3 ms·

I feel like a broken record on this topic. It drives me crazy. ON-SITE OBSERVERS. If any person wants to check the vote they should be able to stand there and

I feel like a broken record on this topic. It drives me crazy. ON-SITE OBSERVERS. If any person wants to check the vote they should be able to stand there and watch the whole thing and then demand a manual count on-site immediately afterwards. No bringing ballots somewhere else to be counted. Democracy is how we stop violence from deciding resource allocation. It will be undermined if it is at all possible. Also, I really hate how electronic voting machines instant tally elections. We had that here in Ontario[0] and completely aside from my security concerns over e-voting, having the night end in a single minute ruined the normally fun nail biting as the results came in on CBC. [0] Which, by the way, did not allow me to be an on-site observer. Do I distrust Elections Ontario staff? No, but I shouldn't have to trust people. This is a fucking election. I ran the last federal one as a DRO. All paper ballots are 100% secure. The fucking e-voting lobby is evil.

beat 8y ago
In Minnesota, we allow on-site observers. They have to follow the rules, but they can watch, and have certain privileges (such as being able to challenge a voter's registration, turning their ballot into a provisional one).
ergothus 8y ago
> I really hate how electronic voting machines instant tally elections. I understand the sentiment, but I dont think entertainment should be any kind of factor in this decision. > I shouldn't have to trust people. Verification systems are great (I fully endorse the electronic-for-convenience-backed-by-paper system), but ALL systems require that you trust people. The key is to have sufficient verification, both instant and later, to make fraud difficult, detectable, and provable.
- specialist 8y ago
  The only trust worthy system is built on mutual distrust. Please sign up to be a poll worker. Then you'll see first hand how it works.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    I generally agree with your statement about trust systems - but my point is that we have to end up trusting a lot of people anyway, even if it is a matter of trusting the people that design the systems. I can't verify everything about my life and still have it. So we need to design not only based on mistrust, but also include post-facto verification systems so if questions are raised we can go back and apply the distrust we were too busy to do originally. I was going to say that I can't sign up as a poll-worker because I'm in a mail-in-ballot state, but it appears I'm wrong. I'll look into that - it's definitely an accessible (for me) form of civic service. Thanks for the suggestion!
    - 3pt14159 8y ago
      The core difference is that if you trust, say, 5 people. You can quietly send them to 5 random polling stations and get them to relay back what happened. Basically even the extremely conspiratorial can trust the election if there are observers that can be there from start to finish. Saying "just trust our government's employees" is not a real solution.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >I understand the sentiment, but I dont think entertainment should be any kind of factor in this decision. Note that the above poster was talking about Ontario. Canada has a different relationship with election results. It is illegal for Canadian results, including entrance/exit polls, to be announced prior to closing. In the US this would be seen as a radical freedom of speech issue. In Canada it is normal. In the US it is normal for people to see initial results and perhaps rush in to vote, or stay home if their candidate is leading. US politicians also regularly concede defeat based on preliminary results. So someone fiddling with the display of preliminary electronic results can, in the US, directly impact the final tally. That isn't a thing in Canada. We don't expect to know anything until after polls close. So we have no need of "instant" tallies. Counting happens during the day but results are not published. Electronic voting might speed it up a little bit, but never would we get close to the instant feedback possible in the US.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    > In the US it is normal for people to see initial results and perhaps rush in to vote, or stay home if their candidate is leading. Is it? I was under the impression that most everyone had adopted a voluntary policy of not reporting exit polls prior to closing, at least since 1980, so that's just shy of 40 years of not doing as you describe. I've certainly been ignorant of results until polls close. I recall estimations of "turnout by party" and "what issues motivated you" prior to closing, but not how people ended up voting. > It certainly doesn't have anything to do with entertainment. How do you think the OP meant about the "normally fun nail biting" experience that is electronic voting "ruined" by ending "in a single minute"?
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> All paper ballots are 100% secure. What do you mean by this? It seems to be a claim that election fraud wasn't possible before the development of electronic voting?
- Swenrekcah 8y ago
  The paper ballot doesn’t change once you take your eye off it. Of course election fraud is possible in any system, but it is really easy to make it practically impossible in a paper system by simply allowing observers at any stage of the process. The system is so simple that anyone can detect wrongdoing. That is of course not true with all-electronic voting.

beat 8y ago

In Minnesota, we allow on-site observers. They have to follow the rules, but they can watch, and have certain privileges (such as being able to challenge a voter's registration, turning their ballot into a provisional one).

ergothus 8y ago

> I really hate how electronic voting machines instant tally elections. I understand the sentiment, but I dont think entertainment should be any kind of factor in this decision. > I shouldn't have to trust people. Verification systems are great (I fully endorse the electronic-for-convenience-backed-by-paper system), but ALL systems require that you trust people. The key is to have sufficient verification, both instant and later, to make fraud difficult, detectable, and provable.

specialist 8y ago
The only trust worthy system is built on mutual distrust. Please sign up to be a poll worker. Then you'll see first hand how it works.
- ergothus 8y ago
  I generally agree with your statement about trust systems - but my point is that we have to end up trusting a lot of people anyway, even if it is a matter of trusting the people that design the systems. I can't verify everything about my life and still have it. So we need to design not only based on mistrust, but also include post-facto verification systems so if questions are raised we can go back and apply the distrust we were too busy to do originally. I was going to say that I can't sign up as a poll-worker because I'm in a mail-in-ballot state, but it appears I'm wrong. I'll look into that - it's definitely an accessible (for me) form of civic service. Thanks for the suggestion!
  - 3pt14159 8y ago
    The core difference is that if you trust, say, 5 people. You can quietly send them to 5 random polling stations and get them to relay back what happened. Basically even the extremely conspiratorial can trust the election if there are observers that can be there from start to finish. Saying "just trust our government's employees" is not a real solution.
sandworm101 8y ago
>I understand the sentiment, but I dont think entertainment should be any kind of factor in this decision. Note that the above poster was talking about Ontario. Canada has a different relationship with election results. It is illegal for Canadian results, including entrance/exit polls, to be announced prior to closing. In the US this would be seen as a radical freedom of speech issue. In Canada it is normal. In the US it is normal for people to see initial results and perhaps rush in to vote, or stay home if their candidate is leading. US politicians also regularly concede defeat based on preliminary results. So someone fiddling with the display of preliminary electronic results can, in the US, directly impact the final tally. That isn't a thing in Canada. We don't expect to know anything until after polls close. So we have no need of "instant" tallies. Counting happens during the day but results are not published. Electronic voting might speed it up a little bit, but never would we get close to the instant feedback possible in the US.
- ergothus 8y ago
  > In the US it is normal for people to see initial results and perhaps rush in to vote, or stay home if their candidate is leading. Is it? I was under the impression that most everyone had adopted a voluntary policy of not reporting exit polls prior to closing, at least since 1980, so that's just shy of 40 years of not doing as you describe. I've certainly been ignorant of results until polls close. I recall estimations of "turnout by party" and "what issues motivated you" prior to closing, but not how people ended up voting. > It certainly doesn't have anything to do with entertainment. How do you think the OP meant about the "normally fun nail biting" experience that is electronic voting "ruined" by ending "in a single minute"?

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> All paper ballots are 100% secure. What do you mean by this? It seems to be a claim that election fraud wasn't possible before the development of electronic voting?

Swenrekcah 8y ago
The paper ballot doesn’t change once you take your eye off it. Of course election fraud is possible in any system, but it is really easy to make it practically impossible in a paper system by simply allowing observers at any stage of the process. The system is so simple that anyone can detect wrongdoing. That is of course not true with all-electronic voting.