4 ms·

Because we're becoming lazier with each passing day? I do think we need paper -- a "hard copy" -- at some level, whether for the ballot itself or just a verifi

Because we're becoming lazier with each passing day? I do think we need paper -- a "hard copy" -- at some level, whether for the ballot itself or just a verifiable audit trail. I think 100% electronic voting would be fine so long as there's an audit trail that matches the (electronically) talkied results perfectly. I don't think dealing with millions of paper ballots would be any more advantageous than that -- you'd have to distribute and collect them (although that would happen at the centralized polling places), a few people would have to hand tally them (to ensure everyone's numbers match up), and then securely store them (via very strict "physical security" procedures/protocols) until, at some later point, they can be properly destroyed. Logistically, electronic voting with a paper audit trail would be much easier, would require fewer people (i.e., election workers -- who are already in short supply), would give us results much quicker, and would be easier to verify/authenticate later (in the event of disputes).

umanwizard 9y ago
Yeah sure there are some rube goldberg schemes you can concoct like printing a hard copy or whatever, where electronic voting might be secure. But... why? What is the point of adding all this complexity? What problem is electronic voting solving?
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  Sorry, after posting my comment, I went back and elaborated a bit and just so happened to address the questions you asked in the meantime.
  - umanwizard 9y ago
    > Logistically, electronic voting with a paper audit trail would be much easier, Putting a piece of paper in a box is something everyone understands how to do, even elderly people who have never touched a computer -- how is electronic voting easier? > would require fewer people (i.e., election workers -- who are already in short supply) They are? I can't believe it would be more expensive to hire a few more election workers for one day than we're paying for these machines. > would give us results much quicker, France uses paper ballots and results are known within hours. > and would be easier to verify/authenticate later (in the event of disputes). This is not realistic. We are never going to go back and change an election result whether or not records of the votes were saved. Cf. Florida 2000.
    - stenius 9y ago
      Even with electric voting, there are 2 witnesses who's duties are to just watch the election IIRC. FYI: I've done this before and got paid about $10 an hour to do it several years ago while I was in college. Part of the witness duties should be making sure the votes for that polling location are counted accurately and there is no way to do that with electric voting systems. It's just a black box you have to trust.
- hdctambien 9y ago
  Hanging Chads. See: the year 2000.
  - umanwizard 9y ago
    Hanging chads were a problem because we tried to use machine-readable ballots. That's the whole point. Here's a better system: you go into the voting booth. They have some envelopes and stacks of preprinted ballots, each with one candidate's name. You take a ballot for the candidate you want, and put it in the envelope. Then you come out of the booth and drop the sealed envelope in a box. After polls close, they open the box and all the envelopes, and count the ballots, in the open. Anyone can go watch. If an envelope is empty or has more than one ballot inside, the vote doesn't count.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Here's a better system: you go into the voting booth. They have some envelopes and stacks of preprinted ballots, each with one candidate's name. You take a ballot for the candidate you want, and put it in the envelope. Then you come out of the booth and drop the sealed envelope in a box. Works well for elections with one race; those with a dozen offices being elected and an equal number of ballot measures make that... impractical.
      - fabian2k 9y ago
        This is the system used in Germany, all votes are hand-counted. And it's also used for very complicated local elections that allow very fine-grained votes for individual candidates. In extreme cases you get huge ballots with this system, see e.g. (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/frankfurter-wahlzettel-0-876-quadratmeter-14078541/gross-wie-nie-der-frankfurter-14079556.html http://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/frankfurter-wahlzettel...) for Frankfurt with a ~0.9 square meter ballot. Counting by hand still works even for those over-complicated ballots.
        thanksgiving 9y ago

umanwizard 9y ago

Yeah sure there are some rube goldberg schemes you can concoct like printing a hard copy or whatever, where electronic voting might be secure. But... why? What is the point of adding all this complexity? What problem is electronic voting solving?

jlgaddis 9y ago
Sorry, after posting my comment, I went back and elaborated a bit and just so happened to address the questions you asked in the meantime.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  > Logistically, electronic voting with a paper audit trail would be much easier, Putting a piece of paper in a box is something everyone understands how to do, even elderly people who have never touched a computer -- how is electronic voting easier? > would require fewer people (i.e., election workers -- who are already in short supply) They are? I can't believe it would be more expensive to hire a few more election workers for one day than we're paying for these machines. > would give us results much quicker, France uses paper ballots and results are known within hours. > and would be easier to verify/authenticate later (in the event of disputes). This is not realistic. We are never going to go back and change an election result whether or not records of the votes were saved. Cf. Florida 2000.
  - stenius 9y ago
    Even with electric voting, there are 2 witnesses who's duties are to just watch the election IIRC. FYI: I've done this before and got paid about $10 an hour to do it several years ago while I was in college. Part of the witness duties should be making sure the votes for that polling location are counted accurately and there is no way to do that with electric voting systems. It's just a black box you have to trust.
hdctambien 9y ago
Hanging Chads. See: the year 2000.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  Hanging chads were a problem because we tried to use machine-readable ballots. That's the whole point. Here's a better system: you go into the voting booth. They have some envelopes and stacks of preprinted ballots, each with one candidate's name. You take a ballot for the candidate you want, and put it in the envelope. Then you come out of the booth and drop the sealed envelope in a box. After polls close, they open the box and all the envelopes, and count the ballots, in the open. Anyone can go watch. If an envelope is empty or has more than one ballot inside, the vote doesn't count.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Here's a better system: you go into the voting booth. They have some envelopes and stacks of preprinted ballots, each with one candidate's name. You take a ballot for the candidate you want, and put it in the envelope. Then you come out of the booth and drop the sealed envelope in a box. Works well for elections with one race; those with a dozen offices being elected and an equal number of ballot measures make that... impractical.
    - fabian2k 9y ago
      This is the system used in Germany, all votes are hand-counted. And it's also used for very complicated local elections that allow very fine-grained votes for individual candidates. In extreme cases you get huge ballots with this system, see e.g. (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/frankfurter-wahlzettel-0-876-quadratmeter-14078541/gross-wie-nie-der-frankfurter-14079556.html http://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/frankfurter-wahlzettel...) for Frankfurt with a ~0.9 square meter ballot. Counting by hand still works even for those over-complicated ballots.
      - thanksgiving 9y ago