away with this nonsense.
Paper is vastly less secure than a well designed modern solution. Paper is easy to s
Re: (Score:2)
I think we should all agree that voting should be secure - it's not a partisan issue.
100% agree. This is THE most important process in our democracy. You either want integrity above all, or you don't. It's that simple, and that should be a bipartisan effort.
...Because you don't believe an electronic solution can not only be secure but superior indicates that you lack an understanding of how to develop a secure solution. The alternative is that you prefer a system proven to steal elections by a party you obviously support..
Yes, I believe we could create a secure solution (ironically enough, this IS where blockchain could likely be used effectively, and not just as a bullshit buzzword). What I do not believe in, is handing over the digital solution to Shadow Inc. (former Clinton supporters) to write an app funded by "donations" from the candidates thems
Re: (Score:2)
And the MSM knows damn well that at this stage, momentum matters.
Well we have this problem even on general election night where east->west returns influence outcomes. I honestly think we should probably do what the UK does and NOT publish returns until all the votes are cast.
Obviously you can't stop the media from polling/exit polling on election night. The other problem we have is that States are in charge of their own elections and Federal government can't necessarily make them keep their result in terms of committed delegate allocation or vote totals secret so it m
Re: (Score:2)
We would have to be very careful with blockchain technology though: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]
We are well advised to not trust main stream media messaging. It is a tragic problem that must be solved.
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore won Florida
Based on whose recount, using which standard? There are recounts that show both of them winning, depending on who did the counting, and what counted as a vote. No two recounts done by anyone had the same vote totals, and that's a pretty big problem--and makes ANY definitive claim of "$CANDIDATE won!!!!!" indefensible.
It's absolutely insane that an election result needs error bars.
Re: (Score:3)
Bush won every count and recount done under normal voting standards, including those done after-the-fact by media consortiums.
It's been suggested that if they had recounted every vote state-wide and switched to the most lenient standard possible, then Gore might have managed to eke out a win, but not even Gore asked for that and there was no legal basis for changing the counting standards. The bottom line is that Democratic voters in Florida were
Bernie Sanders (Score:2, Informative)
That's the divide, pro-corporate/pro-Establishment vs pro-worker. That said, I honestly can't name any genuinely pro-working class Republicans. Money gets to them all. I can't name a single one at the level of House of Reps that isn't awash in corporate cash. Is there a GOP equivalent to the "Justice Democrats"
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we print our forms that we do online.
Paper Trail is important. But we shouldn't give up the fact that computers can count really fast.
That said, the Keep it simple approach with standard technology that has a good track record of working is often far more effective then trying to build this massive enterprise solution. Caucus really need "disposable" programs that do their job well for its needed time. Then we expect the next go around we will have something different. Big enterprise solutions l
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we print our forms that we do online...While I wouldn't use Google Forms to replace enterprise systems, for the fast disposable job it does the trick. As there is good security in the background, and Google can handle the load.
I wasn't questioning Googles technical capability.
I am questioning Googles ability to not be influenced in such a way that they will modify results in their favor, or whomever they're trying to appease at the time. You can't even pretend that Google has proven to be 100% neutral and impartial to all. Good security doesn't mean shit when your security has been bought and sold. This is also why you maintain a paper trail, or some other level of K.I.S.S. accountability.
And that "fast disposable job" is THE m
To Report Results (Score:3)
What is being discussed is the system for rapidly reporting results. Not the actual voting.
The actual voting maintains a paper trail.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Journalists trying to generate site hits with a 'scoop' should be directed to go pound sand.
Yeah, and then you'd get the conspiracy stories "election results are still being hidden! What are they trying to hide?"
They can't win.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean paper like the paper ballots that Nevada is using [go.com] for their primary?
Are you seriously demanding that they use a paper voting roll to check voters in, then hand checking and counting of ballots, and then hand ranking and additio
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously demanding that they use a paper voting roll to check voters in, then hand checking and counting of ballots, and then hand ranking and addition to derive the results? Then send a wax-sealed letter via the Pony Express to Carson City for even more artisinal counting and addition?
If THAT is what it takes to ensure integrity above all, then fuck yes I am.
