3 ms·

In France when I voted with papers, the ballots were in stacks and you picked the ballots then went to an isoloir(doesn't know the English word sorry) to fill y

by renox 5y ago

In France when I voted with papers, the ballots were in stacks and you picked the ballots then went to an isoloir(doesn't know the English word sorry) to fill your envelope: they weren't given to you. So this wouldn't work.

lifthrasiir 5y ago
Voting booth, I believe. That's indeed really a good idea that one can readily implement without a huge cost. Was there any incident that prompted such a voting protocol?
- renox 5y ago
  If there was one, I'm not aware, sorry. It may just be an easy way to handle the 'distribution' of ballots. Obviously they gave you the envelope. Unfortunately now they use electronic voting, a clear regression for transparency :-(
  - FrenchAmerican 5y ago
    I'm not sure to get your reply right, but just in case: we don't vote electronically in France. Some companies are lobbying for it, of course, but they propose "solutions" for a non-existing issue. Some very few cases of fraud are spotted but that is rather a good sign, imo. It means that the process is scrutinized and there will always be people dumb enough to think they are more clever. The voting booth was historically a way to ensure that one individual is voting in total freedom. So only one person is allowed is the booth (except young children so parents can vote). So the husband can not tell his wife how to vote. The law forces you to take at least 3 bulletins (or 4 maybe, I'd have to check) among all the candidates, and you are invited to take one of each. At the second round, you must take one bulletin of each finalist. Well, at least in the presidential election. For the House, there may be more than two finalists, since the threshold to access the final stage is at 12.5% of the votes. So 3 or 4 finalists are common. There again, you have to take several bulletins before going into the booth. All the political parties are invited to send a scrutinizer to the votes' counting process, and common voters are asked randomly to participate if they want to. Anyone can ask to witness the process (without being part of the process of counting). Very few do in practice, but I like seeing parents showing their children how democracy works. The only but very real drawback to the paper process: the cost. Not to the State: the candidates are supposed to provide themselves the bulletins, meeting super specific criteria: exact size, font, colors, as well as a specific weight per bulletin (with a small margin of error). That costs a lot of money for a small party to provide enough bulletins. If your new hence still small party can hope for 10% of the votes... you need in theory to provide at least one bulletin for each voter, since they must in all cases take several as mentioned. At a national scale, this amounts easily to $500 000, with all the deliveries etc. So the larger parties are not at all inclined to make the vote electronic: it would make things too easy for spring-ups parties too compete. But if the State pays for it, there will probably be 30 candidates in the House elections rather than 5 to 10. French traditionally vote in a much larger proportion than Americans. It used to be the case anyway, since the abstention is growing in France and decreasing in the US. Almost 74% of people on the electoral lists voted for the first round of the presidential election ten days ago. Which is a low rate by the French standards. It used to be far beyond 80%. Bad sign for our democracy, with a far-right candidate among the finalists and the other... Well, opinions vary greatly about Macron. Note that there is absolutely no barrier to the inscription as a voter. It is super easy. So no racial or other legal obstructions. You can not vote by mail (since someone may influence your vote) but you can entrust someone to vote in your name. But that person can therefore vote for whoever they want, respecting your choice or not. That's not perfect, obviously, but the lesser evil, maybe. Modernity is to vote by paper, in a one-person both. Modernity is efficiency, not technology. Low-tech is always better if it fits the requirements. I'm an IT guy, therefore an evangelist of the anti-electronic vote. Aren't we all? <!- insert here your blockchain solution to yet another non-existing problem -> ;-)
woliveirajr 5y ago
I though in a scenario where the ballots are in a stockpile and you pick up the top one. If they are secretly numbered, it doesn't matter which one you did pick up: it's just necessary to register who was the first to vote and so on. This can de done by anyone. Example: the person that is checking your ID before you pick the ballot.
- renox 5y ago
  It wouldn't work: in theory you were indeed supposed to take one ballot for each candidate, but in practice some made a show to not pick some candidate, other took several papers.. I remember opening envelopes where several ballots for the same candidate were put together in the same envelope, a very bad idea as this meant that this envelope wasn't considered a valid vote..

