5 ms·

In the UK I walk into my local primary school/church/community hall (no more than a 5-10 min walk away), utter my name and address as identification (no other I

In the UK I walk into my local primary school/church/community hall (no more than a 5-10 min walk away), utter my name and address as identification (no other ID needed), and use a pencil to write a big 'X' against my preferences on a piece of paper I was handed when I entered the polling station. There are multiple local party volunteers (I was one in the last election) from all the major parties at all stages of the process watching the flow of paper ballots from the sealed black collection bins to the voting halls where local council officals that volunteered, with paltry compensation, to a 12-18 hour shift to collect and count the vote. Some local councils take pride in being amoung the first to report their results, and there is a side competition to see who reports first. We usually know the broad outcome of the election by the early hours of the next morning, with a handful of recounts in tight races going into the next couple of days.

ezoe 9y ago
In the Japan I walk into my local school/community hall(on rare occasion, the church was used, no more than a 5-10 min walk away), present the voting announcement paper the govt send it to my physical address, and use a pencil to write a name of a candidates on a piece of paper I was exchanged it with my voting announcement paper. In the Japanese writing system, candidate's name can be written in multiple ways. If writing doesn't match one of the exact registered candidates names, the human vote counter decides if it refer to the unambiguous candidate. If such candidate exists, it is counted to the voting for that candidate. > There are multiple local party volunteers ... Same.
- rangibaby 9y ago
  So that's why candidate names are always written in hiragana on their posters!
- umanwizard 9y ago
  How do people vote who don't know how to read/write? Japan's literacy rate is very high, but it's not 100%.
yomly 9y ago
What's your point? That it's easily socially engineered? That it is archaic, inefficient and a waste of human time?
- gambiting 9y ago
  I'd say the point is that paper voting is extremely easy to organise, but also, most importantly, extremely easy to check and verify - you just count the votes again. With electronic machines you can't really do that, you can inspect logs but any of them can be fabricated incredibly easily.
- joosters 9y ago
  How is it a waste of time? We don't hold elections that often, nor do we need their results instantly. Voting with a pencil takes about as long as voting on a touchscreen. So why is there this stupid urge to optimise?
  - skywhopper 9y ago
    I would say voting with a pencil takes far less time for the voters. Electronic voting machines are inevitably going to be confusing to some people because they are built on asumptions about user interface that not everyone shares. But pretty much everyone who votes has a good intuition about how paper and pencil works.
- skywhopper 9y ago
  Efficiency is not and should not be the primary concern in a democratic vote. Rather, accuracy and verifiability are far more important. Very little human time is wasted on paper-based elections, but even if it took a relatively large amount of human time to implement an accurate, verifiable voting system, it would be well worth it.
  - gameshot911 9y ago
    Is not accuracy inherent in efficiency? A system that is efficient but not accurate isn't efficient at all.
skywhopper 9y ago
I think the key factor in the superiority of paper balloting systems over electronic is exactly what you describe: the process is understandable, visible, and verifiable to human observers. Electronic voting does not meet this standard in any way. Would that more people in the US understood the difference.
yeukhon 9y ago
So why not have both? A receipt and eletronic? They should both matched.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  Because you can't verify that both were recorded the same way. And even if you fully count both records, what happens when there is a discrepancy?
  - yeukhon 9y ago
    I am not familiar, but why not? Don't we only care about the authenticity of the vote (is the castor a citizen or not), and the votes. Computer and hand count does its own thing, and in the end the numbers should agree.
    - Klathmon 9y ago
      Because once there is a layer of "electronic" between you and the vote, there are millions of things that can be done to falsify one side or the other. 4% of the time it prints a different paper receipt, it just makes the electronic numbers go in someone's favor by a few percent in a couple choice districts. Or it uses crafty UX to make people vote for people or things they normally wouldn't. And what if the numbers don't agree? Are you just going to pick one side? Are you going to hold a re-election? Will the re-election have the same turnout? Will people not go because their side won by a landslide before? Will some people change their mind because the media is reporting that side "X" is behind the discrepancy? Or will it just give side "Y" the few extra weeks they needed to campaign and win?
      - yeukhon 9y ago
        I can understand the risk of having a layer, and I do agree paper ballot does give better transparency. Here is the proposal: Cast the ballot on paper. Every ballot has unique counterfeit patterns (totally randomized). The ballot is scanned and send to server, with both the scan of the ballot and the eletronic reading. Voter should be asked to verify (but we know half don't do it). The paper ballot is casted the same way as it has always been. We can also read the paper ballot one more time if we have to during the first round of counting. You can't have a fraud unless you cab mainpluate both paper and eletronic. Either both come to same number or they don't. I am just not familiar with how we verify eligibility tbh. When we count paper ballot, we scan for the counterfeit. If the final number has mismatched, we either have a miscount or an error. Paper ballot will alwsys get recount when there is dispute. Have we had a re-election in the entire American history, or at least in the past 30 years? Regardless, paper ballot fraud can lead to reelection so regardless of what proposal we will face re-election if we have to, but we normally don't. This seems like over engineering, but we have to take into account people living abroad almost always now rely on eletronic voting if EV is offered.
aoe023ntmeo 9y ago
> utter my name and address as identification (no other ID needed), How do they know that you actually cast the vote for you? Say my 5 best friends all tell me, "Nah, I'm not gonna vote. My vote doesn't count anyway." I then go to each of their districts, claim to be them by giving their name and address, and vote how I want. What's to stop that from happening?
- a_humean 9y ago
  Honestly not much, but voter fraud is unheard of in the UK and the UK doesn't have a universal ID card. There is no legal requirement for a UK citizen to carry or have any form of official ID. Its just very impractical when trying to access some public and private services, but its not uncommon for poorer people to lack forms of ID. There isn't a mainstream racist/classist attempt to disenfranchise poor people in the UK by using imaginary voter fraud as justification (there are some accusations with regards to disenfranchising university students and young people that move around a lot, but that's an issue of ease of registration). Also you need to consider: 1) Those kinds of people are probably not registered to vote. Voter registration is not automatic in the UK. It takes 5 minutes with an online form, but some people are just that disengaged. 2) The 'wards' in which you vote are often quite small and in close proximity, so it might be a little hard to figure out which polling place your friends are registered at if you haven't received their polling notification card. You can get this information, but its a small barrier. 3) The 'wards' have an average population of a few thousand, so there is a risk that an official might recognise you as trying to double vote, but I can't imagine how they might confront if they aren't 100% personally certain. None of those are strong guarantees. If evidence of wide spread fraud were to come to light, party policy ID requirements might change, but to date no party is seriously considering introducing them. Past governments have repeatedly tried to introduce a universal ID that could be used in part for voting ID, but each attempt has ended in failure due to public backlash over civil liberties concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006
  - a_humean 9y ago
    Recent report from the electoral commission on potential and actual voter fraud in the UK with recommendations for better identify checks in the future: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/164609/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil...