You tell me why you're being so dismissive of integrity. Or why we should lay 100% trust in a liberal mega-corp that has proven to not be impartial and neutral for all. This is only THE most important process in our democracy, and it's not something we do every damn month.
Drat... Google has foiled Scantron's plan to rig the election via optical scanners, Texas Instruments' plan to rig the election via calculators, and Ricoh's plan to right the election via fax machines. But you're going to foil Google's plan to screw with spreadsheets, because its the counting and reporting that is the problem with electronic systems in voting.
When a company called Shadow, Inc. takes "donations" directly from the candidates running to create the voting app used to determine the winner, the problem with
Re: (Score:2)
That's not being used here so, what is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not being used here so, what is your point?
You're right. Google is our savior. We should totally trust them, because they've proven to be so trustworthy.
Carry on. Obviously there's nothing to see here. Ignorance is blind anyway.
Did not determine "winner" [Re:chromebook?] (Score:2)
When a company called Shadow, Inc. takes "donations" directly from the candidates running to create the voting app used to determine the winner, the problem with electronic voting is not the counting and reporting. It's the obvious fucking corruption.
Again: The Iowa app was an app for rapidly reporting caucus results from the precinct to the DNC, to be reported to the media.
It was not the voting app, nor the vote-counting app, nor even determining the number of delegates, all of which are done at the precinct level (and definitely the app did not "determine the winner": this is a caucus. There is no "winner" per se; what the result is, is delegates.)
The complaints were that by delaying reporting the results, "momentum" built up by the Iowa results wou
Re: (Score:2)
When a company called Shadow, Inc. takes "donations" directly from the candidates running to create the voting app used to determine the winner, the problem with electronic voting is not the counting and reporting. It's the obvious fucking corruption.
Again: The Iowa app was an app for rapidly reporting caucus results from the precinct to the DNC, to be reported to the media.
It was not the voting app, nor the vote-counting app...
What the hell do you think caucuses were reporting? Number of bubble gum chewers? They're reporting voting results, which are comprised of votes.
And reporting false results gift-wraps a false narrative directly to the MSM, which does affect a candidates ability to be successful and garner momentum in the future. Yeah, candidates DID get a "bump". For the "winner" the establishment wanted, manipulated by the MSM.
Let's stop pretending all this effort in Iowa was for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
What false results were reported? What manipulation occurred? What result was changed?
All of the complaints about Iowa after the first night concerned errors on the paper worksheet
Re: (Score:2)
...but to OP's point, they didn't report false results. You keep stating that, when it's not the case.
What they did do, is delay the results because they stated there was a problem with the app.
Who eventually won? Well, it seems that there was a close tie between Sanders and Buttiegieg.
Neither was the ' "winner the _establishement_ wanted, manipulated by the MSM.'
So let's stop pretending your posting effort is about accuracy in electronic caucus apps, and more about spreading the idea that the evil Democrat
Re: (Score:2)
...but to OP's point, they didn't report false results. You keep stating that, when it's not the case.
What they did do, is delay the results because they stated there was a problem with the app.
Who eventually won? Well, it seems that there was a close tie between Sanders and Buttiegieg.
They literally stopped counting the votes when their preferred candidate was in the lead, which of course paved the way for the MSM to control the narrative (or create a false one) about "winners", boosted by the very candidates claiming victory. All the bullshit after that (to include the DNC themselves taking over the vote count), is questionable to say the least. And this certainly isn't the first time caucus results have been delayed on purpose in order to essentially derail a candidate. Momentum mat
Re: (Score:2)
When was that? Date and time please...
"MSM" reported that Buttigieg and Sanders were in a virtual tie, with Sanders having a slight overall vote lead and Buttigieg having a slight SDE lead, and both candidates likely to get the same number of convention delegates. B
Re: (Score:2)
A political party should be able to do whatever it wants. Honestly, at this point, the DNC should just declare Biden as "The Man" so we don't have to endure 3-4 months of states electing anyone but Biden as has been the case thus far, only for them to force him as the chosen one in the end. It didn't work out when it was Hillary. People get passionate about their not-Biden candidates.
