6 ms·

What problem are electronic voting machines supposed to solve?

by s_m_t 8y ago

mikeash 8y ago
Optimist: the problem of spending a lot of effort counting ballots. Cynic: the problem of voters choosing the wrong candidate.
- MichaelApproved 8y ago
  Paper ballots and manual counting isn’t that expensive and it’s not where we should be looking to pinch pennies.
  - Digital-Citizen 8y ago
    That sounds like a far better set of priorities than commonly gets raised in discussions like these. Another benefit of electronic voting systems that mark and/or verify voter-verified paper ballots with the voter is allowing the blind and illiterate to vote alone and retain their privacy. Sighted literate voters take for granted that they don't have to reveal their vote to anyone else. This doesn't get any discussion or support in the article (quite the contrary, there's some language about how such machines are second-best to voters marking their own ballots). The paragraph discounting "BMDs" (ballot-marking devices) contains no pointer to evidence to back the assertion that voters don't check their machine-marked voter-verifiable paper ballot. This is solved with voter education -- tell voters to verify their ballots no matter how they're marked. By the logic of this claim, it's worth pointing out that humans make mistakes writing on paper too. So better to have the voter verify their own ballot. There's also no evidence given of "the dispute-resolution mechanism" for a malicious or errant machine mismarking a ballot. This excuse seems particularly reaching to me as all roads lead to the same outcome -- the voter should spoil the ballot and get a new ballot. No proof is needed to justify spoiling the ballot because in the end they're not committing fraud. Even if the voter spoils multiple ballots, that's not a big deal. I'll need evidence to see that this is a serious concern but the article presents none.
    - XorNot 8y ago
      Braille cards could easily be printed and mailed out to voters who request them. A small number could be sent to polling locations each cycle, to account for loss and damage too. This would be a far better use of resources then trying to make electronic voting not a disaster of security problems.
      - Digital-Citizen 8y ago
        I have no problem with doing either (so long as pre-arrangement never becomes mandatory), but that doesn't address fairness for illiterate voters at all. Also, it doesn't really tackle how a voter-verified paper ballot processing system that involves electronics is fairly described as "a disaster of security problems".
- skrebbel 8y ago
  We count all votes manually in the Netherlands. Municipalities generally have no trouble finding sufficiently many volunteers to count all the votes. They fill entire sports halls up with'em. The only "problem" voting machines solve (and the only somewhat compelling reason pro-voting-machine voices raise) is that the results could be out faster (it takes about a day with the manual counting).
  - Doxin 8y ago
    Note however that unofficial results are out usually the same day. Other than not being vetted yet, these unofficial use (afaik) the same counts the official results use.
  - taejo 8y ago
    US voters have probably an order of magnitude more elections than other democracies. I'm a dual citizen: in my other country, every five years I can vote on two ballots (to choose a party list for national government and one for regional government) and the following year again two ballots (to choose a party list and an individual representative for local government). In the US, I can vote for n state judges, state governor, state lieutenant governor, state treasurer, state secretary of state, state representative, state senator, presidential primary, president, federal senate primary, two senators, federal representative primary, representative, mayor, n members of the school district board, n local referenda, n state referenda. Some of these offices have terms as short as two years (e.g. representatives), or non-aligned terms (e.g., in a six year cycle there are two separate elections for federal senators). While in the other country there are two election days in every five year cycle, in the US I vote once or twice a year, and there are half a dozen to a dozen ballots on each occasion. It could be done by hand, but the scale is very different to a more typical democracy.
rtkwe 8y ago
In theory they're much better because votes are tallied pretty much instantly with very little effort. Running hand counts is very expensive and it's way easier to quantify the value of the cheaper counting than the cost of insecure elections.
- sverige 8y ago
  What need is there for instant tallies? Elections are usually in November, winners take office in January. Plenty of time to sort it out if there's a question. It has worked mostly pretty well for a long time. And I have yet to see the expense directly compared. How much do the machines cost to purchase and maintain? How much does the overtime for election officials to count the ballots?
  - setr 8y ago
    well, it's also meant to eliminate the issue of recounts, can be better audited as a process, and minimizes human error in what is a very manual and repetitive task. tbh if computers should be used anywhere, its in something like this. It's literally counting, and a lot of it but alas
    - nightcracker 8y ago
      > can be better audited as a process What could possibly be better audited than a public count that any concerned citizen can visit to oversee? Digital machines are as opaque as it gets for auditing.
      - XorNot 8y ago
        And single points of compromise. The biggest problem with all conspiracy theories is that they require an implausibly large number of people to stay silent. Whereas computers stay silent by default, and let one person in the right place potentially control everything.
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    People want the news as quickly as possible. > Elections are usually in November, winners take office in January. Plenty of time to sort it out if there's a question. This is an issue as you reach larger offices in particular the presidency where there's an entire transition process that has to happen where the incoming president has to pull together the team to run the state and get read into all the various secret programs so that day 1 they're ready to run the country.

