APS School Board Caucus - Voting Underway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given all of the apparently insecurities in this caucus process, we should be skeptical of the result no matter who wins, right? Even if it's Mary?

Are people actually out with iPads though?

If they are I think we need some sort of additional verification that the vote went through - re-email people to confirm their vote a week later. If people don't get confirmation then there may be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I borrowed a campaign worker's pen once to fill out an absentee ballot. Was that wrong too? Or only when the tool to vote has a screen?

Seriously, what is the harm you're trying to invent by claiming that there's some norm against using a campaign supplied tablet to vote in a private caucus?

Why were you near a campaign worker while you were filling out an absentee ballot? Weren't they all mailed home. So you carried it around and then didn't fill it out until you were near a campaign worker. Seems...weird.

You really need me to explain all of the reasons why it's - at best - inappropriate for candidate to provide the electronic device that is being used to vote? Disingenuous BS.



DP- I honestly have no issue whatsoever voting on a electronic device provided by a candidate. Anything that increases the vote is okay in my mind. What exactly do you think is the potential harm here? Do you think a candidate is somehow altering a vote so that it is recorded differently? That would require quite a bit of technological knowledge and also would involve a fairly vast number of people in at least potentially criminal activity. Do you think a candidate is tracking how people voted? Again, would require a fair amount of technological know how- and what is the concern about what the campaign would do with the information?

I really think this is a reaction to terrified dems who are afraid that Miranda is going to win the dem caucus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given all of the apparently insecurities in this caucus process, we should be skeptical of the result no matter who wins, right? Even if it's Mary?

Are people actually out with iPads though?

If they are I think we need some sort of additional verification that the vote went through - re-email people to confirm their vote a week later. If people don't get confirmation then there may be an issue.

I voted a little while ago. There is a place where you can verify your ballot. But that's going to require someone who cares enough to go back and check on its status. I imagine that Miranda's team (I say hers because Mary specifically said she wasn't going to be doing this) might be hanging outside stores/bars/restaurants asking people if they have voted yet. If they haven't, the campaign either will offer them a device or a QR code that has a link to the ballot to use on the voter's own device. That could well be geared towards lower information voters who haven't really been following the SB race or even school issues. Not sure those are the ones who will care enough to go back and verify their ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I borrowed a campaign worker's pen once to fill out an absentee ballot. Was that wrong too? Or only when the tool to vote has a screen?

Seriously, what is the harm you're trying to invent by claiming that there's some norm against using a campaign supplied tablet to vote in a private caucus?

Why were you near a campaign worker while you were filling out an absentee ballot? Weren't they all mailed home. So you carried it around and then didn't fill it out until you were near a campaign worker. Seems...weird.

You really need me to explain all of the reasons why it's - at best - inappropriate for candidate to provide the electronic device that is being used to vote? Disingenuous BS.

DP- I honestly have no issue whatsoever voting on a electronic device provided by a candidate. Anything that increases the vote is okay in my mind. What exactly do you think is the potential harm here? Do you think a candidate is somehow altering a vote so that it is recorded differently? That would require quite a bit of technological knowledge and also would involve a fairly vast number of people in at least potentially criminal activity. Do you think a candidate is tracking how people voted? Again, would require a fair amount of technological know how- and what is the concern about what the campaign would do with the information?

I really think this is a reaction to terrified dems who are afraid that Miranda is going to win the dem caucus.

Why would "Dems" be terrified of Miranda? Isn't she a Democrat?

No, it's not that difficult at all to build a dummy site to record a "vote". I'm not all that techy and I'm sure even I could do it in a day or two.

And, assuming it's legit, I wouldn't want to hand over my private data (DOB, verification code, etc.) to random campaign worker.

AT BEST, it's inappropriate. I can't even believe this is a debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given all of the apparently insecurities in this caucus process, we should be skeptical of the result no matter who wins, right? Even if it's Mary?

Are people actually out with iPads though?

If they are I think we need some sort of additional verification that the vote went through - re-email people to confirm their vote a week later. If people don't get confirmation then there may be an issue.

Have you done your caucus vote yet? In order to vote, first you have to fill out personal information that must match your vote registration to be counted. After you vote, they give you a ballot confirmation number you can use to track your ballot later. If you go back to the site to check your ballot using the confirmation number, it will show you a copy of the official ballot with who you voted for.