Re: (Score:3)
A political party should be able to do whatever it wants.
Yup, 100% agree.
Just don't fucking ask the public to cast votes.
This isn't digital voting (Score:2)
This is tabulation of the votes at each caucus. It's public information how many votes at each caucus went to who. Therefore, a lot of the issues with digital voting don't apply. Security can be as simple as publishing a list "Caucus X: A votes for Biden, B votes for Buttigeig, etc."a and seeing if anyone cries foul.
This is automating the weird stepwise/rounding math, and providing a faster answer to satisfy the media horserace.
Or, to put it a different way, this is like each state providing the raw vote
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, to put it a different way, this is like each state providing the raw vote totals to a liberal mega-corp that takes care of its supporters in government by providing the service that ultimately counts/tallies votes. With one corporation to pay off behind the scenes, it's easy to manipulate the results, and convince stupid people that it's 100% legit.
FTFY.
For further reading, I recommend How to Create a False Narrative written by Shadow, Inc. and published by MSM.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, every caucus member will know the results of the caucus before they are typed in. It's announced and then typed. And then published caucus by caucus. It's just tabulating public information. The biggest risk is typos.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, every caucus member will know the results of the caucus before they are typed in. It's announced and then typed. And then published caucus by caucus. It's just tabulating public information. The biggest risk is typos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
With morons like this holding caucus coin tosses, the biggest risk is hardly typos.
Of course, no ones talking about shit like this when the bought-and-paid-for MSM controls the narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Also because that's literally the results of a tie. How else do you decide it? Hell, the entire Virginia House's majority party was decided by a coin flip recently (2018?)
Re: (Score:2)
Also because that's literally the results of a tie. How else do you decide it?
Did you actually watch the coin toss?
Here's your answer: not like THAT shit.
Oh, and how many coin tosses went in favor of a certain candidate? Apparently coin toss odds get sucked into a vacuum whenever the DNC is around. Good luck in Vegas.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the blatantly edited video posted to a hacked YouTube account?
Of course, because it didn't happen.
You tell me. You claim to know. How many coin tosses were there and which way did they go?
Apparently your statistics training [mathbitsnotebook.com] is lacking, especially since you have a (faked) video of
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the blatantly edited video posted to a hacked YouTube account?
Of course, because it didn't happen.
At the 4:00 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Here's the shorter more obvious version:
https://twitter.com/awzurcher/... [twitter.com]
And yes, of course evidence this is being buried on social media. Making it easy to find might change the preferred narrative.
Apparently your statistics training [mathbitsnotebook.com] is lacking, especially since you have a (faked) video of a single coin toss.
Hillary won 6-for-6 coin tosses in 2016 against Sanders. Apparently your false narrative training is overriding common fucking sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The one with the audio that makes it clear that he didn't know who would win if the coin was heads? The one with text that says that this was to resolve a tie between Buttigieg and Klobuchar? Yeah... the anti-Sanders conspiracy is sooooo obvious.
Calling six in a row happens 1.56% of the time. Impossibl
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong [cnn.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
The one with the audio that makes it clear that he didn't know who would win if the coin was heads? The one with text that says that this was to resolve a tie between Buttigieg and Klobuchar? Yeah... the anti-Sanders conspiracy is sooooo obvious.
Try and blame the fucking morons surrounding the idiot with the coin who decided to call that flip good enough. I certainly am. That would have caused riots at a football game. Common sense says do it over again and with someone competent.
Calling six in a row happens 1.56% of the time. Impossible!
Yes, about as statistically probable as an anti-establishment candidate getting fair treatment by the MSM or their own fucking party.
Enjoy defending these antics. At this point, the DNC is about as respected as the Victim Generation of woke-tards they love to represen
Re: chromebook? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a piece of fucking paper and a pencil? 2000 votes is a large high school election and that can't be counted by hand?
Re:chromebook? (Score:5, Informative)
How about a piece of fucking paper and a pencil? 2000 votes is a large high school election and that can't be counted by hand?
