3 ms·

The Way America Votes Is Broken. One Rural County Showed a Way Forward

10 points by danso 7y ago

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
I believe I read the way America does "early candidate polling" (like what is going on now for Democrats) is having an approved sanction randomly call landlines. That's very archaic and made me lose interest in the whole process.
- danso 7y ago
  This is incorrect. Modern polling calls cell phones, and also uses online surveys. However, the fact that people get so many robocalls from unknown numbers is attributed to the decrease in overall polling response: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/phone-polling-crisis-1191637 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/phone-polling-cris...
sparrish 7y ago
There's no information in this article to explain why these new uncertified machines are better. Why should we trust a non-profit that didn't get any federal certification with our voting accuracy?
- danso 7y ago
  What information are you looking for? The article describes the performance and results of these new machines for an admittedly small election: - "The machines, VotingWorks said, were inexpensive to make, easy to fix and no problem to set up and take down. The hope, the organization said, was to produce shorter lines and more reliable results, a wish that seemed realized on Nov. 5." - "After the initial trial and a second user test at a retirees potluck lunch, the county election commissioners enthusiastically allowed the company to test the machines countywide during the general election on Tuesday." - "The machines took poll workers less than two minutes to fully construct, shortening lines and keeping voters calm. Poll workers uniformly said they loved this feature, as it made the machines easier to maneuver and take down." - "“Everything went just fine,” said Amy Burdine, Choctaw County circuit clerk. “Just as expected.”" You realize that voting accuracy can be determined on the day of the election with these machines? By the way the operation is described, voters use the machine to mark choices digitally, and a paper printout is produced, allowing each voter to look at and confirm the result. According to the article, there were few, if any mistakes or complaints. What other metric are you interested in?
hirundo 7y ago
I think that a secret ballot is fundamentally incompatible with an incorruptible voting system. As long as an individual cannot check that their vote has been properly recorded, which ballot secrecy renders impossible, there will be room for shenanigans. Such secrecy clearly has benefits, like preventing much in the way of paying, or intimidating, for votes. But it also has a clear cost, namely in reducing the trustworthiness of the results. I'd choose trustworthiness, but I understand why many choose secrecy instead. I'd sure like to be convinced that this isn't such a dilemma and that there's a way to have both. But a marginally better voting machine isn't it.
- docdeek 7y ago
  Australia has a secret ballot and uses paper ballots, as does France. I’ve voted in both countries and both see you drop a piece of paper into a ballot box, and both have seen me offered to hang around after the vote is complete to help count (I’ve not been able to find the time to do this in Australia where it would be watching more than counting, but in France I got to help count the vote). While I never saw ‘my’ vote, the process was such that it was a secret who I voted for, there was a hard copy of my vote, and it was more-or-less impossible for my vote not to be counted (marked off on a list of voters at the moment of voting, had to show ID to vote in France). If the machines won’t offer a solution, maybe a traditional paper and pencil (Australia) or simple piece of paper in an envelope (France) could do it.
- danso 7y ago
  > I think that a secret ballot is fundamentally incompatible with an incorruptible voting system. I don't understand this statement. In the following paragraph, you state yourself the problems of a non-secret ballot: "paying, or intimidating, for votes". Why do you not see that – arguably the most obvious form of a corrupt voting system" as "fundamentally incompatible with an incorruptible voting system"? edit: fwiw, the machine described in this article uses a paper ballot, which the voter can review before putting it in the ballot box. But I assume you're arguing that the voter still doesn't know that their vote will be recorded in the official count, without a system that ties and tracks each ballot to a voter ID.

10 points by danso 7y ago

I believe I read the way America does "early candidate polling" (like what is going on now for Democrats) is having an approved sanction randomly call landlines. That's very archaic and made me lose interest in the whole process.

danso 7y ago
This is incorrect. Modern polling calls cell phones, and also uses online surveys. However, the fact that people get so many robocalls from unknown numbers is attributed to the decrease in overall polling response: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/phone-polling-crisis-1191637 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/phone-polling-cris...

sparrish 7y ago

There's no information in this article to explain why these new uncertified machines are better. Why should we trust a non-profit that didn't get any federal certification with our voting accuracy?

danso 7y ago
What information are you looking for? The article describes the performance and results of these new machines for an admittedly small election: - "The machines, VotingWorks said, were inexpensive to make, easy to fix and no problem to set up and take down. The hope, the organization said, was to produce shorter lines and more reliable results, a wish that seemed realized on Nov. 5." - "After the initial trial and a second user test at a retirees potluck lunch, the county election commissioners enthusiastically allowed the company to test the machines countywide during the general election on Tuesday." - "The machines took poll workers less than two minutes to fully construct, shortening lines and keeping voters calm. Poll workers uniformly said they loved this feature, as it made the machines easier to maneuver and take down." - "“Everything went just fine,” said Amy Burdine, Choctaw County circuit clerk. “Just as expected.”" You realize that voting accuracy can be determined on the day of the election with these machines? By the way the operation is described, voters use the machine to mark choices digitally, and a paper printout is produced, allowing each voter to look at and confirm the result. According to the article, there were few, if any mistakes or complaints. What other metric are you interested in?

hirundo 7y ago

I think that a secret ballot is fundamentally incompatible with an incorruptible voting system. As long as an individual cannot check that their vote has been properly recorded, which ballot secrecy renders impossible, there will be room for shenanigans. Such secrecy clearly has benefits, like preventing much in the way of paying, or intimidating, for votes. But it also has a clear cost, namely in reducing the trustworthiness of the results. I'd choose trustworthiness, but I understand why many choose secrecy instead. I'd sure like to be convinced that this isn't such a dilemma and that there's a way to have both. But a marginally better voting machine isn't it.

docdeek 7y ago
Australia has a secret ballot and uses paper ballots, as does France. I’ve voted in both countries and both see you drop a piece of paper into a ballot box, and both have seen me offered to hang around after the vote is complete to help count (I’ve not been able to find the time to do this in Australia where it would be watching more than counting, but in France I got to help count the vote). While I never saw ‘my’ vote, the process was such that it was a secret who I voted for, there was a hard copy of my vote, and it was more-or-less impossible for my vote not to be counted (marked off on a list of voters at the moment of voting, had to show ID to vote in France). If the machines won’t offer a solution, maybe a traditional paper and pencil (Australia) or simple piece of paper in an envelope (France) could do it.
danso 7y ago
> I think that a secret ballot is fundamentally incompatible with an incorruptible voting system. I don't understand this statement. In the following paragraph, you state yourself the problems of a non-secret ballot: "paying, or intimidating, for votes". Why do you not see that – arguably the most obvious form of a corrupt voting system" as "fundamentally incompatible with an incorruptible voting system"? edit: fwiw, the machine described in this article uses a paper ballot, which the voter can review before putting it in the ballot box. But I assume you're arguing that the voter still doesn't know that their vote will be recorded in the official count, without a system that ties and tracks each ballot to a voter ID.