5 ms·

Why is any of this necessary? Why don't paper ballots suffice?

by Teever 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Why don't paper ballots suffice? Hand counting is costly, time-consuming and error-prone. Paper ballots with supervised electronic tabulation puts forward the best of both worlds. (It's how we do it in New York, too.)
- llukas 8y ago
  More people involved and from more diverse backgrounds into hand counting then less likely conspiracy theories would be able to take a hold. Democracy doesn't work without trust. Sacrificing trust for some speed is dumb thing to do.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Not_a_pizza 8y ago
Ballot stuffing is a thing, and ballot disposal is a thing. Elections are one of the few games in town where the people that control things get to count up the vote and tell you who should control things in the future. If government was really ethical, you would expect independent auditors to be checking processes before and after.
- vkou 8y ago
  Vote counting, in properly-ran systems, is done by paid contractors, and observed by representatives of both parties.
  - hammock 8y ago
    "Both parties"?
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      I'd wager there's only really two parties with enough volunteers to actually put election monitors in every precinct
      - lolc 8y ago
        You shouldn't presume the U.S. two-party system to be the normal case. Also as a party you don't need to monitor every precinct. You monitor those where you suspect fraud might happen. Then every voter should be able to monitor the counting process if they desire. Why should they have to rely on parties to do it for them?
    - vkou 8y ago
      Generally, there's an incumbent, and a likely winner. If you have enough popular support to win a fair election, you can probably figure out how to mobilize a few volunteers to oversee ballot counting.
      - Not_a_pizza 8y ago
        I think the general assumption that you have is that all voters have equal access to financial gain, free time, and other things that in any society known are heavily deviated towards the rich. Add to that the fact that the most heavily monied campaigns normally turn out to be the winners, and it becomes very difficult to claim the idea of fair elections has any real merit except as a nice theory we want to believe is true.
  - pyrale 8y ago
    Pretty sure paid contractors are not necessary, citizen will usually count for free.
paulmd 8y ago
Hand-counting is slow and inaccurate. As in, you regularly see swings of 1% or more from hand-counts, and they typically take weeks. Electronic tabulation of paper ballots is the best of both worlds. You get results today, they're pretty accurate, and there's a paper trail if you want to go back and argue later.
- petschge 8y ago
  At least in German we get the first hand count within hours. If that result is close and a recount is done, we will usually get that within a day. The final result may be weeks away, but that is because legal proceedings and additional scrutiny in a hand full of the 70000 voting locations take some time. Doing the vote with a sufficient number of locations and polling clerks is not cheap, about one euro per voter, but worth it to us.
- mnbvkhgvmj 8y ago
  The UK counts all their votes by hand. Overnight.
  - neffy 8y ago
    And you don't want to be on the roads right after the polls close and they race each other to get the ballot boxes into the counter centres. More importantly, yes you can rig a paper ballot, but you can't do it large scale without everybody knowing it.
    - handelaar 8y ago
      Well, kinda. In the UK state-level interference would likely go unnoticed if it mugged only postal votes and didn't push too obviously-far in one direction or another. I've been on the receiving end of mail interference and since then I can only assume it's become a lot cheaper to do than it was.
  - andrewla 8y ago
    Out of curiosity, what does a UK ballot look like? I found [1], is that typical? Part of the problem might be one of ballot design. A US ballot is typically considerably more complicated than that. Here's one from New York [2]. There will be many races; in a presidential election there will be president, usually senator, representative, governor, state senator, local councilman, and assorted other offices. At least in New York State, the candidates will be presented by party, so a single candidate may be on the ballot multiple times. Nobody is counting the US one by hand overnight; not without some pretty comprehensive redesigns of the ballot. [1] https://www.gravesham.gov.uk/home/elections-and-voting/guide-to-voting/what-a-ballot-paper-looks-like https://www.gravesham.gov.uk/home/elections-and-voting/guide... [2] http://www.otsegocounty.com/depts/boe/images/WO.jpg http://www.otsegocounty.com/depts/boe/images/WO.jpg
vowelless 8y ago
Because modern technology can solve all of humanity’s problems and make the world a better, progressive and more inclusive place.