They very well might use paper and pen (or pencil) for the individual precinct. However they need to communicate the results up to the district and state levels, and paper doesn't work real well for that. The last time I caucused (2016) my precinct called their results in, but that is not trivial either as you need to set up a phone tree to make it work reliably otherwise you have tons of people sitting around waiting for busy signals to end.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a piece of fucking paper and a pencil? 2000 votes is a large high school election and that can't be counted by hand?
They very well might use paper and pen (or pencil) for the individual precinct. However they need to communicate the results up to the district and state levels, and paper doesn't work real well for that. The last time I caucused (2016) my precinct called their results in, but that is not trivial either as you need to set up a phone tree to make it work reliably otherwise you have tons of people sitting around waiting for busy signals to end.
Ah, so it's easy to tally tens of thousands of individual precinct votes by hand on paper, but somehow it's "impossible" to report the much smaller aggregate results in a way that doesn't allow corruption? Give me a fucking break. And we wonder why the establishment turns a blind eye to Shadow, Inc. taking "donations" from candidates to create the voting app.
Busy signals my ass. Precincts A-D will call in at 9PM. Precincts E-G will call in at 9:30. This isn't fucking rocket science, and we've got all d
Re: (Score:3)
And 4chan will call in from 8:00 pm to next week [nbcnews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, look, a completely impractical solution seemingly made trivial by adding the word "temporary."
You ostensibly want integrity in the process, yet failed to see the incredibly easy and recent hack to corrupt it.
Or, maybe, you want to corrupt it. What a twist!
Go back to your tinfoil futures trading. Google isn't going
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so it's easy to tally tens of thousands of individual precinct votes by hand on paper,
Your comment strongly suggests you have never actually been to a caucus. A precinct rarely has "tens of thousands" of people in it, that defeats the purpose of a precinct. Generally a single precinct has hundreds of people in it. The precinct chair tabulates the results and passes them up to the next level (usually the district) which is responsible for a much larger group. District takes in numbers from a large number of precinct chairs and eventually passes them up to the state. And it's not enough
Re: (Score:2)
Why call? Scan the tally sheets and email, or use a FAX. Then dispatch your designated courier with the certified hard copy on a moped or something.
People make this way more complicated than it needs to be. Paper ballots. Enough voting precincts so that you keep the numbers down to a manageable size.
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts mean that there are usually **collections** of prepaid phones used for call-banks. One no longer puts in a PBX and a bank of phones/cubes/desks. Wouldn't be that hard to securely give a bank of 5, 10, 20... whatever you have... phone numbers to the reporters in each district, so they're not contending with dozens of callers into one line.
And then there's texting and/or letting the collector (via a bank) call out to the reporters. It isn't like importa
Re: (Score:2)
There's what, maybe a couple hundred precincts to call in? If it takes a ridiculous 5 minutes to verify identity and confirm the tallies, you're talking less than 20 hours of communication time. Put in ten lines with a shared call waiting queue at a central collecting point and you're down to under two hours.
It's a mild inconvenience at worst, not worth jeopardizing the integrity of the vote over. We used to communicate this stuff by carriage or pony express and it worked just fine - the tally isn't goin
Re: (Score:2)
There's what, maybe a couple hundred precincts to call in?
Try couple thousand. This seems like something that could be looked up, but they don't appear to post the number anywhere. However, they do post a list of all precinct locations, and from that I was able to throw it into a spreadsheet to get an actual number of precincts: 2098. (Which may or may not be accurate since I'm copy-pasting out of a PDF, but I'm pretty confident I got the data into the spreadsheet right.)
So using your 5 minutes per call, you're talking about 175 hours of communication time.
Caucuse
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, some of the districts must have a *lot* more precincts than the ones I glanced at, which had a dozen or two.
So make it 100 lines available for two hours instead, same results. Doesn't really make any difference if you have a "tree", or just a single tallying center - except that a tree needs those lines spread across a lot of intermediate nodes (and introduces some additional overhead)
If the choice is between convenience and election integrity... that should be no choice at all.
Re: (Score:2)
my precinct called their results in
This is something I find funny about everyone auguring that computers are the least secure way to communicate information. They seem to be fine with calling in results. Despite calling in results would be really easy to hack or disrupt.
