That hardly sounds like freedom to me, it sounds more along the lines of *gasp* socialized medicine. It's not going to fix our already-broken economy, it will only damage it further.
The economy doesn't matter, only people matter, so if socialized medicine can improve health, it's good.
If people think he can magically fix the unemployment rate to what it was before it want to hell, and reduce the national debt to manageable levels, he's sorely mistaken.
The more unemployment, the better, because then we have more free time to do what we want. What needs fixing is the economic system, so that people can have everything they need, even without necessarily having a job.
National debt doesn't really matter either, because it's just something we invented, it's an imaginary problem. To fix the economy and all debts permanently, just shut down the banks and abolish money.
The economy doesn't matter? What kind of tripe is that? If that goes to hell, so does the rest of the world's.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
moozooh wrote:
Twelvepack wrote:
This problem has a simple solution; using digital signing. This would prove the identity of the person who submitted your vote was you, and it would be impossible for anyone to change the vote.
Well, that's cute! Unfortunately, this solution introduces more logistical problems than it solves as explained by Warp, but most importantly it doesn't alleviate the main problems with voting that happen outside the actual voting process; i.e. the part where you go into a booth or its digital alternative.
For what its worth, I agree with you completely. It does add some logistical challenges, but they are nothing more insurmountable than what is created when someone decides to use an ATM.
I have no illusions that digital encryption will somehow cure manipulation or abuse on any large scale, but I do think it would solve some problems, namely ensuring one vote per person and possible tampering or intentional miscounting.
