5 ms·

> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. That is incorrect. Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters. The slower the

> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. That is incorrect. Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters. The slower the process is, the less representative it is. The fidelity of the loop is paramount, but the issue remains. EDIT: do the downvoters understand that there is setup involved in a paper process and getting results is not the end of the feedback loop (not race)? SMH

arethuza 7y ago
"The slower the process is, the less representative it is" If we are talking about months perhaps, but as long as a result is known within a day or two (at most) I'm not sure it really makes that much difference.
gjm11 7y ago
Surely the relevant feedback-loop time is the interval between elections, not how long it takes for votes to be counted.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
The uk manages to get a result in general elections in < a day
afiori 7y ago
This is only relevant if you propose to have weekly/monthly elections. For elections every few years even a week of counting would not be a problem.
- jfk13 7y ago
  Although the longer counting takes, the more difficult it becomes for a substantial number of people to monitor the entire process. In the UK, counting takes place overnight, immediately after the polls close; it's feasible for multiple parties to ensure they have people at every location for the entire time, keeping an eye out for irregularities. If the process were extended over a week instead of a night, it becomes correspondingly harder to ensure that there was never an opportunity for someone to tamper.
  - afiori 7y ago
    That is true, but if they happen digitally then that becomes completely impossible. As things are now I see no reason of sort not to use paper ballots as the main proof of vote. Especially for big nation wide elections.
    - heavenlyblue 7y ago
      If that happens digitally (and using correctly distributed crypto signatures), then we can provide the public with the necessary tools to check every single vote.
      - afiori 7y ago
        > and using correctly distributed crypto signatures you sort of lost me here. I will not say it is a bad idea, but it would never work in any country I know. Thee sheer size and cultural innovation required would still need to place an inordinate amount of trust in the system. Again, it is not that it is evil, as much as there are so many possible problems for so little gain (IIRC Estonia has a nice program where you have a state-SIM and you can vote via telephone, so there it actually might work)
        heavenlyblue 7y ago
        >> you sort of lost me here. I will not say it is a bad idea, but it would never work in any country I know. Bitcoin works this way though. It is a set of tools to manipulate a highly abstract data structure. These tools are developed by a minority of the population, but the rest of the population trusts them. This works because it has value for the folk. Now you're speaking about elections. Most of the people speaking of e-elections are _mostly_ trying to get to the public that if you could make the elections work electronically - then there's a bunch of other things that could be done digitally too. One example - company board voting. What if you could be present at any board meeting because everything that is said over there is cryptographically signed by each party thus providing non-repudiation of whatever they said? What if every newspaper reporter had to sign their articles with their signature which is linked to a news trust network? Contract signatures. Inheritance. This is a reply to your: >> Again, it is not that it is evil, as much as there are so many possible problems for so little gain Little gain is only for people who have no idea of what you can do with "digital".
wongarsu 7y ago
I don't think I understand what feedback loop we are talking about? Everyone who wants to be on the ballot registers a few months in advance, which is usually a short enough time. Since people are usually voted into a job they have to do for 4-6 years you don't want hasty decisions anyways. Getting poll results while the voting stations are open is usually not a desired feature because of how it influences voters. The delay for counting the votes measures in days, which is a tiny amount in a feedback loop where one iteration takes 4-6 years. Other steps, like forming a government, routinely take an order of magnitude more time in many nations.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > The delay for counting the votes measures in days, which is a tiny amount in a feedback loop where one iteration takes 4-6 years. I think their argument is precisely that that's too slow of a time to reflect what the voters want and that a faster turnaround time would allow referendums and more of a direct democracy, even when it comes to minor issues, since 'representatives' often don't quite represent. Such a system does need informed voters, otherwise it opens up to reactionary activism, but that's a whole another debate.
rwj 7y ago
Canadian elections (federal and provincial) are done with paper ballots, and are always available the same day.
Rexxar 7y ago
> Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters Why should it go on both direction ? Even if it's true, is it a good thing ? You should change your opinion if you hear good arguments and not because you want to vote like the others.

arethuza 7y ago

"The slower the process is, the less representative it is" If we are talking about months perhaps, but as long as a result is known within a day or two (at most) I'm not sure it really makes that much difference.

gjm11 7y ago

Surely the relevant feedback-loop time is the interval between elections, not how long it takes for votes to be counted.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

The uk manages to get a result in general elections in < a day

afiori 7y ago

This is only relevant if you propose to have weekly/monthly elections. For elections every few years even a week of counting would not be a problem.

jfk13 7y ago
Although the longer counting takes, the more difficult it becomes for a substantial number of people to monitor the entire process. In the UK, counting takes place overnight, immediately after the polls close; it's feasible for multiple parties to ensure they have people at every location for the entire time, keeping an eye out for irregularities. If the process were extended over a week instead of a night, it becomes correspondingly harder to ensure that there was never an opportunity for someone to tamper.
- afiori 7y ago
  That is true, but if they happen digitally then that becomes completely impossible. As things are now I see no reason of sort not to use paper ballots as the main proof of vote. Especially for big nation wide elections.
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    If that happens digitally (and using correctly distributed crypto signatures), then we can provide the public with the necessary tools to check every single vote.
    - afiori 7y ago
      > and using correctly distributed crypto signatures you sort of lost me here. I will not say it is a bad idea, but it would never work in any country I know. Thee sheer size and cultural innovation required would still need to place an inordinate amount of trust in the system. Again, it is not that it is evil, as much as there are so many possible problems for so little gain (IIRC Estonia has a nice program where you have a state-SIM and you can vote via telephone, so there it actually might work)
      - heavenlyblue 7y ago
        >> you sort of lost me here. I will not say it is a bad idea, but it would never work in any country I know. Bitcoin works this way though. It is a set of tools to manipulate a highly abstract data structure. These tools are developed by a minority of the population, but the rest of the population trusts them. This works because it has value for the folk. Now you're speaking about elections. Most of the people speaking of e-elections are _mostly_ trying to get to the public that if you could make the elections work electronically - then there's a bunch of other things that could be done digitally too. One example - company board voting. What if you could be present at any board meeting because everything that is said over there is cryptographically signed by each party thus providing non-repudiation of whatever they said? What if every newspaper reporter had to sign their articles with their signature which is linked to a news trust network? Contract signatures. Inheritance. This is a reply to your: >> Again, it is not that it is evil, as much as there are so many possible problems for so little gain Little gain is only for people who have no idea of what you can do with "digital".

wongarsu 7y ago

I don't think I understand what feedback loop we are talking about? Everyone who wants to be on the ballot registers a few months in advance, which is usually a short enough time. Since people are usually voted into a job they have to do for 4-6 years you don't want hasty decisions anyways. Getting poll results while the voting stations are open is usually not a desired feature because of how it influences voters. The delay for counting the votes measures in days, which is a tiny amount in a feedback loop where one iteration takes 4-6 years. Other steps, like forming a government, routinely take an order of magnitude more time in many nations.

AsyncAwait 7y ago
> The delay for counting the votes measures in days, which is a tiny amount in a feedback loop where one iteration takes 4-6 years. I think their argument is precisely that that's too slow of a time to reflect what the voters want and that a faster turnaround time would allow referendums and more of a direct democracy, even when it comes to minor issues, since 'representatives' often don't quite represent. Such a system does need informed voters, otherwise it opens up to reactionary activism, but that's a whole another debate.

rwj 7y ago

Canadian elections (federal and provincial) are done with paper ballots, and are always available the same day.

Rexxar 7y ago

> Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters Why should it go on both direction ? Even if it's true, is it a good thing ? You should change your opinion if you hear good arguments and not because you want to vote like the others.