4 ms·

Before we even think of tweaking the voting system, it might be best to go back to a simple implementation people trust: paper. As a programmer, I understand t

Before we even think of tweaking the voting system, it might be best to go back to a simple implementation people trust: paper. As a programmer, I understand that only us really control the software behind voting system. Most folks don't have the slightest idea how it actually works, and if there's a bug (or worse, a vulnerability) the consequences might ripple nationwide. With paper, you get some failed counts here and there, but nothing major, and such errors tend to average out. And of course, people can understand how it work, and how to make it more accurate and reliable. Once we go back to paper, a ranking system becomes quite a bit harder to implement. Much easier however is to give a yes/no answer for each candidate. Easy to count, and the end result for each candidate is how many of the voters support them. Throw in a void clause if no candidate manages to get some threshold of support (say 50%), and you even get to take "all politicians are bastard" votes into account (something that ranked choice does not have). Alternatively, we could could give each candidate a degree of support, ranging from "unacceptable" to "ideal", and elect the candidate with the best median support. Slightly more complex, but quite a bit closer to ranked choice voting, and you keep the "all politicians are bastards" votes.

bogota 4y ago
How does ranked choice become hard on paper? At the end of the day the tally all is input into a computer anyway. Im sure different sums of yes and no answers could be reduced to a single number if you are arguing that tallying votes would be harder in the system
- obelos 4y ago
  RCV lacks the quality of “precinct summability” which means that all ballots have to be centrally tabulated. This is a serious security issue because there is a single point of failure for an attacker to undermine auditing measures. Here in Oregon, for example, state law requires that tabulation for a county's precincts must be done by the county clerk using nothing more than the information on the ballots cast in their county. This ensures that no one centralized authority can be compromised to throw a state-wide election. It also means there's no legal way to tally RCV elections in, for example, cities that span multiple counties or in state legislative districts that span multiple counties.
lostcolony 4y ago
So first let me say I generally agree with you that voting machines are a bad idea, and that we absolutely need to maintain physical audit trails. That said, I don't think it's in any way related. The people expressing the least confidence in the US' system of voting are railing against mail in and late cast votes, things that are done on paper. Electronic votes would give you a count instantly, and could be easily summed and tallied; it's any delay caused by counting paper ballots, or confirm from paper audit trails, that has led to a particular political party undermining the integrity of the elections. That's -with- "pick only your top choice". Ranked choice isn't going to change that equation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 4y ago
Voting security is now a political disaster area. Sensible people have been pointing out problems for years, since the Bush vs Gore "hanging chad" business and before. One example is Schneier: https://www.schneier.com/tag/voting/ https://www.schneier.com/tag/voting/ However, in the most recent election, there was a spate of bogus claims of election interference by Republicans presenting no evidence and trying to get the election overturned by various executive actions at various levels. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/11/undermining-democracy.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/11/undermining-d... People can understand paper voting, but will they? Or will they just listen to their favorite partisan news source telling them that the election has been stolen and to march on the legislature with their guns?
garblegarble 4y ago
>Once we go back to paper, a ranking system becomes quite a bit harder to implement I assume your "yes/no" for each candidate is designed to make it easier for a machine to count? If you get rid of machines and have humans who can be observed to show they're doing it correctly (which I think is the best way, since then the whole process can be easily understood by every voter) then it's not harder, it just takes longer as you have to run another round of counting as you eliminate candidates who didn't get sufficient votes. Vote counts don't need to come back same night or next day, the media can drum up drama in some other way than an all-night results watch. Obviously you have some pretty large districts with vastly more votes to count, but in those larger districts you also have a larger pool of volunteers to count. Ranking candidates in preference order also works the way that people think: "I want X, and if I can't have X I'd be OK with Y, or failing that with Z". None of these solutions will stop the bad-faith actors in the political system claiming that everything is rigged, but you'll never make those folks happy unless their candidate wins with the level of landslide they want

bogota 4y ago

How does ranked choice become hard on paper? At the end of the day the tally all is input into a computer anyway. Im sure different sums of yes and no answers could be reduced to a single number if you are arguing that tallying votes would be harder in the system

obelos 4y ago
RCV lacks the quality of “precinct summability” which means that all ballots have to be centrally tabulated. This is a serious security issue because there is a single point of failure for an attacker to undermine auditing measures. Here in Oregon, for example, state law requires that tabulation for a county's precincts must be done by the county clerk using nothing more than the information on the ballots cast in their county. This ensures that no one centralized authority can be compromised to throw a state-wide election. It also means there's no legal way to tally RCV elections in, for example, cities that span multiple counties or in state legislative districts that span multiple counties.

lostcolony 4y ago

So first let me say I generally agree with you that voting machines are a bad idea, and that we absolutely need to maintain physical audit trails. That said, I don't think it's in any way related. The people expressing the least confidence in the US' system of voting are railing against mail in and late cast votes, things that are done on paper. Electronic votes would give you a count instantly, and could be easily summed and tallied; it's any delay caused by counting paper ballots, or confirm from paper audit trails, that has led to a particular political party undermining the integrity of the elections. That's -with- "pick only your top choice". Ranked choice isn't going to change that equation.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 4y ago

Voting security is now a political disaster area. Sensible people have been pointing out problems for years, since the Bush vs Gore "hanging chad" business and before. One example is Schneier: https://www.schneier.com/tag/voting/ https://www.schneier.com/tag/voting/ However, in the most recent election, there was a spate of bogus claims of election interference by Republicans presenting no evidence and trying to get the election overturned by various executive actions at various levels. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/11/undermining-democracy.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/11/undermining-d... People can understand paper voting, but will they? Or will they just listen to their favorite partisan news source telling them that the election has been stolen and to march on the legislature with their guns?

garblegarble 4y ago

>Once we go back to paper, a ranking system becomes quite a bit harder to implement I assume your "yes/no" for each candidate is designed to make it easier for a machine to count? If you get rid of machines and have humans who can be observed to show they're doing it correctly (which I think is the best way, since then the whole process can be easily understood by every voter) then it's not harder, it just takes longer as you have to run another round of counting as you eliminate candidates who didn't get sufficient votes. Vote counts don't need to come back same night or next day, the media can drum up drama in some other way than an all-night results watch. Obviously you have some pretty large districts with vastly more votes to count, but in those larger districts you also have a larger pool of volunteers to count. Ranking candidates in preference order also works the way that people think: "I want X, and if I can't have X I'd be OK with Y, or failing that with Z". None of these solutions will stop the bad-faith actors in the political system claiming that everything is rigged, but you'll never make those folks happy unless their candidate wins with the level of landslide they want