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

111–120 of 134 posts

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

#111

Post by sova »

godelski wrote: post #91
sova wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

IRV with hand-counting sounds nigh impossible, I have a hard time imagining how it is done. Are the multiple rounds done as multiple hand-counts?

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

#112

Post by rsynnott »

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.

EU parliamentary elections are largely on paper; the EU has 100 million people more than the US.

US elections are also operated entirely regionally; the largest US election is that in California, which is smaller than the UK.

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

#113

Post by rsynnott »

rdsubhas wrote: post #99
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.

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…

> For example, the US had two really high profile, narrow elections (2000 and 2020)

Three, surely, by that metric? 2016 was closer than 2020.

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

#114

Post by rdsubhas »

godelski wrote: post #110
rdsubhas wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for correcting the link [1]. And yes, the voting machines have evolved to deal with that as well. Now, the printed paper is clearly displayed, the citizen looks at it and then they press OK if it's fine, and it falls straight into the ballot box. A bit easier :) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter-verified_paper_audit_tra... 2: https://youtu.be/DqcZZ-QrNgc?t=198

[1] gets cut off because the length. Not sure if it is worth notifying @dang about though. As long as people know "tra" -> "trail" [2] That is an interesting solution but I don't think solves the problem. How does the voter know that their receipt matches the one in the bottom compartment? I can's speak Hindi so maybe they verbally addressed this issue but it wasn't apparent from the visuals alone.

2: Umm, wouldn't that be equivalent to the same trust voters place when dropping a ballot inside a ballot box? Is that specific to the voting machine or broader?

I'm not sure myself, just asking. I don't know the sound or experience of dropping ballots into a box, since (for good or bad) paper ballots were already extinct when I started to vote...

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

#116

Post by godelski »

rdsubhas wrote: post #114
godelski wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[1] gets cut off because the length. Not sure if it is worth notifying @dang about though. As long as people know "tra" -> "trail" [2] That is an interesting solution but I don't think solves the problem. How does the voter know that their receipt matches the one in the bottom compartment? I can's speak Hindi so maybe they verbally addressed this issue but it wasn't apparent from the visuals alone.

2: Umm, wouldn't that be equivalent to the same trust voters place when dropping a ballot inside a ballot box? Is that specific to the voting machine or broader? I'm not sure myself, just asking. I don't know the sound or experience of dropping ballots into a box, since (for good or bad) paper ballots were already extinct when I started to vote...

I think there is a difference. In the dropbox case I have to trust those that are counting. I don't think we can get away from this trust level. In the hidden/automatic dropbox I have to trust the counters and the machine. I can't verify that the machine prints the same thing for me and the dropbox. Without that verification it, to me, undermines the entire point of a receipt in the first place. Maybe you see something I don't? I'm certainty not an expert so I'm open to me misunderstanding something and don't take my word as expertise either haha.

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

#117

Post by naniwaduni »

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…

Use approval voting, which captures all the advantages of score voting at scale anyway and is dead simple to count.

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

#118

Post by godelski »

sova wrote: post #111
godelski wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

IRV with hand-counting sounds nigh impossible, I have a hard time imagining how it is done. Are the multiple rounds done as multiple hand-counts?

I remember seeing a video where they were showing the counting on an election night, but that was awhile ago. I looked for it again but the current situation is muddying the search results. But I can try to remember. What I remember is that it was a pretty messy process and they were marking ballots (I think with stickers to keep the ballots immutable). But yeah, generally it is chaotic. But clearly it was done because Australia didn't have computers in the early 1900's. At least to the best of my knowledge.

As for part more information Clay (who might be in this thread somewhere?) put out a pretty good video on voting methods and towards the end he shows a sample of an Oakland Mayoral result that used IRV[0] (around 15:20). It isn't too useful in isolation but I do encourage watching the whole thing because it is from someone who is a HN member and an expert on voting.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyBm_Hcu4DI

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

#119

Post by rdsubhas »

godelski wrote: post #116
rdsubhas wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2: Umm, wouldn't that be equivalent to the same trust voters place when dropping a ballot inside a ballot box? Is that specific to the voting machine or broader? I'm not sure myself, just asking. I don't know the sound or experience of dropping ballots into a box, since (for good or bad) paper ballots were already extinct when I started to vote...

I think there is a difference. In the dropbox case I have to trust those that are counting. I don't think we can get away from this trust level. In the hidden/automatic dropbox I have to trust the counters and the machine. I can't verify that the machine prints the same thing for me and the dropbox. Without that verification it, to me, undermines the entire point of a receipt in the first place. Maybe you see somethi…

:) maybe it's being part of the evolution. Once society is used to the presence of a machine, sees 5 years of trustworthy elections and recounts, and starts trusting it – then maybe the society moves on to the next stage, and opens up to seeing the machine and ballot as a small optimization. It took India 1 or 2 elections to get there.

Before the first step happens, expecting the next steps would be premature I guess.

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

#120

Post by godelski »

rdsubhas wrote: post #119
godelski wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a difference. In the dropbox case I have to trust those that are counting. I don't think we can get away from this trust level. In the hidden/automatic dropbox I have to trust the counters and the machine. I can't verify that the machine prints the same thing for me and the dropbox. Without that verification it, to me, undermines the entire point of a receipt in the first place. Maybe you see somethi…

:) maybe it's being part of the evolution. Once society is used to the presence of a machine, sees 5 years of trustworthy elections and recounts, and starts trusting it – then maybe the society moves on to the next stage, and opens up to seeing the machine and ballot as a small optimization. It took India 1 or 2 elections to get there. Before the first step happens, expecting the next steps would be premature I guess…

I think this ignores that the reasoning for this is not because faulty programmers, but worry about hacking. It is more that I am worried that the machine was hacked and that it prints something different. Elections are high value targets and last I checked nothing was unhackable. Quite the opposite actually.
Post reply on HN