Given all of that, no one is going to start altering ballots because it's too easy for people to check their ballot later and confirm whether it indicates the right candidate. If it doesn't, that will get reported quickly and the result invalidated if it appears that one of the campaigns was somehow tampering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given all of the apparently insecurities in this caucus process, we should be skeptical of the result no matter who wins, right? Even if it's Mary?

Are people actually out with iPads though?

If they are I think we need some sort of additional verification that the vote went through - re-email people to confirm their vote a week later. If people don't get confirmation then there may be an issue.

I voted a little while ago. There is a place where you can verify your ballot. But that's going to require someone who cares enough to go back and check on its status. I imagine that Miranda's team (I say hers because Mary specifically said she wasn't going to be doing this) might be hanging outside stores/bars/restaurants asking people if they have voted yet. If they haven't, the campaign either will offer them a device or a QR code that has a link to the ballot to use on the voter's own device. That could well be geared towards lower information voters who haven't really been following the SB race or even school issues. Not sure those are the ones who will care enough to go back and verify their ballot.

DP. I don't understand what you think will happen here. Are you saying that they will give people fraudulent links that will automatically submit Turner ballots? They can't do that because of the verification systems in place. Or is the complaint that you think campaign workers will give out information in support of their candidate right after giving voters the tool to cast their ballot? If the latter, do you also oppose campaigns and parties handing out sample ballots outside of poll sites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Were Democrats encouraging people to vote using devices that Democrats provided?

I'm all for facilitating participation as long as we aren't using technology provided by a candidate to place vote.

You people sound like Trumpsters complaining about mail-in ballots. If Turner's volunteers are going around with a wifi hotspot and a tablet to help people vote, who cares??

Oh you don't think it's trustworthy? Why? How is it any different from ballot harvesting? Or putting a ballot drop-box outside a church?

The caucus is has a problem with low-turnout in general, and the online system is only likely to exacerbate that. If you have a problem with Turner's efforts to boost turnout, then get off your duff and go out with a tablet of your own.

I care. I don't think any candidate should be allowed to have people VOTE on the candidate's devices.

Who actually thinks that is appropriate?

I borrowed a campaign worker's pen once to fill out an absentee ballot. Was that wrong too? Or only when the tool to vote has a screen?

Seriously, what is the harm you're trying to invent by claiming that there's some norm against using a campaign supplied tablet to vote in a private caucus?

Why were you near a campaign worker while you were filling out an absentee ballot? Weren't they all mailed home. So you carried it around and then didn't fill it out until you were near a campaign worker. Seems...weird.

You really need me to explain all of the reasons why it's - at best - inappropriate for candidate to provide the electronic device that is being used to vote? Disingenuous BS.

You've yet to articulate a single specific harm that could arise from providing people with a means to submit their ballots electronically. It's 100% legal and you're just upset your candidate didn't think of it first. The only things that could be bad about it, like tracking people's inputs, would already be illegal in their own right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given all of the apparently insecurities in this caucus process, we should be skeptical of the result no matter who wins, right? Even if it's Mary?

You sound just like the GOP. "Can we really trust the results of an election I have done everything possible to cast doubt on?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given all of the apparently insecurities in this caucus process, we should be skeptical of the result no matter who wins, right? Even if it's Mary?

You sound just like the GOP. "Can we really trust the results of an election I have done everything possible to cast doubt on?"

+1 Stop this madness already. Just stop it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I borrowed a campaign worker's pen once to fill out an absentee ballot. Was that wrong too? Or only when the tool to vote has a screen?

Seriously, what is the harm you're trying to invent by claiming that there's some norm against using a campaign supplied tablet to vote in a private caucus?

Why were you near a campaign worker while you were filling out an absentee ballot? Weren't they all mailed home. So you carried it around and then didn't fill it out until you were near a campaign worker. Seems...weird.

You really need me to explain all of the reasons why it's - at best - inappropriate for candidate to provide the electronic device that is being used to vote? Disingenuous BS.

DP- I honestly have no issue whatsoever voting on a electronic device provided by a candidate. Anything that increases the vote is okay in my mind. What exactly do you think is the potential harm here? Do you think a candidate is somehow altering a vote so that it is recorded differently? That would require quite a bit of technological knowledge and also would involve a fairly vast number of people in at least potentially criminal activity. Do you think a candidate is tracking how people voted? Again, would require a fair amount of technological know how- and what is the concern about what the campaign would do with the information?

