5 ms·

Paper ballots have a much more visible chain of custody than paperless ballots. In my county, from the time voting starts to the time votes are counted, ballots

Paper ballots have a much more visible chain of custody than paperless ballots. In my county, from the time voting starts to the time votes are counted, ballots must either be in a locked closet with tamper-evident seals (for example, at night during early voting) or simultaneously in view of both Democratic and Republican election judges. It might still be possible to interfere with those, but it's much more difficult than electronic voting machines, which can in some cases be manipulated over the internet, or very quickly by a voter who exchanges memory storage units.

partiallypro 7y ago
They do that in Russia...and they also ballot stuff in Russia. The term "ballot stuffing" is from paper ballots.
- codedokode 7y ago
  Tampering with voting machines software is easier, less noticeable and doesn't even require a cooperation from staff at the polling station (which ballot stuffing requires). You just need cooperation from the manufacturer.
  - XorNot 7y ago
    And of note, the manufacturers of voting machines get out there and make public statements that they are not politically neutral - https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/machine-politics-in-the-digital-age.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/machine-politics...
zanny 7y ago
I think this is the OPs point though. You are trusting someone to make sure the ballots are in a locked closet. You aren't personally there to see it, and I personally have never been on scene to witness vote counting by a bipartisan coalition of judges. For all I know, the ballots are taken in a back room, burned, and then the election officials throw darts at a board to determine who wins. There are no publicly available recordings of the count. I'm trusting quite a few people who say they were witness that the count was legitimate. But in my experience buying off the word of even dozens of people is fairly cheap for what you get manipulating an election. And more generally, if you are already trusting said election commission to do the counting by being in a partisan staredown the same principle would apply to said commissions scrutiny over voting machines. If the parties are balanced enough in power to insure no one is stuffing the ballot behind anyone elses back they can probably mutually conclude if an electronic voting machine is safe to use for the both of them. Its worth mentioning and considering that, even in those coalition election commissions, both parties are incentivized to discredit third parties any way they can. They share a duopoly of power that they are both in their own self interest to protect, and I do not hear often about third party oversight of election commissions. Why do you trust them on that front, then, when their incentives are entirely aligned against being truthful?
- Legogris 7y ago
  Where I come from, we use paper ballots and votes are counted multiple times by different people both on election day and after. And yes, the public is invited to monitor vote counting.
  - ryanmarsh 7y ago
    This seems like the most sane approach to me. I get GP's argument that hackable machines isn't the biggest issue, however it's still a clear and present danger.
- thatfrenchguy 7y ago
  > You are trusting someone to make sure the ballots are in a locked closet Where I'm from, the paper ballots are in a transparent box, you can stay there forever / be the one who does the counting of the ballots, and you need two locks that are given to the two frontrunners parties.
- XorNot 7y ago
  The number of people who can actually comprehend the operation of a computerized voting system, let alone inspect it (not possible without an electron microscope basically) is incredibly small. Yet the possible impact of subverting it once is incredibly large. Paper ballots are not unhackable, but they do require a conspiracy. People have to turn up and take physical actions which can be comprehended by most of the general public.
not_a_cop75 7y ago
But there are countless stories of paper ballots being miraculously found that sway the vote in a close race or ones that are found in a dumpster after a vote count has just taken place. Everything can be manipulated. https://www.google.com/search?q=ballots+found+to+sway+race https://www.google.com/search?q=ballots+found+to+sway+race https://www.google.com/search?q=ballots+found+in+dumpster https://www.google.com/search?q=ballots+found+in+dumpster Name for me one instance where either of these caused a major investigation, other than that one Presidential election count in Florida.
- beat 7y ago
  If the chain of custody is correct, it should be readily traceable which precincts were the sources of "ballots found in a dumpster". And besides, "countless stories" are just stories. Show me one that's been investigated by responsible, neutral journalists. Just because everyone knows it's true doesn't mean it's actually true.
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    Find me a "neutral journalist". I'm guessing that is someone so apathetic, they don't even care about accurate reporting.
    - beat 7y ago
      Sure, all news is fake news. I'm fine with sources like CNN, NYT, etc. I'd be even happier with Reuters, or the Economist, or something like that.
      - turk73 7y ago
        Well, you shouldn't be, they are all in the propaganda game! The New York Times lied the US into the Spanish American War. They have been at this game for a very long time. CNN is total garbage. Reuters, same. Economist? Please. There isn't much actual journalism left at all, just ideologues who frame issues and push narratives.

