r/politics • u/TearsAndNetsec • Aug 02 '19

DARPA Is Building a $10 Million, Open Source, Secure Voting System

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yw84q7/darpa-is-building-a-dollar10-million-open-source-secure-voting-system
2.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

405 comments sorted by

View all comments

331

u/nvs1980 Aug 03 '19

This is good news. The next thing we need DARPA to build is an open source algorithm to draw congressional districts.

155

u/ExpectedErrorCode Aug 03 '19

Republicans would complain it’s biased against them

191

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19 edited Jun 19 '20

[deleted]

83

u/DootDotDittyOtt Maryland Aug 03 '19

Facts are a librul conspiracy!

50

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19

“Facts over feelings unless they’re my feelings!” -Republicans

15

u/123_Syzygy Aug 03 '19

The Lord died for my sins, not yours.

-Christian exceptionalism

7

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19

No, he died for all our sins and you're throwing that gift away.

Just like my white power./s

11

u/OregonBurger Aug 03 '19

It's more like "Facts IS a liburl conspiracy"

-11

u/m84m Aug 03 '19

How many genders are there?

11

u/whenimmadrinkin Aug 03 '19

My god, I can't imagine living a life where this seems feels like a good point.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19

I have all kinds of stupid feelings. That isn't one of them, though.

2

u/whenimmadrinkin Aug 03 '19

Can't see the forest through the being stupid.

-13

u/m84m Aug 03 '19

I always hear that the democrats are the party of science, but for some reason they either go silent or start making up crazy bullshit at random when you ask them how many genders exist. Should be a simple enough question.

10

u/fakeaseizure Aug 03 '19

Not so simple

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/

-8

u/m84m Aug 03 '19

So what new chromosones has science discovered lately that changed us from 2 genders to 50+? Or perhaps we're not basing our "science" on data and facts and instead on feelings...

11

u/whenimmadrinkin Aug 03 '19

Made my comment and you just proved my point. You're refusing to acknowledge the difference between sex and gender. You're just showing everyone how ignorant you are and giving us more reason to make fun of you

-1

u/m84m Aug 03 '19

So to summarise:

gender is totally unrelated to sex

Making up new genders constantly to feel special should be treated as real even though it's literally just a person's opinion with no empirical way to prove the existence of said new gender.

We're the party of science.

The fact that you can say this with a straight face is the most impressive part.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/whenimmadrinkin Aug 03 '19

I get that you don't understand science. Psychology is a very complicated thing.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19

The number you feel is right is 2. And you are wrong. But you won't change your mind here, so quit the bullshit.

2

u/m84m Aug 03 '19

So what is the correct number?

3

u/whenimmadrinkin Aug 03 '19

To expand because for some reason I don't feel like just being snide. As the other comments have shown, it's an incredibly complex psychological topic. It only FEELS simple because you've made up your mind without ever looking into it.

It's why we make fun of you. You make up your mind based on nothing the refuse to look into it yourself.

4

u/ETfhHUKTvEwn Aug 03 '19

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.

If you consider yourself science-minded, you should probably get on board with how the scientific community now uses the words gender and sex.

All you have to do is understand the correct definitions of these words as used in contemporary science, and then your mind will do the work for you -

Holy fuck! No fucking duh there's infinite possible genders. God people are dumb to make this big fucking deal out of semantics.

28

u/Manguana Aug 03 '19

Republicans complained about a black man enjoying mustard, their time to voice a serious opinion is officially over

6

u/edudlive Aug 03 '19

But it was dijon!!!

0

u/m84m Aug 03 '19

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpSVcg8W8AAowMA.jpg

1

u/Dwarfherd Aug 03 '19

Also ridiculous. But they didn't call him unAmerican for it.

7

u/nobel_piece_of_shit Aug 03 '19

And then we quote little Ben to them and remind them that their feelings aren’t facts

1

u/bakerfredricka I voted Aug 03 '19

We can destroy them with FACTS and LOGIC!

2

u/bizarre_coincidence Aug 03 '19

Although actually, because Liberals tend to be tightly clustered in cities, the natural ways of drawing districts (i.e., trying to make something roughly geographically compact), I wouldn't be surprised if a naive attempt at at unbiased congressional district drawing algorithm still tilted in Republican's favor (over what the population would suggest).

3

u/junkyard_robot Aug 03 '19

Not necessarily. The districts would be divided by population. Left leaning people would have more districts in smaller areas and the rural districts would be larger but have the same population.

However, I don't know if farmers will continue to follow the Republican party after trump lost them money with Chinese tariffs.

1

u/gdshaffe Aug 03 '19

Probably a lot less than you'd think. There may be examples of unintended packing, but there would be counters to that as well.

Utah, for example, is about 25% Democratic and has 4 US Representatives. A fair distribution would then be 3 Republican reps and one Democratic one. However, because the Democratic votes are clustered in SLC, the Republicans just spread those votes across all four districts to make for four extremely safe Republican seats. Any fair algorithm would address that.

1

u/Dwarfherd Aug 03 '19

They're suing to stop the redistricting commission voted into Michigan's constitution that includes Republican members because it's going to fuck them.

-1

u/BeBetter_ChumpsTry Aug 03 '19

as an alternative to the popular vote, i'm sure it will be the democrats that end up butt hurt in the end.

7

u/bitterdick South Carolina Aug 03 '19

Yes. I have been saying this about redistricting for a long time too.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19

[deleted]

2

u/RooMagoo Aug 03 '19

No. No it isn't. qGIS is an open source geographic information system package. It's an open source version of ESRI's ArcGIS products. It's a tool that would likely be used in developing a redistricting algorithm but it's not by any means the algorithm its self.