6 ms·

Electronic voting makes superior voting systems like condorcet methods possible. Paper ballots are only really best at first past the post, which is by far the

Electronic voting makes superior voting systems like condorcet methods possible. Paper ballots are only really best at first past the post, which is by far the worst system of voting.

Xylakant 10y ago
germany has no first past the post election system and elections here work perfectly fine using paper ballots. On a regional level, elections can actually get quite complicated with options to strike candidates and add multiple votes to a candidate. It's certainly more work to count those votes, but on the other hand, everybody is entitled to go check the vote count and everybody can do so with no technical knowledge needed. Any system that requires the observer to be firm in a given piece of technology is not a superior system since it removes peoples ability to exert their right to check the public vote.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I was wrong, you can implement some alternative vote systems with paper ballots (and more work for the vote counters.) I don't like those systems personally, as I mentioned in the above comment. I don't think it would be possible to implement a system I do like, like condorcet voting, without mechanically counting votes.
  - kwhitefoot 10y ago
    Mechanical counting is not the same as electronic voting.
    - VLM 10y ago
      Equally mysteriously in the definition games, optical scanned paper ballots are never considered the same as electronic voting, although its possibly the only unhackable cheap system out there, and its just as fast, if not faster. Also frankly more people are familiar with the UI of "#2 pencil and piece of paper" than any electronic UI I can think of or imagine, which is somewhat damning for cultural reasons on this site resulting in it being double plus ungood badthink to imply anything could be superior to contemporary trends in web and phone app UIs.
      - Houshalter 10y ago
        I don't think OCR is reliable or trustable enough for election software. Even the best humans and machine OCRs mistake some percent of written numbers.
        VLM 10y ago
        I was curious if we were running into a millennial vs old timer situation, I googled to verify, and the ballots I'm talking about and the OCR-ish technology used is exactly the same as ACT and SAT tests still in use. Although I read that for many years they have been planning to move online "soon" as you'd expect. "Fill in the correct bubble" was very new technology when I was a young adult, apparently its still in use. One handy thing about the ballot eater machine, as a voter, is I feed it a valid ballot and it emits a happy cartoonish beep song while eating and storing my ballot for later hand recounting, and feed it an invalid or questionable ballot and it immediately kicks it back at you with musical accompaniment indicating R2D2 is clearly not amused. The OCR contrast settings can be messed with such that anything even slightly questionable (erasures, etc) will simply not be accepted. The paper ballots being cheap and the technology being easy to understand, the poll workers simply give the voter a new ballot.
        Houshalter 10y ago
        I was thinking of ranked ballots, where you write a number based on the rank you give a candidate. If you just want to fill in bubbles that's much more reliable. But creates more complex ballots. My ideal system would have a voting machine that handles the complexity and fills in the bubbles for you. Then prints it out and let's you inspect it, and turn it in like a normal ballot.
AimHere 10y ago
Nonsense. There are plenty of fairer voting methods that can, and do, use paper ballots. STV, Additional Member systems, Party List systems. These are in use throughout the world for national elections.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  All of those would require changing the constitution and the structure of congress (basically impossible), and wouldn't work on things like presidential elections to begin with. I also have other issues with them. Like runoff voting systems drop a moderate candidate that most people would prefer in a 1 on 1 election, but isn't listed as enough people's second vote. Resulting in more extreme, less liked, candidates getting elected. It's better than FPTP, but not by much.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Electronic voting makes superior voting systems like condorcet methods possible. Paper ballots are only really best at first past the post, which is by far the worst system of voting.

Xylakant 10y ago

germany has no first past the post election system and elections here work perfectly fine using paper ballots. On a regional level, elections can actually get quite complicated with options to strike candidates and add multiple votes to a candidate. It's certainly more work to count those votes, but on the other hand, everybody is entitled to go check the vote count and everybody can do so with no technical knowledge needed. Any system that requires the observer to be firm in a given piece of technology is not a superior system since it removes peoples ability to exert their right to check the public vote.

Houshalter 10y ago
I was wrong, you can implement some alternative vote systems with paper ballots (and more work for the vote counters.) I don't like those systems personally, as I mentioned in the above comment. I don't think it would be possible to implement a system I do like, like condorcet voting, without mechanically counting votes.
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  Mechanical counting is not the same as electronic voting.
  - VLM 10y ago
    Equally mysteriously in the definition games, optical scanned paper ballots are never considered the same as electronic voting, although its possibly the only unhackable cheap system out there, and its just as fast, if not faster. Also frankly more people are familiar with the UI of "#2 pencil and piece of paper" than any electronic UI I can think of or imagine, which is somewhat damning for cultural reasons on this site resulting in it being double plus ungood badthink to imply anything could be superior to contemporary trends in web and phone app UIs.
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      I don't think OCR is reliable or trustable enough for election software. Even the best humans and machine OCRs mistake some percent of written numbers.
      - VLM 10y ago
        I was curious if we were running into a millennial vs old timer situation, I googled to verify, and the ballots I'm talking about and the OCR-ish technology used is exactly the same as ACT and SAT tests still in use. Although I read that for many years they have been planning to move online "soon" as you'd expect. "Fill in the correct bubble" was very new technology when I was a young adult, apparently its still in use. One handy thing about the ballot eater machine, as a voter, is I feed it a valid ballot and it emits a happy cartoonish beep song while eating and storing my ballot for later hand recounting, and feed it an invalid or questionable ballot and it immediately kicks it back at you with musical accompaniment indicating R2D2 is clearly not amused. The OCR contrast settings can be messed with such that anything even slightly questionable (erasures, etc) will simply not be accepted. The paper ballots being cheap and the technology being easy to understand, the poll workers simply give the voter a new ballot.
        Houshalter 10y ago
        I was thinking of ranked ballots, where you write a number based on the rank you give a candidate. If you just want to fill in bubbles that's much more reliable. But creates more complex ballots. My ideal system would have a voting machine that handles the complexity and fills in the bubbles for you. Then prints it out and let's you inspect it, and turn it in like a normal ballot.

AimHere 10y ago

Nonsense. There are plenty of fairer voting methods that can, and do, use paper ballots. STV, Additional Member systems, Party List systems. These are in use throughout the world for national elections.

Houshalter 10y ago
All of those would require changing the constitution and the structure of congress (basically impossible), and wouldn't work on things like presidential elections to begin with. I also have other issues with them. Like runoff voting systems drop a moderate candidate that most people would prefer in a 1 on 1 election, but isn't listed as enough people's second vote. Resulting in more extreme, less liked, candidates getting elected. It's better than FPTP, but not by much.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]