Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

#91

Post by godelski »

sova wrote: post #86
jrumbut wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inefficiency is a feature, having every state and every county slightly different makes systemic fraud very difficult. All these phishing schemes that are extremely effective with IT workers and other security conscious people. I say just keep elections analog for the time being. Perhaps someday the technology will be mature, well understood, and distributed far enough to work but I don't see it happening this decade…

That's an interesting point because it effectively nullifies the argument for more nuanced voting mechanisms such as Score Voting. Since more nuanced voting would require a stronger reliance on vote tabulators. It is somewhat deflating that better voting methods must be discarded in favor of "inefficiency as a feature." I long for an upgrade to voting, but all these arguments _in favor of_ hand-counting-only make me…

> it effectively nullifies the argument for more nuanced voting mechanisms such as Score Voting.

I'm extremely confused by this statement. All the systems the parent is talking about still use plurality. Substituting in another voting method doesn't change the fact that each state works slightly differently (and really every county).

I'd also say that if this was your goal then you'd want something besides plurality. RCV/IRV would probably be good because it is highly inefficient because you have to do many different rounds whereas systems like plurality and condorcet (exception to STAR, which has 2 rounds) are single round methods.

I should mention Ireland and Australia does hand counting with IRV (Australia has had IRV for 100+ years). I don't think the hand counting is really a major factor, though I will still contend that ordinal systems are needlessly complicated when we have cardinal systems available to us (which also give higher fidelity).

Re: Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

#92

Post by Yetanfou »

godelski wrote: post #15

Everyone here is talking about paper ballots. Good, but this ignores OP's question. Most voting machines, even if they have paper trails, have some software in them. Just saying "paper ballots" doesn't address the issue. To answer OP's question, I personally have no idea but think it should be. Much of our scientific work is open sourced (e.g. codes from national labs, NASA, etc). But I think a lot of people don't un…

Paper ballots solve the most important problem: they can be counted by hand in case of disputes, without having a single computer at hand. That is the essence of the problem, that is what separates systems with voter-certified paper trails - whether those are machine-produced or the result of the voter using a writing implement or paper punch to mark a sheet of paper in some way - from systems which lack such a trail. Computers can be used to produce a quick tally but the final, legally valid count should be done by hand with observers from all parties involved in the elections, preferably by parallel counting teams from 'opposing' parties so the results can be compared.

Voting is in itself a simple process, even in the USA where the ballot can be filled with multiple options. Computers are not simple, are not transparent and are not understood by the majority of the population. They can be used for quick counts, for producing fancy graphics, for doing all sorts of statistical trickery and whatnot but they should not be relied upon to produce the final results of an election.

Re: Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

#93

Post by rdsubhas »

Voting machines (atleast in India) do not have a turing complete runtime. So there is nothing to open source.

A good way to describe it is a dumb printer. It exists to print a proper ballot for the elector who then drops it off. The machine _just so happens_ to also have a secondary counter while it prints, so it can be secondary verified for extra safety. The paper is what matters and it's still there. This is called VVPAT, Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail [1]. It has been proven over and over to give consistent recounts and restore trust in elections.

Over the course of time, after many many recounts, it becomes obvious that the machine-printed ballot and machine do not ever diverge. So it _just so happens_ that for convenience, the machine has grown to get counted first. If anyone has a doubt, they can easily go back and count the ballots which are stored forever.

Trivia: First time a Cabinet-rank senator in India lost election by 1 vote [2]. Recounts tallied down to the dot. It since happened again. Chaos still did not break out. Candidates were not fighting over who was the winner. Reason? Voting machines and verified ballots. Recounts won't change reality.

Answer to the primary OP's question: "Why not open source the software" – is the crux of the Voting machine is mainly 1950s pseudo-mechanical hardware. They are not networked. This is technology older than floppy disks. A lot of in this forum imagining "software" think in terms of C or Python, because that's the target audience here. Yo, it's not. It's not running an x86 processor.

It does not have a turing complete language to open source. If you want it, get a thrown away one. But open sourcing the "software" (if you call a few registers and a counter that) – doesn't make any sense as it doesn't give any picture.

