Lost Bits of Democracy

[MCWebsite.Staff]

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
** This thread discusses the Content article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
0

[Guest.Visitor]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
Why would it be so difficult to make electronic voting controlable, reproducable, without loss of data in case of problems - unless it's programmed this way on purpose? In Belgium we vote electronicly for many years. The votingmachines simply put the vote on an electronic strip on a card. This card is put in an electronic, just as a paper vote would be put in a voting box. The electronic voting box that works as a counter, so it just eliminates the manual counting afterwards. In case of problems, the voting cards simply have to be put again in the voting box in the presence of the voting-witnesses. Only problem is if the voting box should pass a huge magnet. Same problem as paper votes could be distroyed by poring ink or an agressive agent inside a votingpaper before it's put in the voting box. Only The magnet-scenario would be much less probable since all the witnesses should see it. Before the start of opening of the election bureau, verifier cards are used the control the apropriate working of the cards. Not any democratic country would accept a 'non-reproducable', 'non-verifiable' system to decide on the leadership of the country.

[tfox1213]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
I happened to be present when one of those "miscast" votes occurred. This voter insisted on being allowed another vote because she had not completed the ballot, of course she was denied. I would be more incline to label the majority of the voting issues in this election as "user error" than vote tampering. The major problem here was assuming that the voting public had enough computer savvy to follow the directions and manipulate the machine to arrive at the desired outcome. I'm not saying that the new system was difficult, for someone who has been in the computer industry for 25 years, it was a breeze. But I noticed a number of people that appeared to be confused and (for lack of a better word) overwhelmed buy the new voting system. My mother is 82 and had I not helped her with the machine, she most likely would have cast her vote for the wrong candidate. The truth is, she wouldn't have voted had I not taken her because she was so intimidated by the new system. I agree that there needs to be a verify process (checks and balances is a good thing) but I don't think going back to paper and pencil is the answer. Besides, cheaters cheat, it's what they do. Vote tampering has, is and will always be a problem, the method not withstanding. I would like to see an internet voting option, here again it needs to be verifiable and allow each VALID voter only one vote.

[Guest.Visitor]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
You know how the networks try to beat each other in forecasting the winner based on exit polls, etc. Okay, admittedly they have backed off being as aggressive as they were after the 2000 fiasco. Anyway, I remember reading a science fiction short story years and years ago (we're talking 2 to 3 decades here) about how the election process had become so predictable that they could now determine the winner based on 1 vote! Therefore only one person voted. That would sure make things easier!

[Guest.Visitor]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
What I would like to see is a system where - 1. Registered voters get an authentication code valid for one ballot 2. A voting machine that produces a physical "completed ballot" (either an electronic key card or encoded paper sheet) 3. A verifier that reads the "completed ballot" and asks the user to confirm that it is correct, if OK enter the authentication code and insert the physical ballot into the counter. Ballot is physically rejected if authentication code is not correct. If NOT okay destroy or reset the physical ballot and let the voter try again. This allows one vote per voter (Authentication code is invalid after use), provides a means for someone to correct a ballot error, makes recounts possible and, if authentication code is recorded with ballot would allow voters to check that their vote was counted correctly in the event of disputes over accuracy (assuming a list of ballots was published for public review).

[J.Klebanoff]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
tfox1213 said:

I agree that there needs to be a verify process (checks and balances is a good thing) but I don't think going back to paper and pencil is the answer. Besides, cheaters cheat, it's what they do. Vote tampering has, is and will always be a problem, the method not withstanding.

"Cheating" ... "vote tampering" ... those are strong words. In my article I never suggested those things were happening. I might be naive, but I think that, by and large, the voting system in America is honest and above board. But, that doesn't mean that there can't be unintentional (NO, there is no "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" in my use of the word "unintentional", I really mean unintentional) mistakes that in close elections may affect the outcome. It is for that reason that I think there needs to be some form of verifiable, reliable backup in case there is any dispute about the result.

I don't think going back to paper and pencil is the answer.

In Canadian federal and provincial elections we vote for a single position -- our member of parliament/member of the legislature. There are no ballot initiatives or other positions to vote for. We just put a single "X" on a piece of paper next to the name of the candidate of our choice. In these cases, a paper ballot is easy to count. Each polling place has a limited number of possible votes to be counted and electronic vote counting would be more of a solution in search of a problem. In more complex elections, such as our municipal elections and your elections down in the States, I agree that some electronic form of vote counting makes a lot of sense. But, my point is that if all you have is electrons, there is no way to resolve a dispute or fix an error. Mark sense paper ballots (we use them in our municipal elections) are one solution. Another, which I understand is in use in some jurisdictions, is to have the voting machine spit out a paper receipt that the voter can verify and deposit in a sealed box that can be opened and the paper votes counted if there is a problem with the system or a dispute about the result.

