5 ms·

I don't disagree, but I also don't think that how long something has been done one way is indicative of that way's optimality. By such an argument, microwaves a

I don't disagree, but I also don't think that how long something has been done one way is indicative of that way's optimality. By such an argument, microwaves as a form of cooking and airplanes as a form of travel would both be bad ideas. I think it's more persuasive to focus on the transparency/auditability/fairness argument. Perhaps as an extension, an emphasis on the ability of the average participant/voter to understand the mechanisms behind how the system works?

deadmetheny 9y ago
Fuck optimization. I want vote tallying to be slow, labour-intensive, and repeatable by independent parties with no special knowledge or equipment. Making the system more efficient opens attack vectors. We know how to count and paper ballots have been around so long that the attack vectors are known and can be planned around.
- TheGRS 9y ago
  OK, but voting is also a very short part of the democratic process. Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted. If recounts cause the process to take months (which I believe was the case back in 2000), then it also makes the transition process take longer and seeds ever more doubt into the process. Just look at what happened in Kenya recently.
  - cmurf 9y ago
    All of this used to be done by horse transit in the U.S. Also, the U.S. is by design merely a polyarchy (rather than a monarchy), and only potentially a democracy. Who specifically is elected is less important than the process being accountable. It's made more democratic through participation, and made more of an oligarchy or plutocracy through less participation.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    If you vote on a decision directly, it makes sense for it to be fast. But for large elections, when you select future rulers that will hold their office for years, a few days of delay between the vote and the results makes pretty much zero difference - especially that you usually do the vote while the old politicians still have months to go.
  - sverige 9y ago
    > Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted. Leaving aside other countries and their transition times, in the U.S. at least, there is always more than enough time to have a recount before the winner takes office. There is also enough time to do the same for things like ballot initiatives and referenda, which don't go into effect immediately, but some reasonable amount of time after the vote. With reference to the 2000 election, the legal fight over the process to perform manual recounts in Florida took far longer than the actual recounts would have taken, dragging it out to December 12. Interestingly enough, while I have heard some still claim that "Bush stole the election," when the press actually finished a manual recount, the conclusion was that Bush had, in fact, won the vote. But people will believe what they want to believe about the fairness of elections when it doesn't go their way, as has been amply demonstrated recently.
    - mkstowegnv 9y ago
      As several studies that looked all the ballots cast in FL have concluded, Gore had slightly more votes than Bush. However ironically if the Supreme Court had ruled for Gore, the selective recount that Gore's lawyers were arguing for would have favored Bush. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  > Making the system more efficient opens attack vectors. No. Doing that badly might have that effect, but there is no axiom which states that accurate counting must be slow or manual. Have electronic voting with instant tallying, with a parallel optical-scanning verification of the generated paper ballot. Then have manual spot checking of the automated counting process, with whatever sample rate you choose. This is a solved problem (ask the USPS if you want details). Instant results which are "the ballots got wet" proof and have a totally auditable record.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > Doing that badly might have that effect, but there is no axiom which states that accurate counting must be slow or manual. No, but there is an axiom that says the more expensive an attack is, the less likely it will be carried out. Hacking manual counting requires so absurd amounts of coordination between so many individuals, that you can pretty much discount the possibility. High technology is a vehicle of multiplying the power of individuals. The same process that makes electronic counting more efficient, makes it also much cheaper to attack. > This is a solved problem (ask the USPS if you want details). TBH, postal services screw up in that department regularly, but nobody cares, as the impact is very small.
- rhino369 9y ago
  Hand counting is very likely less accurate than machine counting.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Doesn't have to be perfectly accurate - it only has to be in the ballpark of the correct amount and with low deviation. In voting, a method with consistent +/- 1% error is better than a method that generally has +/- 0.0000001% error but can be trivially hacked to produce +/- 50% error. Elections aren't usually decided on a single vote, and in those rare cases, you can recount stuff few more times to be sure.
  - banku_brougham 9y ago
    with the notable exceptions of: software failures, adversarial exploits, malicious design, et al
nickbauman 9y ago
Yes it's critical for democracy that the mechanism can be not only understood by a layman but verified by a layman. I'm sure we can make a system that experts believe is safe. But it's the voter that has to believe and it's unreasonable to ask them to be experts. If you lose the voter, democracy cannot function.

deadmetheny 9y ago

Fuck optimization. I want vote tallying to be slow, labour-intensive, and repeatable by independent parties with no special knowledge or equipment. Making the system more efficient opens attack vectors. We know how to count and paper ballots have been around so long that the attack vectors are known and can be planned around.