Second – to a lot of commenters, why these machines? Single answer: Consistent recounts. With paper, it's 100% guaranteed that "No two recounts will ever be the same". It's a human process. Two humans verifying it will never come to the same conclusion. One will say the "ballot stamp was not in the right place", another will say "chad did not fall off the paper", someone else might just be tired in the night, so on and on. As a democratic society, we have had large cases of recounts that it's not even a surprise anymore. It has become the go to whining and agitation tool for every single loser of every close election. For the continued functioning of democracy, we have to put an end to this recount problem.

It's a pity that in the US where you had two really high profile elections (2000 and 2020), and you still cannot figure out how many times to recount to believe the result. Best of 3 recounts? Best of 5? Does that even improve trust?

I'll finally leave you with the summary of an excellent video on elections in India before/after voting machines. "Don't shoot the messenger" [3]. Every loser will complain and blame something. Hacking the voting process, obstructionism, who's issued voter IDs, where and how many voting centers are placed, gerrymeandering, media, pre-mature leading polls, on and on and on. All this thing about Voting machines is a classic case of shooting the messenger. The voting machine only exists to give one less reason to blame on. Don't shoot the messenger.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter-verified_paper_audit_tra...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Joshi

3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdo43a4JfYQ

Re: Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

#95

Post by [deleted] »

chrisseaton wrote: post #83
jcranmer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question here: how many races and questions do you vote on at once in the UK? This year, my ballot had about a dozen individual races (including two state referendums and an advisory question) to vote on, and this is probably about or below the US median ballot complexity each presidential election.

I'm sure you have more on your ballot than us. But can you not return a presidential result in the first few hours, and then go back in priority order?

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

#96

Post by throwaway2245 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #61
throwaway2245 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It already has an impact within the UK. St Ives constituency in the UK is generally the last to declare, presumably because the island populations are so small and remote it's considered unsafe for them to individually count and report the results for collation, for multiple potential reasons (Gugh: 3 residents)

And yet they have it done within a few hours. Why is it about the US that means it takes a week... even with these machines which supposedly make it better?

If you reject my claim that US has many-times more remote places than the UK, that need additional logistical consideration, a further reason is that the US election has no particular hurry.

If your count in the UK doesn't finish for a week, the parliamentary session opens, and you don't have local representation in parliament. There's an immediate procedural consequence that disadvantages the local area and may result in concentrated unrest.

If your count in the US doesn't finish, the relevant [Congressional] term doesn't start until January 3rd, 2021. As such, there's no immediately comparable procedural consequence.

The Electoral College doesn't cast its votes until December 14th.

The Supreme Court won't get involved, to hurry you up, until December 8th.

Correctly postmarked ballots will (in some states) still be counted if they arrive late, up to November 23rd.

Today is still November 15th. In theory, not all the votes have even arrived to be counted yet.

Re: Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

#97

Post by chrisseaton »

godelski wrote: post #84
chrisseaton wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to OP's question is... why have software at all? Why not just paper? Why do you want a 'voting machine' at all? What's wrong with paper? The solution to a problem that should not be solved with software is not to have different software.

I assume this is working under the presumption that we get rid of the voting software that already exists? This is a big part of OP's question, but I'll entertain it. You have to look at the 2000 election[0] where there was a switch to digital means. I don't have exact numbers, but I am under the impression that these machines are easier to use and are less error prone than the previous punch card methods. Your digit…

But yet again... you're talking about it relative to an alternative like punch machines... how about no machines.

Re: Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

#98

Post by brudgers »

chrisseaton wrote: post #51
throwaway2245 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

11 states including Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan have a larger land area than the UK. [Edited to add: 46 states have a lower population density than the UK, adding further logistical consideration]

I don't understand what impact you think this makes? If each community counts their votes... why does it matter how large an area they collectively cover?

The US has 21 counties that are larger than Wales. 50 counties larger than Northern Ireland. Not states, counties. And Alaska doesn’t have counties so it’s not dominating the results.

The US is vast. The political geography is different because the physical geography is different.