Re: (Score:3)
The results need to be flexible. In case Bernie has a chance to win the nominations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we know in the 2016 Elections Sanders wasn't on the Dems top pick, and they did some things to hold him back. However I expect the election results in the primaries and caucuses were actually fairly recorded.
That said, Sanders isn't my top pick for the democratic contender. As I fell he would be the Anti-Trump which would be pushing policies and ideas that Pro-Trump people will have a hard time adjusting too. Trump really messed up America, I would rather have someone who is willing to fix America an
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we know in the 2016 Elections Sanders wasn't on the Dems top pick, and they did some things to hold him back. However I expect the election results in the primaries and caucuses were actually fairly recorded.
The same man is running in the same party that you admit screwed him over last time, and yet you expect different behavior?
See Definition of Insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a piece of fucking paper and a pencil?
Seems like that would its own vulnerability, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about Dems here - you know, the No Child Left Behind people. Shirley you can't expect their party officials to be able to Read, Write AND Count?
Haha. Rarely is the question asked, is are posters learning?
Re: (Score:2)
This could have been one of those rare cases where someone actually saved money by going with Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
This could have been one of those rare cases where someone actually saved money by going with Apple.
That makes zero sense. Apple is by no means a manufacturer of actual cheap equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2,000 iPads. The man-hours involved with manually setting up an app store on each one just to install the app and lock it down is nothing next to a device that has proper MDM support and all 2,000 can be deployed from the same scripts.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to a bunch of $49 Android tablets all sharing the same google doc?
And where are the $49 Android tablets? I posed much the same question back in January [slashdot.org] and aside from some Fire tablets we couldn't come up with any. Yeah, they used to be everywhere (as I mentioned in that thread) but now they don't seem to be anywhere.
This suggests that few companies who sell sub-$100 Android tablets do it for long. Do you really want to even trust a caucus to dodgy hardware? They don't have time for it to go wrong on caucus night, it needs to be right the first time.
No they wasted a ton of money on this by going with Apple.
I would agree
Re: (Score:2)
Save money with iPod touch. (Score:2)
Android failed in Iowa ... (Score:2)
As opposed to a bunch of $49 Android tablets all sharing the same google doc? No they wasted a ton of money on this by going with Apple. But hey it's the party's money not government dollars so I'm fine with the Dems wasting money they could be spending on campaigns.
Android failed in Iowa. Scary side loading warnings, manual installation required, device compatibility issues, etc.
iOS will let them have a DNC enterprise app that the DNC can push to the *registered* devices they just purchased. More automation, more security, less user fuckup-ery.
Re: (Score:2)
Paper trail (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's harder to hack a paper trail.
With Google Docs it's open on the internet. And do you trust Google to not have a "bug"?
Re: (Score:3)
It's harder to hack a paper trail.
There is a paper trail. We are talking about an app to rapidly report individual precinct so the TV news shows can give you election-night results; we are not talking about the actual voting app.
Re: Paper trail (Score:2)
They seem to have some sort of clusterfuck combination of ranked ballot voting for early votes and the old timey musical chairs physical presence voting.
I see why they'd want to use computers given that. I also see why they went for the complex clusterfuck, even if I don't agree it's worth it ... greater inclusion.
Trail exists (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't for individual votes. The is for reporting the aggregate of many people's votes at a single caucus. It's not secret like a ballot. Security is just publishing all the submitted results and seeing if any of the 2000 caucuses says "That's not who we voted for."
It's much more equivalent to saying "Each state's government will submit their (public) vote totals to a single Google Form, so it can automate the electoral college math on election night. "
Carbon receipts are evil (Score:2)
I left this out of my other reply, by carbon receipts are evil. That way lies "a receipt for a vote for X gets you a cash payment/you keeping your job/your husband (or a thug) not beating you". A secret ballot is vital. Which means there needs to be no way to prove, or for you to prove, how you voted after the fact.
Which means we need to be very careful about making sure that each vote is accurately tallied. Paper stuffed in a box guarded by people representing each party and then publicly counted seems
Re: (Score:2)
If you think I'm wrong, say why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
(It is so lazy to just say something cynical, and incorrect).
what about an local file that is not live on cloud (Score:2)
what about an local file that is not live on cloud? this is the vote it's better to do things in an more manual way
Re: (Score:2)
It's needs to be on a cloud. It's coordination of public information (vote totals per caucus), not individual votes. It's like saying "why would the state of Nevada publish the results of the election in the cloud?" It's supposed to be widely distributed information.