TheGRS 9y ago
OK, but voting is also a very short part of the democratic process. Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted. If recounts cause the process to take months (which I believe was the case back in 2000), then it also makes the transition process take longer and seeds ever more doubt into the process. Just look at what happened in Kenya recently.
- cmurf 9y ago
  All of this used to be done by horse transit in the U.S. Also, the U.S. is by design merely a polyarchy (rather than a monarchy), and only potentially a democracy. Who specifically is elected is less important than the process being accountable. It's made more democratic through participation, and made more of an oligarchy or plutocracy through less participation.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  If you vote on a decision directly, it makes sense for it to be fast. But for large elections, when you select future rulers that will hold their office for years, a few days of delay between the vote and the results makes pretty much zero difference - especially that you usually do the vote while the old politicians still have months to go.
- sverige 9y ago
  > Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted. Leaving aside other countries and their transition times, in the U.S. at least, there is always more than enough time to have a recount before the winner takes office. There is also enough time to do the same for things like ballot initiatives and referenda, which don't go into effect immediately, but some reasonable amount of time after the vote. With reference to the 2000 election, the legal fight over the process to perform manual recounts in Florida took far longer than the actual recounts would have taken, dragging it out to December 12. Interestingly enough, while I have heard some still claim that "Bush stole the election," when the press actually finished a manual recount, the conclusion was that Bush had, in fact, won the vote. But people will believe what they want to believe about the fairness of elections when it doesn't go their way, as has been amply demonstrated recently.
  - mkstowegnv 9y ago
    As several studies that looked all the ballots cast in FL have concluded, Gore had slightly more votes than Bush. However ironically if the Supreme Court had ruled for Gore, the selective recount that Gore's lawyers were arguing for would have favored Bush. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...
Godel_unicode 9y ago
> Making the system more efficient opens attack vectors. No. Doing that badly might have that effect, but there is no axiom which states that accurate counting must be slow or manual. Have electronic voting with instant tallying, with a parallel optical-scanning verification of the generated paper ballot. Then have manual spot checking of the automated counting process, with whatever sample rate you choose. This is a solved problem (ask the USPS if you want details). Instant results which are "the ballots got wet" proof and have a totally auditable record.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Doing that badly might have that effect, but there is no axiom which states that accurate counting must be slow or manual. No, but there is an axiom that says the more expensive an attack is, the less likely it will be carried out. Hacking manual counting requires so absurd amounts of coordination between so many individuals, that you can pretty much discount the possibility. High technology is a vehicle of multiplying the power of individuals. The same process that makes electronic counting more efficient, makes it also much cheaper to attack. > This is a solved problem (ask the USPS if you want details). TBH, postal services screw up in that department regularly, but nobody cares, as the impact is very small.
rhino369 9y ago
Hand counting is very likely less accurate than machine counting.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Doesn't have to be perfectly accurate - it only has to be in the ballpark of the correct amount and with low deviation. In voting, a method with consistent +/- 1% error is better than a method that generally has +/- 0.0000001% error but can be trivially hacked to produce +/- 50% error. Elections aren't usually decided on a single vote, and in those rare cases, you can recount stuff few more times to be sure.
- banku_brougham 9y ago
  with the notable exceptions of: software failures, adversarial exploits, malicious design, et al

nickbauman 9y ago

Yes it's critical for democracy that the mechanism can be not only understood by a layman but verified by a layman. I'm sure we can make a system that experts believe is safe. But it's the voter that has to believe and it's unreasonable to ask them to be experts. If you lose the voter, democracy cannot function.