3 ms·

This is an attempt to solve a human problem with a technical solution. Our election trouble in the US boils down to corruption, and I will be blunt: The peopl

This is an attempt to solve a human problem with a technical solution. Our election trouble in the US boils down to corruption, and I will be blunt: The people responsible for trustworthy elections aren't interested. Where they are, simple, time tested, production proven ways and means work just fine and are very robust. Trust starts with people being involved in the civics. Every layer of complexity comes with both a barrier to trust and an opportunity to exploit the process to control the election outcome. Electronic voting started out this way. So far, no scheme has even made economic sense. At any given time and population size, there are always people available for the civics. Paper has one property no electronic system has presented to date: The chain of trust between voter intent and the record of their vote is unbroken. When we mark media, we record a direct expression of voter intent and that expression is used directly to determine the final tally, and with that, the election outcome. Electronic votes are votes by proxy. Voters must trust the tech to interpret and maintain the accuracy of their vote intent. This, by nature, is untrustworthy given we don't actually need to vote by proxy in the vast majority of cases. This is all exacerbated by voter anonymity and freedom to vote or not. Having both of those in play highlight the dynamic nature of electronic records. Flat out, this problem is not well aligned to technology. Getting people involved and insuring elections embody these ideas to the maximum possible is how we run trustworthy elections: --Freedom to vote or not. --Anonymity, no vote shall be personally identifiable to the person who cast it. --Transparency. The law, means, ways, methods, shall be visible to all impacted by the election. It should be simple to understand how an expression of voter intent is recorded and followed through to the final tally. --Oversight. Not only must the law, process means and methods allow for public involvement, this must be encouraged and actually done and discussed. Legitimacy is made or broken here. These are all human problems, not technological ones. Human solutions are in use all over the world. The US stands fairly unique in both its general denial about the state of its elections and ongoing efforts to fix human problems with ever increasingly complex technology that does not get at the root causes. People need to be involved. The process needs to be simple, robust, records available, human readable in a court of law and leaders need to lead by example and cultivate trust and people involvement.

ddingus 6y ago
Before you read this, know it is the product of many discussions with reformers, legislators and some of my own State history. This information is not popular, but it is solid. Rebuttals welcome and encouraged! Now for the rough news: Reform does not begin with the losers. They lost and that undermines their position and standing to demand change. While their incentive to reform is high, driven by the need to seek power, how just their arguments are is put into question by what the winners can always argue is a general failure to appeal to the people. Losers can take a case to the people however. When said case is seen as an overall gain, it has a solid chance to succeed. (True whether their intent is just and true or self serving, nefarious.) Winners will suggest the remedy for losers is to perform better in the next election and that will carry great weight and serve as a basis to undermine reform efforts seen to also undermine the legitimacy. Winners have a low incentive to reform as said reforms can put their currently successful path to power into jeopardy. They also understand legitimacy is core to their power and standing as legislators. If they question the process, they question their own legitimacy. On this point, democracy depends strongly on legitimacy. No one holding power wants the overall process legitimacy undermined. People consent to governance in democratic society. Legitimacy is the core holding things together. So, what is the path? Generally speaking, courts are reluctant to legislate process changes. From their POV, they can sort out an election that needs it and will do so under the current process. The courts can affirm a successful reform, but cannot generally initiate one. A better process is a political problem and the courts will make it clear new law / process originates from the politics, not the bench. (I am ignoring activist courts here and those arguments have merit, but none of that is truly germane to election reform.) This does not leave much! Reform comes from the winners, people currently holding power. Their power may be democratic. Prime example is they won their election. It may be a matter of process. Succession is a prime example. They end up in power because someone else fell out of power somehow. (This does put an additional emphasis on cultivating legitimacy into play, just saying.) It may be the result of conflict too. A coup, revolt sufficient to topple prior regime, you get the idea. In all cases, winners have legitimacy as a primary concern and will be extremely reluctant to put that into question. Reform arguments are more potent when existing power and legitimacy are considered and threats marginalized. Conclusion: Successful election reform happens when the winners can propose a solution that does not undermine legitimacy and presents a mutual benefit for themselves and those voters they hold power over. The people, depending on law in their state, can also propose election reform to be generally adopted. This is the primary path for losers reform efforts. It garners legitimacy and can also be used to augment campaigns. There are some successes! Maine abandoned first past the post voting. Oregon adopted vote by mail with good overall results. Other states, Colorado, Washington... have adopted it for similar reasons and have seen similar positive outcomes. Anyone interested in election reform would be wise to study past reform efforts that improved democracy. Notably, perception of reduction in democracy, trust, legitimacy are by far the dominant outcome for electronic elections. Successful arguments include: Better elections = better politics = better policy = better lives. Improved public involvement = reduction in fraud and fraud perception = greater trust = more legitimacy. On that point, reform efforts aimed at greater participation can also mean more successful GOTV. This can mean consent perception is higher, legitimacy higher, difficult policy easier to live with.

ddingus 6y ago

Before you read this, know it is the product of many discussions with reformers, legislators and some of my own State history. This information is not popular, but it is solid. Rebuttals welcome and encouraged! Now for the rough news: Reform does not begin with the losers. They lost and that undermines their position and standing to demand change. While their incentive to reform is high, driven by the need to seek power, how just their arguments are is put into question by what the winners can always argue is a general failure to appeal to the people. Losers can take a case to the people however. When said case is seen as an overall gain, it has a solid chance to succeed. (True whether their intent is just and true or self serving, nefarious.) Winners will suggest the remedy for losers is to perform better in the next election and that will carry great weight and serve as a basis to undermine reform efforts seen to also undermine the legitimacy. Winners have a low incentive to reform as said reforms can put their currently successful path to power into jeopardy. They also understand legitimacy is core to their power and standing as legislators. If they question the process, they question their own legitimacy. On this point, democracy depends strongly on legitimacy. No one holding power wants the overall process legitimacy undermined. People consent to governance in democratic society. Legitimacy is the core holding things together. So, what is the path? Generally speaking, courts are reluctant to legislate process changes. From their POV, they can sort out an election that needs it and will do so under the current process. The courts can affirm a successful reform, but cannot generally initiate one. A better process is a political problem and the courts will make it clear new law / process originates from the politics, not the bench. (I am ignoring activist courts here and those arguments have merit, but none of that is truly germane to election reform.) This does not leave much! Reform comes from the winners, people currently holding power. Their power may be democratic. Prime example is they won their election. It may be a matter of process. Succession is a prime example. They end up in power because someone else fell out of power somehow. (This does put an additional emphasis on cultivating legitimacy into play, just saying.) It may be the result of conflict too. A coup, revolt sufficient to topple prior regime, you get the idea. In all cases, winners have legitimacy as a primary concern and will be extremely reluctant to put that into question. Reform arguments are more potent when existing power and legitimacy are considered and threats marginalized. Conclusion: Successful election reform happens when the winners can propose a solution that does not undermine legitimacy and presents a mutual benefit for themselves and those voters they hold power over. The people, depending on law in their state, can also propose election reform to be generally adopted. This is the primary path for losers reform efforts. It garners legitimacy and can also be used to augment campaigns. There are some successes! Maine abandoned first past the post voting. Oregon adopted vote by mail with good overall results. Other states, Colorado, Washington... have adopted it for similar reasons and have seen similar positive outcomes. Anyone interested in election reform would be wise to study past reform efforts that improved democracy. Notably, perception of reduction in democracy, trust, legitimacy are by far the dominant outcome for electronic elections. Successful arguments include: Better elections = better politics = better policy = better lives. Improved public involvement = reduction in fraud and fraud perception = greater trust = more legitimacy. On that point, reform efforts aimed at greater participation can also mean more successful GOTV. This can mean consent perception is higher, legitimacy higher, difficult policy easier to live with.