111–120 of 292 posts
The voter needs to be able to see their vote on the paper.
Reading the rolls needs to be done by machines, but by several different machines reading the same rolls. So we can verify.
Software is not the problem. The medium of persistence is.
No. Public trust demands no software or programmable hardware in the election process. • Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI > • Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs >
Crypto could be argued similarly no? But it seems to have sustained trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human tallying is a source of errors, but it typically doesn't affect the outcome in major ways. This is more of an argument against large scale winner-takes-it-all election systems, as they have the least resilience against this kind of error. The main benefit of manual tallying is that election tampering at scale becomes a rather labor-intensive and physical process that is more likely to leave detectable traces. C…
> Compare that to the the last US presidential election that has statistical oddities in machine-tallied voting results of kinds that have historically been shown to correlate with election fraud. When and where was this?
- in New York there is statistical anomaly correlated with a couple small-town polling stations. Those towns are small enough that they have a huge population of one religion, and one explanation is that the Democrat party's perceived "soft on Israel" stance tilted 100% of voters in those locations away from supporting the Democrat presidential candidate.
- in Pennsylvania a standard statistical analysis tool used to detect vote disruption suggested disruption occurred. The form of the disruption could be fraud, but it can also be things like voter intimidation (which was observed and reported in Philadelphia) and sudden discontinuity in voter behavior (the aforementioned "soft on Palestine" issue).
Correlation does not imply causation, and the lack of evidence of tampering of the machines in the audit logs is lack of evidence of tampering of the machines, not indication that the audit logs were compromised.
I've been saying it for years. We are more than capable of creating an official USA app that every American can download, test their knowledge on a topic, and vote. If X.com can implement polling, why can't the US Gov? In my opinion, they want to portray the illusion of democracy, not actually implement it.
And if all you want is political polling, every elected representative does this already (well, they generally pay someone else to do it). So I'm not sure what it would mean for the US gov to do it separately. Do you imagine that a "non-partisan agency" like the CBO would do it with taxpayer dollars, as a publi service for the politicians who would still vote however they do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, that results in worse count accuracy. Humans are actually quite bad at hand-tallying hundreds of millions of datapoints. Our eyes go glassy but we press on anyway. Machines are very good at doing that kind of tedious labor accurately. Whether human beings will put more trust in a system that we know will be wrong , but it's wrong for comfortable meat reasons, over a system that might be compromised but wi…
These system used for voting means that humans don't hand tally hundred of millions of votes. They tally those in a voting district only. Those them get aggregated with other districts and so on until the whole states and then the country is counted. The problem with the accuracy assumption of electronic voting is that a) its all coded without errors and b) someone hasn't deliberately but code into manipulate the vot…
No. Public trust demands no software or programmable hardware in the election process. • Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI > • Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs >
Brazil and India are doing fine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brazil and India are doing fine
Placed 56 and 41, respectively, on the Democracy Index.
Enjoy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
No. Public trust demands no software or programmable hardware in the election process. • Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI > • Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs >
A solid starting point, but it's easy to lose sight of the other critical part of the puzzle--integrity of the voting rolls. High quality vote tabulation needs to start from voters, where _only_ legitimate voters vote, and each only votes (at most) once, after which yes, their vote is accurately tabulated.
In fact, I'd argue that having 50 different voting systems with 50 different ways to prove eligibility makes our elections more resilient to large-scale voter fraud, even if it makes it more difficult to verify voter rolls wholesale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
User name checks out.
I mean, you left yourself open to that glib, low-effort criticism when you wrote this: > no software or programmable hardware That's obviously too stringent. Consider: 1. Precinct hand-counts every single paper ballot bubble sheet. 2. Precinct hand-counts every single paper ballot bubble sheet, then confirms the hand count by feeding all the ballots into an electronic bubble-sheet reader. Your claim is that #1 is mor…
We've been using mechanical, semi-mechanical, and electronic systems for decades at this point. The new concern for accuracy is pretty unfounded (and, it is worth noting, was heavily drum-beat into existence by a Presidential candidate who then went on to win an election).
If we want to talk problems with electronic systems, I'm a lot more concerned about how people don't actually know how to use touch screens (and I am myself in favor of pencil-and-paper ballots for that reason alone) than I am about people being able to sneak a super-double-secret modification to an electronic tabulator in against all the ways that attack could fail (including "The county can just decide to hand-count the pencil and paper ballots anyway, which would discover the deception").
Fully electronic, no-paper-output systems are past my personal trust threshold.
For those who don't know the VotingWorks software is both Open Source and their machines create and count paper ballots. You can read about it here: https://www.voting.works/machines
Essentially they have a computer, a ballot marking device, that people can use to mark their ballot. That ballot is printed on paper. Then the paper can be validated visually. Then fed into a machine to scan and count. The paper ballot is preserved and can be later audited.
The ballot marking device has a number of advantage over pre-printed and hand marked ballots:
- American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant using standard web technologies
- Available in applicable languages without lots of translated papers on hand
- Errors or typos in ballots can be fixed days before election instead of weeks (due to print shop lead times)
- Better UX for complex races where things like ranked choice, choose three, etc with rules which can cause people to mismark and then have their ballots rejected
- Avoids sloppy/incomplete markings that must be interpreted and judged by counters/auditors
The entire system runs offline. It is open source.
They also have separate open source software for running risk limiting audits using the paper ballots: https://www.voting.works/audits
Disclosure: I am a donor to VotingWorks.