Tested? Paper Trail? (Score:2)
I hope they test this and compare to their paper backup. But, I will bet their whole budget was blown on the $660k worth of iPads.
Vote totals (Score:2)
This is for totaling votes between caucuses. That is, public information by the time it gets to iPad. The "paper backup" are all the caucus members who heard the votes announced before it got entered into the iPad, and can check the results by caucus the state will publish and make sure they match.
Re: (Score:2)
I already know the answer to this, but are they smart enough to just go to a google form on any device? I can't imagine buying a bunch of iPads to sit around until 2024 when they're out of date is a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you are probably smart enough to know that 4chan DDoSed attacked Iowa's phone backups when the app stopped working. So there are security issues with just publishing a URL. There's probably a shared secret that's used to validate the submission came from the appropriate party (to prevent night of interference). Pretyping all that in provides a lot of security against typos, etc.
iPads should still be usable in 2024, but they may even give them as a small gift to the volunteers running the thing. It
Re: Vote totals (Score:2)
Well, you are probably smart enough to know that 4chan DDoSed attacked Iowa's phone backups when the app stopped working
Or so someone claimed.
Re: (Score:2)
"660k worth of..." (Score:2)
So $6.6M cost of iPads then...
Do you want Google-manipulated elections? (Score:2)
Cause that's how you get Google-manipulated elections?
Preventing the Next Trump Situation (Score:4, Insightful)
-Google Executive Jen Gennai [projectveritas.com]
Or, perhaps, the "Bernie situation".
I wonder how many dead people will vote. (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
no SW in voting please ! (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m fine with this (sort of)... (Score:2)
I don't know seems like (Score:2)
I wonder if they will be able to resist tipping the scales.
At least 2,000 Dem/Socialist in Nevada will get free iPads to take home.
Just my 2 cents
Paper Pen Audit Trail (Score:2)
Why are you in such a rush that you're using an easily hackable method?
The media can wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I saw this, and my first reaction was, "are you fucking kidding me?"
Yes, we just had a major shitshow over your attempt to use a hacked together at the last minute voting system, so let's double down on the fucking stupidity!
Rock, where are you? Time to crawl back under..
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I have a lot more faith in the widely used, professionally developed, well tested Google Docs than I do in some 'app' written for the job created by start up staffed with mostly political operatives.
The bigger question here is if it becomes common practice to use more 'general purpose' cloud tools does it create some really powerful incentives for companies like Google to snoop (probably to risky to even consider interfering) election processes.
Re: (Score:3)
Google Forms gives write access to a spreadsheet. You can't edit already submitted results. You might be able to send duplicate results, but multiple submissions from the same device could easily be filtered to just the latest entry.
Re: What's the difference? (Score:2)
Anyone with the right URL could potentially have access to the full spreadsheet with edit privileges, I'm also not sure you can tell who entered data in the form, sure you can filter duplicate IPs but if they don't come from the same IP, anyone with the URL can enter data.
IF the form process is even properly implemented, that's only one side of the coin, spreadsheets are not databases, it'll be exported, multiple versions will float around and Excel has trouble counting as it is with formulas being notoriou
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how Google Forms works. It's got it's own permissions vs. the spreadsheet it dumps into. It's not just a spreadsheet formula.
You're right that sharing the URL might be problematic, but it won't get guessed. It certainly won't give anyone edit access - just append access through the form.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for any silly voting. Just ask Google management who they want in office and give them all the votes. Saves a lot of time and hassle of all this messy democracy stuff.
Not Google, they're chump change...it's a consortium of Big Pharma and the Fossil Fuel industry that decides who wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't pay with money. They pay with influence: Google search results, Youtube censorship and recommendations, etc.
Directly influencing voters is much more useful to Democrats than petty money. That can always make more money once they're in power. Cushy executive positions in foreign energy companies is where it's at.