What problem are electronic voting machines supposed to solve?

by s_m_t 8y ago

What problem are electronic voting machines supposed to solve?

Optimist: the problem of spending a lot of effort counting ballots. Cynic: the problem of voters choosing the wrong candidate.

MichaelApproved 8y ago
Paper ballots and manual counting isn’t that expensive and it’s not where we should be looking to pinch pennies.
- Digital-Citizen 8y ago
  That sounds like a far better set of priorities than commonly gets raised in discussions like these. Another benefit of electronic voting systems that mark and/or verify voter-verified paper ballots with the voter is allowing the blind and illiterate to vote alone and retain their privacy. Sighted literate voters take for granted that they don't have to reveal their vote to anyone else. This doesn't get any discussion or support in the article (quite the contrary, there's some language about how such machines are second-best to voters marking their own ballots). The paragraph discounting "BMDs" (ballot-marking devices) contains no pointer to evidence to back the assertion that voters don't check their machine-marked voter-verifiable paper ballot. This is solved with voter education -- tell voters to verify their ballots no matter how they're marked. By the logic of this claim, it's worth pointing out that humans make mistakes writing on paper too. So better to have the voter verify their own ballot. There's also no evidence given of "the dispute-resolution mechanism" for a malicious or errant machine mismarking a ballot. This excuse seems particularly reaching to me as all roads lead to the same outcome -- the voter should spoil the ballot and get a new ballot. No proof is needed to justify spoiling the ballot because in the end they're not committing fraud. Even if the voter spoils multiple ballots, that's not a big deal. I'll need evidence to see that this is a serious concern but the article presents none.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    Braille cards could easily be printed and mailed out to voters who request them. A small number could be sent to polling locations each cycle, to account for loss and damage too. This would be a far better use of resources then trying to make electronic voting not a disaster of security problems.
    - Digital-Citizen 8y ago
      I have no problem with doing either (so long as pre-arrangement never becomes mandatory), but that doesn't address fairness for illiterate voters at all. Also, it doesn't really tackle how a voter-verified paper ballot processing system that involves electronics is fairly described as "a disaster of security problems".
skrebbel 8y ago
We count all votes manually in the Netherlands. Municipalities generally have no trouble finding sufficiently many volunteers to count all the votes. They fill entire sports halls up with'em. The only "problem" voting machines solve (and the only somewhat compelling reason pro-voting-machine voices raise) is that the results could be out faster (it takes about a day with the manual counting).
- Doxin 8y ago
  Note however that unofficial results are out usually the same day. Other than not being vetted yet, these unofficial use (afaik) the same counts the official results use.
- taejo 8y ago
  US voters have probably an order of magnitude more elections than other democracies. I'm a dual citizen: in my other country, every five years I can vote on two ballots (to choose a party list for national government and one for regional government) and the following year again two ballots (to choose a party list and an individual representative for local government). In the US, I can vote for n state judges, state governor, state lieutenant governor, state treasurer, state secretary of state, state representative, state senator, presidential primary, president, federal senate primary, two senators, federal representative primary, representative, mayor, n members of the school district board, n local referenda, n state referenda. Some of these offices have terms as short as two years (e.g. representatives), or non-aligned terms (e.g., in a six year cycle there are two separate elections for federal senators). While in the other country there are two election days in every five year cycle, in the US I vote once or twice a year, and there are half a dozen to a dozen ballots on each occasion. It could be done by hand, but the scale is very different to a more typical democracy.

rtkwe 8y ago

In theory they're much better because votes are tallied pretty much instantly with very little effort. Running hand counts is very expensive and it's way easier to quantify the value of the cheaper counting than the cost of insecure elections.

sverige 8y ago
What need is there for instant tallies? Elections are usually in November, winners take office in January. Plenty of time to sort it out if there's a question. It has worked mostly pretty well for a long time. And I have yet to see the expense directly compared. How much do the machines cost to purchase and maintain? How much does the overtime for election officials to count the ballots?
- setr 8y ago
  well, it's also meant to eliminate the issue of recounts, can be better audited as a process, and minimizes human error in what is a very manual and repetitive task. tbh if computers should be used anywhere, its in something like this. It's literally counting, and a lot of it but alas
  - nightcracker 8y ago
    > can be better audited as a process What could possibly be better audited than a public count that any concerned citizen can visit to oversee? Digital machines are as opaque as it gets for auditing.
    - XorNot 8y ago
      And single points of compromise. The biggest problem with all conspiracy theories is that they require an implausibly large number of people to stay silent. Whereas computers stay silent by default, and let one person in the right place potentially control everything.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  People want the news as quickly as possible. > Elections are usually in November, winners take office in January. Plenty of time to sort it out if there's a question. This is an issue as you reach larger offices in particular the presidency where there's an entire transition process that has to happen where the incoming president has to pull together the team to run the state and get read into all the various secret programs so that day 1 they're ready to run the country.