Why I'd fly with computers, but never have them control elections.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg recently claimed that if one trusts computers to help fly a plane, then computers in elections should be no problem either....

The Mayor must have been flying higher than 30,000 feet when he made that comment.

In order for planes to be like elections, there would have to be only a single General Election Flight every four years (for Presidential flights), and around a billion dollars spent to publicize the idea that this flight would determine political control of the world’s richest and most powerful country.

A good part of the billion dollar media campaign leading up to this November 2 flight would implicitly emphasize the content of the following large sign that would be placed on the November 2 Presidential election aircraft:

“REWARD: If you can alter the computers on this aircraft, you will win a secret reward of consisting of money, power, and/or pleasure in seeing your political enemies surely defeated.”

Now would you fly in this November 2 aircraft, controlled by computers? The incentives to mess with the computers in elections are enormously higher than the incentives with airplane computers (consisting of the rare attempt to murder someone via a plane crash).

Furthermore, in order to make planes just like elections for the Presidency , the planes flying around would have to have widely distributed fine print, stating as follows:

ATTENTION: This presidential plane will by flying on one day, and one day only, and that date will be November 2. The plane will be operated by a government-owned computer whose specifications are known, but whose software is leased from a private company identified partially in the fine print. The plane will be parked in various hangars until November, mostly guarded but sometimes unguarded, but the guards are never armed. Immediately prior to the plane taking flight, we will allow all interested persons to operate a terminal that will connect to the plane’s computer for 3-10 minutes per person. We’re not saying, and have never said, that this plane’s computer is a Fort Knox of security, but we won’t have it on a network while we fly. On the other hand, due to exigencies of time and resources meaning that we can only finalize the commands for this plane’s computer 2 weeks or so prior to the November 2 flight, we will only be able to test whether this computer can fly the plane 2 miles, but the November 2 flight will be across the United States, from coast to coast. We hereby irrevocably promise that anyone that can succeed in disrupting, changing or crashing this computer’s operation during flight will (1) not be charged with any crime, because there will be insufficient evidence, and (2) will be rewarded with a combination of money, political power and satisfaction from seeing your political enemies defeated. You need not attempt to disrupt the computer during your 3-10 minutes at the terminal, but may do so at any time. NOTE: THE GOVERNMENTAL OWNERS, MANAGERS, EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS OF THIS PLANE ARE FULLY ENTITLED TO COLLECT AND BENEFIT FROM THIS REWARD AS WELL AND ARE NOT AT ALL EXCLUDED FROM COLLECTING THIS REWARD AS WELL, OR WORKING WITH THOSE WHO WISH TO.

Now, would you fly in this plane on November 2? If not, do you think should election computers really be allowed to fly in our democracy?

I totally agree. The logical fallacies of their propaganda are incredible.

A computer flying a plane is verifiable.

If the plane crashes enroute, or arrives at a different destination, EVERYBODY KNOWS!

If an election is hi-jacked, how would we know?

while the thing about elections is the conflict of interest the government itself has in administering them, such that checks and balances are removed from the system the moment electronic voting machines are purchased (no witnesses, no meaningful recounts, no appeals to the canvassing board on voter intent issues).

--it is tested millions and millions of times in the real world. That applies to the phone system, ATMS, and planes. It most assuredly does not apply to voting machines. If planes only flew on one day a year for a few hours, and at no other time, they would completely suck.

they don't trust computers, that's why there is a pilot and a navigator as well as an entire crew of humans to make flying happen..
not to mention the air traffic controllers...

humans are everywhere in flying...

why then do they want to remove the human from elections?


OH, I know why, cause that is the easiest way to rig....

But in a modern jetliner the pilot only has a virtual connection to flight control surfaces. They are fly by wire-- Boeing 777 & the newer airbus--IIRC. I know a pilot (continental) he says that no real pilot wants to let the plane fly itself, its a matter of pride.

And then I am reminded of the burning UPS 747 that came into Newark airport (NJ) about 4-5 years ago. The pilot radioed he had a burning engine--very calmly ---he approached and set the plane down, with the wing engulfed in flames.
Do ya think a computer can be programmed for every eventuality?

Sorry Iam very off topic

I don't know anyone who trusts a computer to fly a plane. We trust pilots. Computers may help fly a plane just as they may help in an election, but they shouldn't be the driving force.

The people who make the computers that fly planes really want them to work.

The people behind the writing of the secret software programs that count our votes also want them to work, but not necessarily in the way that the voters who use those machines intend.