8 ms·

This is for a voluntary county board position without regulatory power that by statute needs to be elected by March when no one is paying attention. So someone

by skue 7y ago

This is for a voluntary county board position without regulatory power that by statute needs to be elected by March when no one is paying attention. So someone decided to try this out. OTOH, the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent [1] and FWIW the Seattle Times recently wrote an Editorial also opposing the practice. [2] Bottom line, this hardly constitutes some trend that WA state is moving towards, just something set up by a county office that is otherwise drawing skepticism. [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/secretary-of-state-questions-online-mobile-voting-plan-in-king-county-race/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/secretary... [2] https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/resist-push-for-online-ballot-box/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/resist-push-...

cafard 7y ago
Thank you for the clarification.
specialist 7y ago
Oh boy. Thanks for links. I know, and have occasionally crossed swords with, most of the players mentioned. Our conservation districts fund their own elections. They don't have the budget to pay to be on the normal ballot. The only fix would be for state government to appropriate the money. People like Toby Nixon have floated this reform at various times the last 20 years. Otherwise, there's no push. Current WA SOS Wyman is ok, for a Republican. While she does nothing to expand the franchise, she does not share Sam Reed's, her predecessor and mentor, technophilia. KC Exec Constantine absolutely knows better. He played a role in both of my efforts to protect the secret ballot (prohibit voter id from being printed on ballot) and delaying a major risky overhaul of KC Elections in 2008. Constantine is a wicked smart politician. So I wonder what his angle here is. The automated signature verification has three show stopping flaws. High error rate, both positive and negative. Blackbox. Is another form of rent seeking by vendors; last time I checked, vender gets $0.10 per voter per election (not just per ballot cast). I'm very proud of Seattle Times' editorial board on this issue. They learned, matured, adapted. I spoke with them 10+ years ago about election integrity. They were wicked smart, painfully polite & earnest, respectfully disagreed. One of my best interactions as an activist. While I disagree with Seattle Times on most everything (else), they are a worthy opponent. I know nothing about the vendors mentioned, Tuck and Finney. I assume they're typical consulting bozos chasing sales and haven't really thought about the policies involved, and don't know enough to know they're bozos. Gael Tarleton would make a great SOS.
- Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
  I hope by the length of my next sentence I'll be worthy of some small part of the praise you're giving the Seattle Times here :-) It seems to me that the only difference between an exit poll and a voluntary disclosure checkbox which, if utilized by a statistically significant portion of the electorate, could be leveraged by official government commissions to audit election results where online voting is offered is that one these options is in the price range of the national parties and not publicly disclosed and the other strikes fear into the heart of everyone I've spoken to involved in election process. Voluntary disclosure doesn't have to be a slippery slope and I firmly believe can and will lead to more fair and equitable access to the voting process and greater participation if it enabled online voting to be audited. No one believes that large numbers of people will be blackmailed into disclosing their vote and if this or discrimination happens at scale then make it explicitly illegal. For those who aren't subject to these factors and are willing to participate in a census it would completely change how elections are run for the better.
  - Beldin 7y ago
    Voluntary disclosure sounds as if it undoes the secret ballot. Just a reminder: the secret ballot is secret to protect those, whose genuine vote would otherwise be manipulated (/forced/extorted/...) Not every individual voter might need that level of protection for themselves. But every individual voter requires this level of protection for the whole process. Phrased differently: for some, anonymity in voting is nice. For others, it is necessary to get their genuine vote. For democracy to function, we need everyone's genuine vote. Thus: we need voter anonimity that cannot be rescinded by the voter - nor by anyone else.
    - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
      Again, this assumes a slippery slope. Organ donors abound. Should we be allowed to redact it on our driver's licenses for fear that we might be judged by our bosses and neighbors or compelled to donate or that it reveals our religious beliefs? When someone says, "America isn't ready for online voting." I hear, "The interests who already buy and aggregate enough information to have the results ahead of time want to stay 1 step ahead of regulators."
jimmaswell 7y ago
"the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent" Sounds like nothing but a combination of thinly veiled voter suppression or technophobia, either of which should disqualify someone from public office in the eyes of an educated voter.
- venantius 7y ago
  And this sounds like the opinion of someone who has spent literally zero time investigating how universal the consensus is among voting security professionals about how paper is still the best, most reliable, most secure technology with which to run elections.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    In-person voter fraud isn't that difficult, and especially in Washington people get packets in the mail they can vote with by returning in the mail which would be pretty easy for someone to go swiping from mailboxes. Verifying identity online is not an impossible challenge and we can't just avoid improving anything forever.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > In-person voter fraud isn't that difficult It’s difficult to scale without getting caught.
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      It's a lot easier to hijack online voting infrastructure than it is to start digging through everyone's mailboxes at the correct time when they happen to actually be sending a ballot out. The voting period in Washington is 18 days. So someone would have to either be constantly looking through my mail for the better part of three weeks, or have the best luck when it comes to predicting when I would actually send it out, and that's if they got the correct mailbox and I didn't, say, go to a post office or the ballot dropoff boxes. It would be hard to do even for an individual, and much harder to scale up.
usrusr 7y ago
The root of the problem this "voter convenience at any cost" approach is trying to solve is that positions that low maybe shouldn't be assigned by vote at all. Vote for presidents, legislators and mayors, but you have to stop doing elections at some point before reaching the office of vice janitor of the public library. Very low voter turnout is an indicator that you are close to that point. And I'm not just talking election pragmatics here, I'm also convinced that lower offices will on average see less abuse if given to career bureaucrats than if given to people who invest the effort of running in an election for an uncertain chance to get - whatever they were hoping for. It's more likely to be worth the effort for the self-serving type.
downerending 7y ago
There should be an official list of elections that don't actually matter. Or perhaps those that do, since it would be far shorter. I can't recall the last time there was an election in my precinct for any question whatsoever that was actually in play. These days I just give my wife my ballot to vote--it makes us both happier.

