5 ms·

Voting machines can be safe(r). It's just that there seem to be no incentive. Contractor should pay at least twice the money he received in case a security flaw

by comboy 8y ago

Voting machines can be safe(r). It's just that there seem to be no incentive. Contractor should pay at least twice the money he received in case a security flaw is found among clearly stated attack vectors. No contractor wants to take such offer? That means we are not ready for voting machines yet.

moviuro 8y ago
> Voting machines can be safe(r). Please expand. As is, voting machines are the worst idea imaginable. I have yet to read any positive argument for voting machines.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Positive: Easier / (much) faster vote counting, not prone to human error or counter bias / agenda. I'm not a fan of insecure voting machines myself but I can come up with some reasons why one would want to use machines.
  - moviuro 8y ago
    > Easier / (much) faster vote counting Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I would much rather wait one more day to have the definitive name of my new president than have a machine decide that for me 24hours earlier. > not prone to human error or counter bias / agenda That's why vote counting is a public ceremony; and also why the "voting neighborhoods" are quite small. See e.g. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F16828 https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F16828 (in French). At least 2 people count the votes, etc.
    - kiriakasis 8y ago
      Agree, in Italy every "voting neighborhoods" has a committee that needs to agree on criteria for unclear or invalid votes. (obviously the people on the committee often have political affiliation, but there is a selection process to ensure some kind of balance)
    - wil421 8y ago
      You know people can just forge or manipulate paper ballots. There was even an instance that happened live on Russian TV where they were stuffing ballots.
      - cirgue 8y ago
        In the US, forging/stuffing to the point that it matters in any regional election, to say nothing of national elections, is sufficiently hard that it is literally easier to outspend your opponent in advertising in the race.
- ergothus 8y ago
  You've dismissed the potential benefits, so it's a hard argument to make, but I very much like the idea of the style of machine that let's you pick electronically, then prints a paper ballot displayed to you - you accept it and it goes into the same sort of secure container ballots always have, or you reject it and it is trashed. We get the benefits of electronics with the benefits of a tried and tested paper ballot system. We no longer have people arguing over stray pencil marks or trying to cross out mistakes. We even get some extra checks on the paper system: today, if there is a discrepancy between the count of people coming to vote and the number of ballots we don't know which is wrong - this would introduce a third number to compare against. Electronic voting machines were rushed in following the whole "hanging chad" thing, and were done terribly, with credible accusations of corruption involved (see Diebold, who are still out there under a different name) when a better ballot design process would have done the trick, but that doesn't mean we cant get some benefits from electronics, so long as we put accuracy and verifiability first. At some point we will want voting from home (outside of mail in) and I'd rather shake out bugs gradually than expect some future generation to get it right the first time

by comboy 8y ago

moviuro 8y ago

> Voting machines can be safe(r). Please expand. As is, voting machines are the worst idea imaginable. I have yet to read any positive argument for voting machines.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Positive: Easier / (much) faster vote counting, not prone to human error or counter bias / agenda. I'm not a fan of insecure voting machines myself but I can come up with some reasons why one would want to use machines.
- moviuro 8y ago
  > Easier / (much) faster vote counting Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I would much rather wait one more day to have the definitive name of my new president than have a machine decide that for me 24hours earlier. > not prone to human error or counter bias / agenda That's why vote counting is a public ceremony; and also why the "voting neighborhoods" are quite small. See e.g. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F16828 https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F16828 (in French). At least 2 people count the votes, etc.
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    Agree, in Italy every "voting neighborhoods" has a committee that needs to agree on criteria for unclear or invalid votes. (obviously the people on the committee often have political affiliation, but there is a selection process to ensure some kind of balance)
  - wil421 8y ago
    You know people can just forge or manipulate paper ballots. There was even an instance that happened live on Russian TV where they were stuffing ballots.
    - cirgue 8y ago
      In the US, forging/stuffing to the point that it matters in any regional election, to say nothing of national elections, is sufficiently hard that it is literally easier to outspend your opponent in advertising in the race.
ergothus 8y ago
You've dismissed the potential benefits, so it's a hard argument to make, but I very much like the idea of the style of machine that let's you pick electronically, then prints a paper ballot displayed to you - you accept it and it goes into the same sort of secure container ballots always have, or you reject it and it is trashed. We get the benefits of electronics with the benefits of a tried and tested paper ballot system. We no longer have people arguing over stray pencil marks or trying to cross out mistakes. We even get some extra checks on the paper system: today, if there is a discrepancy between the count of people coming to vote and the number of ballots we don't know which is wrong - this would introduce a third number to compare against. Electronic voting machines were rushed in following the whole "hanging chad" thing, and were done terribly, with credible accusations of corruption involved (see Diebold, who are still out there under a different name) when a better ballot design process would have done the trick, but that doesn't mean we cant get some benefits from electronics, so long as we put accuracy and verifiability first. At some point we will want voting from home (outside of mail in) and I'd rather shake out bugs gradually than expect some future generation to get it right the first time