ezoe 9y ago

In the Japan I walk into my local school/community hall(on rare occasion, the church was used, no more than a 5-10 min walk away), present the voting announcement paper the govt send it to my physical address, and use a pencil to write a name of a candidates on a piece of paper I was exchanged it with my voting announcement paper. In the Japanese writing system, candidate's name can be written in multiple ways. If writing doesn't match one of the exact registered candidates names, the human vote counter decides if it refer to the unambiguous candidate. If such candidate exists, it is counted to the voting for that candidate. > There are multiple local party volunteers ... Same.

rangibaby 9y ago
So that's why candidate names are always written in hiragana on their posters!
umanwizard 9y ago
How do people vote who don't know how to read/write? Japan's literacy rate is very high, but it's not 100%.

yomly 9y ago

What's your point? That it's easily socially engineered? That it is archaic, inefficient and a waste of human time?

gambiting 9y ago
I'd say the point is that paper voting is extremely easy to organise, but also, most importantly, extremely easy to check and verify - you just count the votes again. With electronic machines you can't really do that, you can inspect logs but any of them can be fabricated incredibly easily.
joosters 9y ago
How is it a waste of time? We don't hold elections that often, nor do we need their results instantly. Voting with a pencil takes about as long as voting on a touchscreen. So why is there this stupid urge to optimise?
- skywhopper 9y ago
  I would say voting with a pencil takes far less time for the voters. Electronic voting machines are inevitably going to be confusing to some people because they are built on asumptions about user interface that not everyone shares. But pretty much everyone who votes has a good intuition about how paper and pencil works.
skywhopper 9y ago
Efficiency is not and should not be the primary concern in a democratic vote. Rather, accuracy and verifiability are far more important. Very little human time is wasted on paper-based elections, but even if it took a relatively large amount of human time to implement an accurate, verifiable voting system, it would be well worth it.
- gameshot911 9y ago
  Is not accuracy inherent in efficiency? A system that is efficient but not accurate isn't efficient at all.

skywhopper 9y ago

I think the key factor in the superiority of paper balloting systems over electronic is exactly what you describe: the process is understandable, visible, and verifiable to human observers. Electronic voting does not meet this standard in any way. Would that more people in the US understood the difference.

yeukhon 9y ago

So why not have both? A receipt and eletronic? They should both matched.