I really think this is a reaction to terrified dems who are afraid that Miranda is going to win the dem caucus.

Because you are inputting your personal information (name, address, birthdate, verification codes) onto someone's personal device? That type of information regularly is used for hacking purposes. Voting in an official election, if done remotely, should at least be done on your own device, with some semblance of online privacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I borrowed a campaign worker's pen once to fill out an absentee ballot. Was that wrong too? Or only when the tool to vote has a screen?

Seriously, what is the harm you're trying to invent by claiming that there's some norm against using a campaign supplied tablet to vote in a private caucus?

Why were you near a campaign worker while you were filling out an absentee ballot? Weren't they all mailed home. So you carried it around and then didn't fill it out until you were near a campaign worker. Seems...weird.

You really need me to explain all of the reasons why it's - at best - inappropriate for candidate to provide the electronic device that is being used to vote? Disingenuous BS.

DP- I honestly have no issue whatsoever voting on a electronic device provided by a candidate. Anything that increases the vote is okay in my mind. What exactly do you think is the potential harm here? Do you think a candidate is somehow altering a vote so that it is recorded differently? That would require quite a bit of technological knowledge and also would involve a fairly vast number of people in at least potentially criminal activity. Do you think a candidate is tracking how people voted? Again, would require a fair amount of technological know how- and what is the concern about what the campaign would do with the information?

I really think this is a reaction to terrified dems who are afraid that Miranda is going to win the dem caucus.

Because you are inputting your personal information (name, address, birthdate, verification codes) onto someone's personal device? That type of information regularly is used for hacking purposes. Voting in an official election, if done remotely, should at least be done on your own device, with some semblance of online privacy.

This isn't an official election. But that aside, no one is forced to use a campaign device to vote. If you want to vote on your own device, go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I borrowed a campaign worker's pen once to fill out an absentee ballot. Was that wrong too? Or only when the tool to vote has a screen?

Seriously, what is the harm you're trying to invent by claiming that there's some norm against using a campaign supplied tablet to vote in a private caucus?

Why were you near a campaign worker while you were filling out an absentee ballot? Weren't they all mailed home. So you carried it around and then didn't fill it out until you were near a campaign worker. Seems...weird.

You really need me to explain all of the reasons why it's - at best - inappropriate for candidate to provide the electronic device that is being used to vote? Disingenuous BS.

DP- I honestly have no issue whatsoever voting on a electronic device provided by a candidate. Anything that increases the vote is okay in my mind. What exactly do you think is the potential harm here? Do you think a candidate is somehow altering a vote so that it is recorded differently? That would require quite a bit of technological knowledge and also would involve a fairly vast number of people in at least potentially criminal activity. Do you think a candidate is tracking how people voted? Again, would require a fair amount of technological know how- and what is the concern about what the campaign would do with the information?

I really think this is a reaction to terrified dems who are afraid that Miranda is going to win the dem caucus.

Because you are inputting your personal information (name, address, birthdate, verification codes) onto someone's personal device? That type of information regularly is used for hacking purposes. Voting in an official election, if done remotely, should at least be done on your own device, with some semblance of online privacy.



Are you really concerned that the Turner campaign is going around committing felony computer fraud? First of all, that's already illegal. Second, if a voter is willing to take that completely miniscule risk to vote, why would you stand in the way of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I borrowed a campaign worker's pen once to fill out an absentee ballot. Was that wrong too? Or only when the tool to vote has a screen?

Seriously, what is the harm you're trying to invent by claiming that there's some norm against using a campaign supplied tablet to vote in a private caucus?

Why were you near a campaign worker while you were filling out an absentee ballot? Weren't they all mailed home. So you carried it around and then didn't fill it out until you were near a campaign worker. Seems...weird.

You really need me to explain all of the reasons why it's - at best - inappropriate for candidate to provide the electronic device that is being used to vote? Disingenuous BS.

DP- I honestly have no issue whatsoever voting on a electronic device provided by a candidate. Anything that increases the vote is okay in my mind. What exactly do you think is the potential harm here? Do you think a candidate is somehow altering a vote so that it is recorded differently? That would require quite a bit of technological knowledge and also would involve a fairly vast number of people in at least potentially criminal activity. Do you think a candidate is tracking how people voted? Again, would require a fair amount of technological know how- and what is the concern about what the campaign would do with the information?