partiallypro 7y ago

They do that in Russia...and they also ballot stuff in Russia. The term "ballot stuffing" is from paper ballots.

codedokode 7y ago
Tampering with voting machines software is easier, less noticeable and doesn't even require a cooperation from staff at the polling station (which ballot stuffing requires). You just need cooperation from the manufacturer.
- XorNot 7y ago
  And of note, the manufacturers of voting machines get out there and make public statements that they are not politically neutral - https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/machine-politics-in-the-digital-age.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/machine-politics...

zanny 7y ago

I think this is the OPs point though. You are trusting someone to make sure the ballots are in a locked closet. You aren't personally there to see it, and I personally have never been on scene to witness vote counting by a bipartisan coalition of judges. For all I know, the ballots are taken in a back room, burned, and then the election officials throw darts at a board to determine who wins. There are no publicly available recordings of the count. I'm trusting quite a few people who say they were witness that the count was legitimate. But in my experience buying off the word of even dozens of people is fairly cheap for what you get manipulating an election. And more generally, if you are already trusting said election commission to do the counting by being in a partisan staredown the same principle would apply to said commissions scrutiny over voting machines. If the parties are balanced enough in power to insure no one is stuffing the ballot behind anyone elses back they can probably mutually conclude if an electronic voting machine is safe to use for the both of them. Its worth mentioning and considering that, even in those coalition election commissions, both parties are incentivized to discredit third parties any way they can. They share a duopoly of power that they are both in their own self interest to protect, and I do not hear often about third party oversight of election commissions. Why do you trust them on that front, then, when their incentives are entirely aligned against being truthful?

Legogris 7y ago
Where I come from, we use paper ballots and votes are counted multiple times by different people both on election day and after. And yes, the public is invited to monitor vote counting.
- ryanmarsh 7y ago
  This seems like the most sane approach to me. I get GP's argument that hackable machines isn't the biggest issue, however it's still a clear and present danger.
thatfrenchguy 7y ago
> You are trusting someone to make sure the ballots are in a locked closet Where I'm from, the paper ballots are in a transparent box, you can stay there forever / be the one who does the counting of the ballots, and you need two locks that are given to the two frontrunners parties.
XorNot 7y ago
The number of people who can actually comprehend the operation of a computerized voting system, let alone inspect it (not possible without an electron microscope basically) is incredibly small. Yet the possible impact of subverting it once is incredibly large. Paper ballots are not unhackable, but they do require a conspiracy. People have to turn up and take physical actions which can be comprehended by most of the general public.

not_a_cop75 7y ago

But there are countless stories of paper ballots being miraculously found that sway the vote in a close race or ones that are found in a dumpster after a vote count has just taken place. Everything can be manipulated. https://www.google.com/search?q=ballots+found+to+sway+race https://www.google.com/search?q=ballots+found+to+sway+race https://www.google.com/search?q=ballots+found+in+dumpster https://www.google.com/search?q=ballots+found+in+dumpster Name for me one instance where either of these caused a major investigation, other than that one Presidential election count in Florida.

beat 7y ago
If the chain of custody is correct, it should be readily traceable which precincts were the sources of "ballots found in a dumpster". And besides, "countless stories" are just stories. Show me one that's been investigated by responsible, neutral journalists. Just because everyone knows it's true doesn't mean it's actually true.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  Find me a "neutral journalist". I'm guessing that is someone so apathetic, they don't even care about accurate reporting.
  - beat 7y ago
    Sure, all news is fake news. I'm fine with sources like CNN, NYT, etc. I'd be even happier with Reuters, or the Economist, or something like that.
    - turk73 7y ago
      Well, you shouldn't be, they are all in the propaganda game! The New York Times lied the US into the Spanish American War. They have been at this game for a very long time. CNN is total garbage. Reuters, same. Economist? Please. There isn't much actual journalism left at all, just ideologues who frame issues and push narratives.