by skue 7y ago

cafard 7y ago

Thank you for the clarification.

specialist 7y ago

Oh boy. Thanks for links. I know, and have occasionally crossed swords with, most of the players mentioned. Our conservation districts fund their own elections. They don't have the budget to pay to be on the normal ballot. The only fix would be for state government to appropriate the money. People like Toby Nixon have floated this reform at various times the last 20 years. Otherwise, there's no push. Current WA SOS Wyman is ok, for a Republican. While she does nothing to expand the franchise, she does not share Sam Reed's, her predecessor and mentor, technophilia. KC Exec Constantine absolutely knows better. He played a role in both of my efforts to protect the secret ballot (prohibit voter id from being printed on ballot) and delaying a major risky overhaul of KC Elections in 2008. Constantine is a wicked smart politician. So I wonder what his angle here is. The automated signature verification has three show stopping flaws. High error rate, both positive and negative. Blackbox. Is another form of rent seeking by vendors; last time I checked, vender gets $0.10 per voter per election (not just per ballot cast). I'm very proud of Seattle Times' editorial board on this issue. They learned, matured, adapted. I spoke with them 10+ years ago about election integrity. They were wicked smart, painfully polite & earnest, respectfully disagreed. One of my best interactions as an activist. While I disagree with Seattle Times on most everything (else), they are a worthy opponent. I know nothing about the vendors mentioned, Tuck and Finney. I assume they're typical consulting bozos chasing sales and haven't really thought about the policies involved, and don't know enough to know they're bozos. Gael Tarleton would make a great SOS.

Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
I hope by the length of my next sentence I'll be worthy of some small part of the praise you're giving the Seattle Times here :-) It seems to me that the only difference between an exit poll and a voluntary disclosure checkbox which, if utilized by a statistically significant portion of the electorate, could be leveraged by official government commissions to audit election results where online voting is offered is that one these options is in the price range of the national parties and not publicly disclosed and the other strikes fear into the heart of everyone I've spoken to involved in election process. Voluntary disclosure doesn't have to be a slippery slope and I firmly believe can and will lead to more fair and equitable access to the voting process and greater participation if it enabled online voting to be audited. No one believes that large numbers of people will be blackmailed into disclosing their vote and if this or discrimination happens at scale then make it explicitly illegal. For those who aren't subject to these factors and are willing to participate in a census it would completely change how elections are run for the better.
- Beldin 7y ago
  Voluntary disclosure sounds as if it undoes the secret ballot. Just a reminder: the secret ballot is secret to protect those, whose genuine vote would otherwise be manipulated (/forced/extorted/...) Not every individual voter might need that level of protection for themselves. But every individual voter requires this level of protection for the whole process. Phrased differently: for some, anonymity in voting is nice. For others, it is necessary to get their genuine vote. For democracy to function, we need everyone's genuine vote. Thus: we need voter anonimity that cannot be rescinded by the voter - nor by anyone else.
  - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
    Again, this assumes a slippery slope. Organ donors abound. Should we be allowed to redact it on our driver's licenses for fear that we might be judged by our bosses and neighbors or compelled to donate or that it reveals our religious beliefs? When someone says, "America isn't ready for online voting." I hear, "The interests who already buy and aggregate enough information to have the results ahead of time want to stay 1 step ahead of regulators."

jimmaswell 7y ago

"the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent" Sounds like nothing but a combination of thinly veiled voter suppression or technophobia, either of which should disqualify someone from public office in the eyes of an educated voter.

venantius 7y ago
And this sounds like the opinion of someone who has spent literally zero time investigating how universal the consensus is among voting security professionals about how paper is still the best, most reliable, most secure technology with which to run elections.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  In-person voter fraud isn't that difficult, and especially in Washington people get packets in the mail they can vote with by returning in the mail which would be pretty easy for someone to go swiping from mailboxes. Verifying identity online is not an impossible challenge and we can't just avoid improving anything forever.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > In-person voter fraud isn't that difficult It’s difficult to scale without getting caught.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    It's a lot easier to hijack online voting infrastructure than it is to start digging through everyone's mailboxes at the correct time when they happen to actually be sending a ballot out. The voting period in Washington is 18 days. So someone would have to either be constantly looking through my mail for the better part of three weeks, or have the best luck when it comes to predicting when I would actually send it out, and that's if they got the correct mailbox and I didn't, say, go to a post office or the ballot dropoff boxes. It would be hard to do even for an individual, and much harder to scale up.

usrusr 7y ago

The root of the problem this "voter convenience at any cost" approach is trying to solve is that positions that low maybe shouldn't be assigned by vote at all. Vote for presidents, legislators and mayors, but you have to stop doing elections at some point before reaching the office of vice janitor of the public library. Very low voter turnout is an indicator that you are close to that point. And I'm not just talking election pragmatics here, I'm also convinced that lower offices will on average see less abuse if given to career bureaucrats than if given to people who invest the effort of running in an election for an uncertain chance to get - whatever they were hoping for. It's more likely to be worth the effort for the self-serving type.

downerending 7y ago

There should be an official list of elections that don't actually matter. Or perhaps those that do, since it would be far shorter. I can't recall the last time there was an election in my precinct for any question whatsoever that was actually in play. These days I just give my wife my ballot to vote--it makes us both happier.