by renox 5y ago

lifthrasiir 5y ago

Voting booth, I believe. That's indeed really a good idea that one can readily implement without a huge cost. Was there any incident that prompted such a voting protocol?

renox 5y ago
If there was one, I'm not aware, sorry. It may just be an easy way to handle the 'distribution' of ballots. Obviously they gave you the envelope. Unfortunately now they use electronic voting, a clear regression for transparency :-(
- FrenchAmerican 5y ago
  I'm not sure to get your reply right, but just in case: we don't vote electronically in France. Some companies are lobbying for it, of course, but they propose "solutions" for a non-existing issue. Some very few cases of fraud are spotted but that is rather a good sign, imo. It means that the process is scrutinized and there will always be people dumb enough to think they are more clever. The voting booth was historically a way to ensure that one individual is voting in total freedom. So only one person is allowed is the booth (except young children so parents can vote). So the husband can not tell his wife how to vote. The law forces you to take at least 3 bulletins (or 4 maybe, I'd have to check) among all the candidates, and you are invited to take one of each. At the second round, you must take one bulletin of each finalist. Well, at least in the presidential election. For the House, there may be more than two finalists, since the threshold to access the final stage is at 12.5% of the votes. So 3 or 4 finalists are common. There again, you have to take several bulletins before going into the booth. All the political parties are invited to send a scrutinizer to the votes' counting process, and common voters are asked randomly to participate if they want to. Anyone can ask to witness the process (without being part of the process of counting). Very few do in practice, but I like seeing parents showing their children how democracy works. The only but very real drawback to the paper process: the cost. Not to the State: the candidates are supposed to provide themselves the bulletins, meeting super specific criteria: exact size, font, colors, as well as a specific weight per bulletin (with a small margin of error). That costs a lot of money for a small party to provide enough bulletins. If your new hence still small party can hope for 10% of the votes... you need in theory to provide at least one bulletin for each voter, since they must in all cases take several as mentioned. At a national scale, this amounts easily to $500 000, with all the deliveries etc. So the larger parties are not at all inclined to make the vote electronic: it would make things too easy for spring-ups parties too compete. But if the State pays for it, there will probably be 30 candidates in the House elections rather than 5 to 10. French traditionally vote in a much larger proportion than Americans. It used to be the case anyway, since the abstention is growing in France and decreasing in the US. Almost 74% of people on the electoral lists voted for the first round of the presidential election ten days ago. Which is a low rate by the French standards. It used to be far beyond 80%. Bad sign for our democracy, with a far-right candidate among the finalists and the other... Well, opinions vary greatly about Macron. Note that there is absolutely no barrier to the inscription as a voter. It is super easy. So no racial or other legal obstructions. You can not vote by mail (since someone may influence your vote) but you can entrust someone to vote in your name. But that person can therefore vote for whoever they want, respecting your choice or not. That's not perfect, obviously, but the lesser evil, maybe. Modernity is to vote by paper, in a one-person both. Modernity is efficiency, not technology. Low-tech is always better if it fits the requirements. I'm an IT guy, therefore an evangelist of the anti-electronic vote. Aren't we all? <!- insert here your blockchain solution to yet another non-existing problem -> ;-)

woliveirajr 5y ago

I though in a scenario where the ballots are in a stockpile and you pick up the top one. If they are secretly numbered, it doesn't matter which one you did pick up: it's just necessary to register who was the first to vote and so on. This can de done by anyone. Example: the person that is checking your ID before you pick the ballot.

renox 5y ago
It wouldn't work: in theory you were indeed supposed to take one ballot for each candidate, but in practice some made a show to not pick some candidate, other took several papers.. I remember opening envelopes where several ballots for the same candidate were put together in the same envelope, a very bad idea as this meant that this envelope wasn't considered a valid vote..