Re: Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

#99

Post by rdsubhas »

chrisseaton wrote: post #16
godelski wrote: post #15

Everyone here is talking about paper ballots. Good, but this ignores OP's question. Most voting machines, even if they have paper trails, have some software in them. Just saying "paper ballots" doesn't address the issue. To answer OP's question, I personally have no idea but think it should be. Much of our scientific work is open sourced (e.g. codes from national labs, NASA, etc). But I think a lot of people don't un…

The answer to OP's question is... why have software at all? Why not just paper? Why do you want a 'voting machine' at all? What's wrong with paper? The solution to a problem that should not be solved with software is not to have different software.

What's wrong with paper? Single answer: Consistent recounts. For example, the US had two really high profile, narrow elections (2000 and 2020), and they still cannot figure out how many times to recount to believe the result. Best of 3 recounts? Best of 5? Keep recounting random places random times until the person you like wins? Does that even change or improve anything?

With paper, it's 100% guaranteed that "No two recounts will ever be the same". It's a human process. Two humans verifying it will never come to the same conclusion. One will say the "ballot stamp was not in the right place", another will say "chad did not fall off the paper", someone else may just be tired in the night, so on and on. As a democratic society, we have had large cases of recounts that it's not even a surprise anymore. It has become the go to whining and agitation tool for losers.

For the continued functioning of democracy, we have to put an end to this recount problem. If a winner wins by 1 vote, it should recount to the same 1 vote difference no matter how many times you do it. If not, elections are undermined (and thus democracy).

As for the "voting machine", people in this forum are really not good for judging as they think in terms of "modern" tech software with C or Python with a running OS. Read this thread for more info [0].

A good way to describe the voting machine, is a dumb printer. It originally exists to print a proper valid ballot for the elector who then drops it off. The machine just so happens to also have a secondary counter in it while it prints, so it can be secondary verified for extra safety. The paper is what matters and it's still there. This is called VVPAT, Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail [1].

Over the course of time, after many many recounts, it becomes obvious that the machine-printed ballot and machine do not ever diverge. So it just so happens that for convenience, the machine has grown to get counted first. If anyone has a doubt, they can easily go back and verify the ballots which are stored forever. It has been proven over and over to give consistent recounts and restore trust in elections.

Trivia: First time a Cabinet-rank senator in India lost election by 1 vote [2]. Recounts tallied down to 1. It has happened again. Chaos still did not break out. Candidates were not fighting over who was the winner. Reason? Voting machines and verified ballots. Recounts won't change reality.

I'll finally leave you with the summary of an excellent video on elections in India before/after voting machines. Every loser will complain and blame something. Hacking the voting process, obstructionism, who's issued voter IDs, where and how many voting centers are placed, gerrymeandering, media, pre-mature leading polls, on and on and on. All this thing about Voting machines is a classic case of shooting the messenger. The voting machine only exists to give one less reason to blame on. Don't shoot the messenger [3].

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25106044

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter-verified_paper_audit_tra...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Joshi

3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdo43a4JfYQ

Re: Ask HN: Why Isn't Open Source Voting Software Mandated?

#100

Post by jen20 »

godelski wrote: post #87
Closi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hand counting is how we do it in the U.K. It’s not actually that hard at all, including validation, through simple physical processes (that are incredibly tried and tested!). Write the contents of the vote totals on the outside of the box containing the ballots (total must reconcile to number of ballots placed in), then total all the box totals at the end for a single constituency. Constituencies then report back. We…

There are scaling issues though. The US is 5x the size of the UK. Counting is actually pretty hard and I'm not convinced it scales linearly. I'm also not convinced results are actually back in a day, but rather good estimates are given within a day.

The overall counting process in the UK scales horizontally rather well (it's a great example of map-reduce!), and it's close to unthinkable that the results affected by any given count would not be known on the evening of an election day, even if the shape of the resulting government were not known as in 2010.

What is not reflected however is the sheer number of votes that people tend to cast in the US - often voting on dozens of different measures.

The UK process does not have this aspect - at worst there may be a Westminster, country-specific parliament and city or town council on the same election day, and they are handled via separate ballot papers.

Post reply on HN