7 ms·

It seems like generally there are two problems: 1. votes not being counted properly 2. Improper votes being cast This seems like it only addresses #1

specialist 10y ago
MD's "audit" by Clear Ballot will be neither. Reading between the lines... This will be an audit of their internal bookkeeping. Ballots received equals ballots accounted for, number of signatures verified, that sort of thing. It's worth doing. When I served as a poll inspector, we'd proof each other's work, which is normal. In my jurisdiction, final result is called the ballot summary report, which is approved by our canvassing board, which ultimately certifies the election. An audit of the actual votes cast is not practical, certainly not in just two days. This has been studied. The papers presented at the Election Verification Network conference(s) demonstrate that an audit, which is much like a recount, is expensive and does little to increase the certainty of the results. And when electronic (digital) casting and counting is involved, it's impossible. https://electionverification.org https://electionverification.org The best strategy remains the Australian Ballot (private voting, public counting), paper ballots, precinct-based counting of the votes when the polls close.
ivraatiems 10y ago
As a matter of fact, for the record, neither of these things is actually a particularly big problem in the United States.[1][2][3][4] [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-n637776 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-... [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/voter-id-laws-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/voter-id-laws-donald-tr... [4] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/17/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-large-scale-voter-f/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/...
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  Ahhh yes, the famous, main stream media said everything was fine so I went back to work argument. To be fair, most of the problems we are currently having seem to revolve around gerry mandering with potential issues arising in the future involving tampering with electronic voting. That doesn't mean voter supression, identity theft, and other forms of tampering aren't legitimate concerns though. For example, heres article from MSM that investigates people who have been dead for years are still voting: https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/amp/?client=ms-android-tmobile-us https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/2...
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    I didn't say "isn't a problem." I said "isn't a particularly big problem." In an electorate where millions of people vote every year, a few thousand votes in a non-swing state (using the example you mentioned), or even a few thousand fake votes in every state, is just not that high a rate of fraud. There is rhetoric now as though most or all voting is subject to this kind of fraud, that the fraud is massive. It just isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or shouldn't be stopped, but threats must be dealt with proportionally to the degree that they are threatening. Your reaction strikes me as disproportional.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      A small amount of fraud has the same effect as widescale fraud because it contaminates the entire process, seeding distrust.
      - ivraatiems 10y ago
        I think distrust based on a small amount of fraud is a problem of perception, not a problem with the system. That is, it's the same as fearing you'll get serious side effects with a vaccine because a very small number of people do. In both cases, the risk/reward is out of whack, but you might worry anyway.
tropo 10y ago
Improper votes being cast is the norm. Roughly half the voters will do it intentionally!
grzm 10y ago
From Ron Rivest's slides from "Auditability and Verifiability of Elections", ACM-IEEE talk March 16, 2016 Security Requirements • Only eligible voters may vote, and each eligible voter votes at most once. • Each cast vote is secret, even if voter wishes otherwise! -- No vote-selling! -- No receipt showing how you voted! • Final outcome is verifiably correct. • No "trusted parties" – all are suspect! Vendors, voters, election officials, candidates, spouses, other nation-states, ... Full slide-deck: https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf Lots of other great stuff in there, addresses each of these points.

specialist 10y ago

MD's "audit" by Clear Ballot will be neither. Reading between the lines... This will be an audit of their internal bookkeeping. Ballots received equals ballots accounted for, number of signatures verified, that sort of thing. It's worth doing. When I served as a poll inspector, we'd proof each other's work, which is normal. In my jurisdiction, final result is called the ballot summary report, which is approved by our canvassing board, which ultimately certifies the election. An audit of the actual votes cast is not practical, certainly not in just two days. This has been studied. The papers presented at the Election Verification Network conference(s) demonstrate that an audit, which is much like a recount, is expensive and does little to increase the certainty of the results. And when electronic (digital) casting and counting is involved, it's impossible. https://electionverification.org https://electionverification.org The best strategy remains the Australian Ballot (private voting, public counting), paper ballots, precinct-based counting of the votes when the polls close.

ivraatiems 10y ago

As a matter of fact, for the record, neither of these things is actually a particularly big problem in the United States.[1][2][3][4] [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-n637776 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-... [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/voter-id-laws-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/voter-id-laws-donald-tr... [4] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/17/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-large-scale-voter-f/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/...

wheelerwj 10y ago
Ahhh yes, the famous, main stream media said everything was fine so I went back to work argument. To be fair, most of the problems we are currently having seem to revolve around gerry mandering with potential issues arising in the future involving tampering with electronic voting. That doesn't mean voter supression, identity theft, and other forms of tampering aren't legitimate concerns though. For example, heres article from MSM that investigates people who have been dead for years are still voting: https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/amp/?client=ms-android-tmobile-us https://www.google.com/amp/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/2...
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  I didn't say "isn't a problem." I said "isn't a particularly big problem." In an electorate where millions of people vote every year, a few thousand votes in a non-swing state (using the example you mentioned), or even a few thousand fake votes in every state, is just not that high a rate of fraud. There is rhetoric now as though most or all voting is subject to this kind of fraud, that the fraud is massive. It just isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or shouldn't be stopped, but threats must be dealt with proportionally to the degree that they are threatening. Your reaction strikes me as disproportional.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    A small amount of fraud has the same effect as widescale fraud because it contaminates the entire process, seeding distrust.
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      I think distrust based on a small amount of fraud is a problem of perception, not a problem with the system. That is, it's the same as fearing you'll get serious side effects with a vaccine because a very small number of people do. In both cases, the risk/reward is out of whack, but you might worry anyway.

tropo 10y ago

Improper votes being cast is the norm. Roughly half the voters will do it intentionally!

grzm 10y ago

From Ron Rivest's slides from "Auditability and Verifiability of Elections", ACM-IEEE talk March 16, 2016 Security Requirements • Only eligible voters may vote, and each eligible voter votes at most once. • Each cast vote is secret, even if voter wishes otherwise! -- No vote-selling! -- No receipt showing how you voted! • Final outcome is verifiably correct. • No "trusted parties" – all are suspect! Vendors, voters, election officials, candidates, spouses, other nation-states, ... Full slide-deck: https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf Lots of other great stuff in there, addresses each of these points.