Klathmon 9y ago
Because you can't verify that both were recorded the same way. And even if you fully count both records, what happens when there is a discrepancy?
- yeukhon 9y ago
  I am not familiar, but why not? Don't we only care about the authenticity of the vote (is the castor a citizen or not), and the votes. Computer and hand count does its own thing, and in the end the numbers should agree.
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    Because once there is a layer of "electronic" between you and the vote, there are millions of things that can be done to falsify one side or the other. 4% of the time it prints a different paper receipt, it just makes the electronic numbers go in someone's favor by a few percent in a couple choice districts. Or it uses crafty UX to make people vote for people or things they normally wouldn't. And what if the numbers don't agree? Are you just going to pick one side? Are you going to hold a re-election? Will the re-election have the same turnout? Will people not go because their side won by a landslide before? Will some people change their mind because the media is reporting that side "X" is behind the discrepancy? Or will it just give side "Y" the few extra weeks they needed to campaign and win?
    - yeukhon 9y ago
      I can understand the risk of having a layer, and I do agree paper ballot does give better transparency. Here is the proposal: Cast the ballot on paper. Every ballot has unique counterfeit patterns (totally randomized). The ballot is scanned and send to server, with both the scan of the ballot and the eletronic reading. Voter should be asked to verify (but we know half don't do it). The paper ballot is casted the same way as it has always been. We can also read the paper ballot one more time if we have to during the first round of counting. You can't have a fraud unless you cab mainpluate both paper and eletronic. Either both come to same number or they don't. I am just not familiar with how we verify eligibility tbh. When we count paper ballot, we scan for the counterfeit. If the final number has mismatched, we either have a miscount or an error. Paper ballot will alwsys get recount when there is dispute. Have we had a re-election in the entire American history, or at least in the past 30 years? Regardless, paper ballot fraud can lead to reelection so regardless of what proposal we will face re-election if we have to, but we normally don't. This seems like over engineering, but we have to take into account people living abroad almost always now rely on eletronic voting if EV is offered.

aoe023ntmeo 9y ago

> utter my name and address as identification (no other ID needed), How do they know that you actually cast the vote for you? Say my 5 best friends all tell me, "Nah, I'm not gonna vote. My vote doesn't count anyway." I then go to each of their districts, claim to be them by giving their name and address, and vote how I want. What's to stop that from happening?

a_humean 9y ago
Honestly not much, but voter fraud is unheard of in the UK and the UK doesn't have a universal ID card. There is no legal requirement for a UK citizen to carry or have any form of official ID. Its just very impractical when trying to access some public and private services, but its not uncommon for poorer people to lack forms of ID. There isn't a mainstream racist/classist attempt to disenfranchise poor people in the UK by using imaginary voter fraud as justification (there are some accusations with regards to disenfranchising university students and young people that move around a lot, but that's an issue of ease of registration). Also you need to consider: 1) Those kinds of people are probably not registered to vote. Voter registration is not automatic in the UK. It takes 5 minutes with an online form, but some people are just that disengaged. 2) The 'wards' in which you vote are often quite small and in close proximity, so it might be a little hard to figure out which polling place your friends are registered at if you haven't received their polling notification card. You can get this information, but its a small barrier. 3) The 'wards' have an average population of a few thousand, so there is a risk that an official might recognise you as trying to double vote, but I can't imagine how they might confront if they aren't 100% personally certain. None of those are strong guarantees. If evidence of wide spread fraud were to come to light, party policy ID requirements might change, but to date no party is seriously considering introducing them. Past governments have repeatedly tried to introduce a universal ID that could be used in part for voting ID, but each attempt has ended in failure due to public backlash over civil liberties concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006
- a_humean 9y ago
  Recent report from the electoral commission on potential and actual voter fraud in the UK with recommendations for better identify checks in the future: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/164609/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil...