3 ms·

Thanks for correcting the link [1]. And yes, the voting machines have evolved to deal with that as well. Now, the printed paper is clearly displayed, the citiz

Thanks for correcting the link [1]. And yes, the voting machines have evolved to deal with that as well. Now, the printed paper is clearly displayed, the citizen looks at it and then they press OK if it's fine, and it falls straight into the ballot box. A bit easier :) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter-verified_paper_audit_trail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter-verified_paper_audit_tra... 2: https://youtu.be/DqcZZ-QrNgc?t=198 https://youtu.be/DqcZZ-QrNgc?t=198

godelski 6y ago
[1] gets cut off because the length. Not sure if it is worth notifying @dang about though. As long as people know "tra" -> "trail" [2] That is an interesting solution but I don't think solves the problem. How does the voter know that their receipt matches the one in the bottom compartment? I can's speak Hindi so maybe they verbally addressed this issue but it wasn't apparent from the visuals alone.
- rdsubhas 6y ago
  2: Umm, wouldn't that be equivalent to the same trust voters place when dropping a ballot inside a ballot box? Is that specific to the voting machine or broader? I'm not sure myself, just asking. I don't know the sound or experience of dropping ballots into a box, since (for good or bad) paper ballots were already extinct when I started to vote...
  - godelski 6y ago
    I think there is a difference. In the dropbox case I have to trust those that are counting. I don't think we can get away from this trust level. In the hidden/automatic dropbox I have to trust the counters and the machine. I can't verify that the machine prints the same thing for me and the dropbox. Without that verification it, to me, undermines the entire point of a receipt in the first place. Maybe you see something I don't? I'm certainty not an expert so I'm open to me misunderstanding something and don't take my word as expertise either haha.
    - rdsubhas 6y ago
      :) maybe it's being part of the evolution. Once society is used to the presence of a machine, sees 5 years of trustworthy elections and recounts, and starts trusting it – then maybe the society moves on to the next stage, and opens up to seeing the machine and ballot as a small optimization. It took India 1 or 2 elections to get there. Before the first step happens, expecting the next steps would be premature I guess.
      - godelski 6y ago
        I think this ignores that the reasoning for this is not because faulty programmers, but worry about hacking. It is more that I am worried that the machine was hacked and that it prints something different. Elections are high value targets and last I checked nothing was unhackable. Quite the opposite actually.
        rdsubhas 6y ago
        I understand your point about "invisible hand" hacking, the kind where no one official on the ground is aware, but is orchestrated globally. But reality is: The printed paper shown to the voter has to go somewhere. It cannot disappear or be hidden in the machine in secret compartments because the paper is in the mechanical side of things, not software. Such hidden compartments will not fall invisible to officials on the ground. It's not a black box machine in that sense, officials run basic physical and mechanical tests on it before voting happens. The machine is dumb and tiny. I still understand your point about "anything can be hacked", but at this point, to hide something in physical sight needs on the ground support (which can happen regardless of machines), or needs discrete parts like a shredder which will make it mechanically huge and does not go unnoticed by such a large chain of command.
        godelski 6y ago
        Yeah, but you can just solve this by having the human compare the two and place one in the bin. The hidden box just makes the receipt pointless.

godelski 6y ago

[1] gets cut off because the length. Not sure if it is worth notifying @dang about though. As long as people know "tra" -> "trail" [2] That is an interesting solution but I don't think solves the problem. How does the voter know that their receipt matches the one in the bottom compartment? I can's speak Hindi so maybe they verbally addressed this issue but it wasn't apparent from the visuals alone.

rdsubhas 6y ago
2: Umm, wouldn't that be equivalent to the same trust voters place when dropping a ballot inside a ballot box? Is that specific to the voting machine or broader? I'm not sure myself, just asking. I don't know the sound or experience of dropping ballots into a box, since (for good or bad) paper ballots were already extinct when I started to vote...
- godelski 6y ago
  I think there is a difference. In the dropbox case I have to trust those that are counting. I don't think we can get away from this trust level. In the hidden/automatic dropbox I have to trust the counters and the machine. I can't verify that the machine prints the same thing for me and the dropbox. Without that verification it, to me, undermines the entire point of a receipt in the first place. Maybe you see something I don't? I'm certainty not an expert so I'm open to me misunderstanding something and don't take my word as expertise either haha.
  - rdsubhas 6y ago
    :) maybe it's being part of the evolution. Once society is used to the presence of a machine, sees 5 years of trustworthy elections and recounts, and starts trusting it – then maybe the society moves on to the next stage, and opens up to seeing the machine and ballot as a small optimization. It took India 1 or 2 elections to get there. Before the first step happens, expecting the next steps would be premature I guess.
    - godelski 6y ago
      I think this ignores that the reasoning for this is not because faulty programmers, but worry about hacking. It is more that I am worried that the machine was hacked and that it prints something different. Elections are high value targets and last I checked nothing was unhackable. Quite the opposite actually.
      - rdsubhas 6y ago
        I understand your point about "invisible hand" hacking, the kind where no one official on the ground is aware, but is orchestrated globally. But reality is: The printed paper shown to the voter has to go somewhere. It cannot disappear or be hidden in the machine in secret compartments because the paper is in the mechanical side of things, not software. Such hidden compartments will not fall invisible to officials on the ground. It's not a black box machine in that sense, officials run basic physical and mechanical tests on it before voting happens. The machine is dumb and tiny. I still understand your point about "anything can be hacked", but at this point, to hide something in physical sight needs on the ground support (which can happen regardless of machines), or needs discrete parts like a shredder which will make it mechanically huge and does not go unnoticed by such a large chain of command.
        godelski 6y ago
        Yeah, but you can just solve this by having the human compare the two and place one in the bin. The hidden box just makes the receipt pointless.