Why is any of this necessary? Why don't paper ballots suffice?

by Teever 8y ago

Why is any of this necessary? Why don't paper ballots suffice?

> Why don't paper ballots suffice? Hand counting is costly, time-consuming and error-prone. Paper ballots with supervised electronic tabulation puts forward the best of both worlds. (It's how we do it in New York, too.)

llukas 8y ago
More people involved and from more diverse backgrounds into hand counting then less likely conspiracy theories would be able to take a hold. Democracy doesn't work without trust. Sacrificing trust for some speed is dumb thing to do.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Not_a_pizza 8y ago

Ballot stuffing is a thing, and ballot disposal is a thing. Elections are one of the few games in town where the people that control things get to count up the vote and tell you who should control things in the future. If government was really ethical, you would expect independent auditors to be checking processes before and after.

vkou 8y ago
Vote counting, in properly-ran systems, is done by paid contractors, and observed by representatives of both parties.
- hammock 8y ago
  "Both parties"?
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    I'd wager there's only really two parties with enough volunteers to actually put election monitors in every precinct
    - lolc 8y ago
      You shouldn't presume the U.S. two-party system to be the normal case. Also as a party you don't need to monitor every precinct. You monitor those where you suspect fraud might happen. Then every voter should be able to monitor the counting process if they desire. Why should they have to rely on parties to do it for them?
  - vkou 8y ago
    Generally, there's an incumbent, and a likely winner. If you have enough popular support to win a fair election, you can probably figure out how to mobilize a few volunteers to oversee ballot counting.
    - Not_a_pizza 8y ago
      I think the general assumption that you have is that all voters have equal access to financial gain, free time, and other things that in any society known are heavily deviated towards the rich. Add to that the fact that the most heavily monied campaigns normally turn out to be the winners, and it becomes very difficult to claim the idea of fair elections has any real merit except as a nice theory we want to believe is true.
- pyrale 8y ago
  Pretty sure paid contractors are not necessary, citizen will usually count for free.

paulmd 8y ago

Hand-counting is slow and inaccurate. As in, you regularly see swings of 1% or more from hand-counts, and they typically take weeks. Electronic tabulation of paper ballots is the best of both worlds. You get results today, they're pretty accurate, and there's a paper trail if you want to go back and argue later.

petschge 8y ago
At least in German we get the first hand count within hours. If that result is close and a recount is done, we will usually get that within a day. The final result may be weeks away, but that is because legal proceedings and additional scrutiny in a hand full of the 70000 voting locations take some time. Doing the vote with a sufficient number of locations and polling clerks is not cheap, about one euro per voter, but worth it to us.
mnbvkhgvmj 8y ago
The UK counts all their votes by hand. Overnight.
- neffy 8y ago
  And you don't want to be on the roads right after the polls close and they race each other to get the ballot boxes into the counter centres. More importantly, yes you can rig a paper ballot, but you can't do it large scale without everybody knowing it.
  - handelaar 8y ago
    Well, kinda. In the UK state-level interference would likely go unnoticed if it mugged only postal votes and didn't push too obviously-far in one direction or another. I've been on the receiving end of mail interference and since then I can only assume it's become a lot cheaper to do than it was.
- andrewla 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, what does a UK ballot look like? I found [1], is that typical? Part of the problem might be one of ballot design. A US ballot is typically considerably more complicated than that. Here's one from New York [2]. There will be many races; in a presidential election there will be president, usually senator, representative, governor, state senator, local councilman, and assorted other offices. At least in New York State, the candidates will be presented by party, so a single candidate may be on the ballot multiple times. Nobody is counting the US one by hand overnight; not without some pretty comprehensive redesigns of the ballot. [1] https://www.gravesham.gov.uk/home/elections-and-voting/guide-to-voting/what-a-ballot-paper-looks-like https://www.gravesham.gov.uk/home/elections-and-voting/guide... [2] http://www.otsegocounty.com/depts/boe/images/WO.jpg http://www.otsegocounty.com/depts/boe/images/WO.jpg

vowelless 8y ago

Because modern technology can solve all of humanity’s problems and make the world a better, progressive and more inclusive place.