I really think this is a reaction to terrified dems who are afraid that Miranda is going to win the dem caucus.

Because you are inputting your personal information (name, address, birthdate, verification codes) onto someone's personal device? That type of information regularly is used for hacking purposes. Voting in an official election, if done remotely, should at least be done on your own device, with some semblance of online privacy.

Name, address and birthdate are very easy to obtain from public source. Heck, if you just make up a reason any member of the public can request a copy of the registered voter list from the state to get all that information and more. No one is going to hack secure voting software to get that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not probably. Definitely.

Voted for Miranda today!

I thought Mary was a little nutty to have sent the email last week about harvesting votes. But then I saw this in Miranda's latest newsletter where she all but admits her campaign will be doing that: "Just as we wouldn't hesitate to drive a voter to the polls, we likewise will be prepared to supply internet through a hotspot and answer questions about the process, while otherwise encouraging voters to vote on their own devices".

Miranda is a one-issue candidate whose one-issue won't even be relevant by fall when schools are fully open.

Oh wow! Is that legal?

Probably technically legal, but still shady AF. Generally people have to stay a certain distance away from someone else who's casting a vote, but I doubt Miranda's team of roving vote seekers will do that. Are they planning to post up at The Lot and harangue people to vote?

My question is how did Kadera's campaign know that Turner would solicit voters on the street to vote in their presence? This seems oddly specific to complain about.

DP. I think it's entirely possible they did.

But for every person who is opposed to a campaign trying to facilitate participation in the caucus, assuming there is no vote tampering going on (and there's no evidence there is), what is your actual objection? Did you object back in November when campaigns coordinated food and water donations to people waiting in long voter lines? Do you object to campaigns sending out information to prospective voters on how to make sure they're registered and what to do if someone challenges their right to vote at the polls? Do you object to local political parties offering free rides to polls provided by volunteers to people who otherwise might not be able to get to their voting site on election day?

These are all things that Democrats do every election, and we support those efforts because it encourages people to vote and reduces barriers to participation. If either of the candidates is trying to help facilitate participation, particularly in a caucus that will effectively decide the election in an atypical year where many people may not understand how to participate, that's not a bad thing. Let's not presume malicious intent just because we prefer the other candidate.

Wow, okay, have you heard of the concept of voter intimidation? The practice of having a partisan actor influence someone as they vote is considered so toxic and so undermining to the legitimacy of elections and civil rights that it has been made criminal.

Standing next to someone as a poll watcher while they vote? A crime!
Campaigning for or against a candidate within 30-200 feet of where someone votes, depending on the state? A crime!

Is it a crime to do the things you list above? Nope nope nope nope. The corroding impact of "voter intimidation" on the legitimacy of elections is the difference. P.S. you can't always point to someone and say, "you intimidated that voter! We're going to punish you!" A voter may intend to approach a school board voting site and then look around at everyone's campaign shirts, and think, gee, I wanted to vote for the other candidate but now I'm uncomfortable, so I'm either going to walk away, or vote for someone I didn't want to vote for. That's why the criminal law doesn't care about proving that intimidation happened - instead, there are strict rules that say, no campaign signs within a certain number of feet, no poll watchers within an enclosed voting area. Etc. etc.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr-voterintimidation-v03.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given all of the apparently insecurities in this caucus process, we should be skeptical of the result no matter who wins, right? Even if it's Mary?

Are people actually out with iPads though?

If they are I think we need some sort of additional verification that the vote went through - re-email people to confirm their vote a week later. If people don't get confirmation then there may be an issue.

Have you done your caucus vote yet? In order to vote, first you have to fill out personal information that must match your vote registration to be counted. After you vote, they give you a ballot confirmation number you can use to track your ballot later. If you go back to the site to check your ballot using the confirmation number, it will show you a copy of the official ballot with who you voted for.

Given all of that, no one is going to start altering ballots because it's too easy for people to check their ballot later and confirm whether it indicates the right candidate. If it doesn't, that will get reported quickly and the result invalidated if it appears that one of the campaigns was somehow tampering.

1) You want to give random campaign worker your personal information and ballot confirmation number?

2) How do people get copy of the confirmation number from some random iPad? Are these campaign workers printing them out?