[J.Klebanoff]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
secor1 said:

Anyway, I remember reading a science fiction short story years and years ago (we're talking 2 to 3 decades here) about how the election process had become so predictable that they could now determine the winner based on 1 vote! Therefore only one person voted.

And, with only one person voting we wouldn't need voting machines. Even government officials can count up to one. Sounds like a heck of an idea to me. Although, I don't think you would be able to find an honest statistician who would agree that one is a statistically significant sample size no matter how predictable the population universe had become.

[J.Klebanoff]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
That sounds like a good system, but I would still like to see a paper record. What if the voting machine records a vote for Candidate "X" as code "1011", but the vote counting machine counts that as a vote for Candidate "Y"? I don't carry around a magnetic stripe reader in my pocket to check how my vote has been recorded, nor do I know what string of bits the election bureau has assigned to a vote for my chosen candidate. The verifier cards should pick up those sorts of errors. Then again, in my days as a programmer I worked on enough "thoroughly" tested systems that ended up crashing. The experience made me skeptical about claims of thorough testing. Say that pre-election and exit polls suggest that Candidate "X" should win by a landslide, but the results show candidate "Y" winning by a landslide. Election officials would likely then think that it would be a good idea to check the vote just to make sure that it really was the polls that were way of. In the case of the type of error that I described above, if you run the vote cards through the machines again, they will still produce the same result. I would like the machine to print out a record that clearly says which candidate I voted for. That piece of paper can be placed in a sealed box so that it is available for a recount, which would be necessary only if there is a significant dispute about the result. I know that manual recounts take a long time and consume a lot of labor, but I think that protecting the sanctity of democracy is worth it.

[David Abramowitz]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
Joel Klebanoff wrote: When I was a programmer, back at the dawn of time, we used to put in error-checking code. They probably didn't have Windows back then. Dave

[J.Klebanoff]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
Dave said:

They probably didn't have Windows back then.

You're right we didn't have Windows back then, unless we manually drew the windows on our punched cards. But that hardly seemed worth it.

[Guest.Visitor]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
As long as I'm the one vote I'll go for that! chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "secor1" wrote in message news:6b19ee31.2@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > You know how the networks try to beat each other in forecasting the winner based on exit polls, etc. Okay, admittedly they have backed off being as aggressive as they were after the 2000 fiasco. > > Anyway, I remember reading a science fiction short story years and years ago (we're talking 2 to 3 decades here) about how the election process had become so predictable that they could now determine the winner based on 1 vote! Therefore only one person voted. That would sure make things easier!

[Guest.Visitor]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
Joel, I absolutely agree with you about getting voting 'receipts' and having a verifiable paper trail with our balloting. Our county installed those touch screen mystery machines 4 years ago. You get a chance to review your vote as many times as you need to, but in the end, you get a message back telling you your votes have been recorded - without anyway to verify that it actually did so correctly or for that matter that the electricity doesn't get knocked out after you leave the voting place wiping out yours and everyone elses votes. I guess I'm old fashioned and still prefer verification over trust. I disagree with you on who would be the best leader for this country - but would gladly let you guys have Massachusetts in trade for British Columbia and the Yukon Territories. In fact I'd throw in Vermont and Rhode Island in on the deal.

[J.Klebanoff]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
jsniessen said:

but would gladly let you guys have Massachusetts in trade for British Columbia and the Yukon Territories. In fact I'd throw in Vermont and Rhode Island in on the deal.

I'm particularly fond of British Columbia. Would you take Alberta instead? They are our most conservative province and probably object to being lumped in with liberal Canada anyway. How about if, in addition to Alberta, I throw in a maritime province to be named later?

[J.Klebanoff]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
I said:

Would you take Alberta instead?

On second thought, Alberta has a lot of oil and gas. Would you take Saskatchewan instead? It's right next door to Alberta, has a little gas and lots of wheat.

[David Abramowitz]

Lost Bits of Democracy

** This thread discusses the article: Lost Bits of Democracy **
jsniessen wrote: but would gladly let you guys have Massachusetts in trade for British Columbia and the Yukon Territories. In fact I'd throw in Vermont and Rhode Island in on the deal. You are getting very liberal with a good portion of the U.S. population. Dave