8 ms·

> I don't even know how you'd generate fake votes in the first place > You can't just make people up! > You certainly can't just make up a final tally > the

> I don't even know how you'd generate fake votes in the first place > You can't just make people up! > You certainly can't just make up a final tally > the paper ballots have to match up It seems you live in an area with auditable physical copies of the poll receipts. Good. That should be the standard. But 5 states still don't do that: https://www.axios.com/2018/02/16/five-states-without-paper-trail-of-votes https://www.axios.com/2018/02/16/five-states-without-paper-t... And I seem to recall things were pretty disheartening nationwide in the early-2000s too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2004_us_voting_machine_problems.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2004_us_voting_machine_pr...

ncmncm 4y ago
California was one of those places until Kamala Harris fixed it. No doubt the machines were sold off to one of those. Should have scrapped them.
- stretchwithme 4y ago
  How did she fix it?
  - extropy 4y ago
    The machine prints a paper ballot that is considered the actual vote. Any electronic copy is just a counting optimization. https://www.wired.com/2003/11/e-votes-must-leave-a-paper-trail/ https://www.wired.com/2003/11/e-votes-must-leave-a-paper-tra...
    - oneplane 4y ago
      That is how voting with electronics should be. It's great for entertainment/news etc to get early results but ultimately it doesn't matter if it takes a day or two with analog counting. Same day results really don't help with anything.
      - wrycoder 4y ago
        The printed paper "ballot" may not be what the voter intended. There are multiple stories of electronic voting machines changing the vote on the screen. The voter corrects it, and the correct ballot is printed. But, if the voter misses the change, then an incorrect ballot is printed. Sometimes, the voter has to correct it more than once. Here in New Hampshire, we use paper ballots marked with a felt tip pen. They are scanned with an optical reader, but it's straightforward to do a manual recount of the official paper ballots. Electronic balloting machines are an invitation to programmatic fraud. I attended a Free Software Foundation annual meeting some years ago. The assembled group was asked whether they preferred electronic voting systems over paper ballots. Not a single hand went up.
        YokoZar 4y ago
        This is why designs usually require the voter to be able to inspect the paper ballot before finalizing it. Shenanigans like that would be caught, as the machine has no way of knowing how close the voter will look.
        ryantgtg 4y ago
        In yesterday’s California election (Los Angeles County, specifically), it had me review all of my choices on the screen (after I was done), then it printed out the form so I could review the printed copy. Then (very confusingly) the final step was to insert the form back into the machine. Basically everyone was confused by this review and reinsert process, but still it seemed like a good system for ensuring there are no glitches.
        hef19898 4y ago
        You could also just replace all that with a paper ballot.
        Ichthypresbyter 4y ago
        I have had arguments with disability activists about this- apparently, some interpretations of American disability rights legislation require electronic devices to be made available to allow voters whose disability prevents them using a pen to mark their ballot unassisted.
    - greyhair 4y ago
      We have those in NJ now. They are very cool. The printed ballot is presented to the voter, protected under glass, to verify that it is correct. It is then swallowed by the machine and the vote registered. Very clear printed text. No hanging chads.
dangoor 4y ago
Georgia replaced their machines with ones that have paper trails.
- unclebucknasty 4y ago
  Good. I never understood a rationale for not having a paper trail.
  - rlewkov 4y ago
    Assuming your a member of a union Before election Union boss: "we expect everyone to vote for candidate X" After election Union boss: "show me your vote receipt"
    - vxNsr 4y ago
      The receipt is kept with the machine. I’ve never been anywhere where they give you proof of who YOU voted for.
      - fn-mote 4y ago
        I don't know the scheme used, but _you_ also need to be able to verify that the vote was counted correctly in this situation. So make sure you read the receipt. It's better than what we have. Vote-changing can be uncovered by an audit. ... But I still prefer the coercion-resistant systems that let you verify your own vote was counted correctly after the fact. Someone else posted a link to a bunch of papers.
        JoBrad 4y ago
        As several people have commented, many systems print the receipt, which you then hand in to be counted. That’s the way my state does it, too. So you can see who your vote is being cast for.
        WWLink 4y ago
        In CA when you vote, there's a tracking mechanism you can use to see your vote was counted. A few years back I remember the ballots had a receipt you could tear off and use to verify it online later. What would be cool is if you combined that serial number with a hash generated by filling in the ballot after the fact. Eg you go to a page, supply your serial number and the things you voted for, and it tells you if it was counted and matches what you're saying. Of course, this could still be used that way... but in CA ballots usually have enough options that it would be difficult for a malicious actor to have that much intent haha. Most people would probably forget which smaller issues they voted for though.... so I dunno if it'd be reliable.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vlovich123 4y ago
Philly is on that list though according to that article.
gnfurlong 4y ago
Delaware definitely replaced their voting machines after that article was published. I think in 2020.
brightball 4y ago
I’m in SC. Last election the machine printed out a paper copy of my ballot that I had to drop into a locked bin on the way out the door.
schnable 4y ago
Philly has paper trail now, but only for the past couple years.
joecool1029 4y ago
>But 5 states still don't do that: Always bugged me too, but the good news is dirty jerz just got new machines that are auditable this year. Just voted yesterday in primaries and the machines print a paper ballot with answers ready to review. Before it drops into a lockbox, it gives you a final chance to accept or reject what is printed.
cobbzilla 4y ago
Receipts would not have mattered here. The guilty parties were literally casting votes for people they knew would not show up. It’s an identity issue, much harder, and with its own set of controversies.
- jxramos 4y ago
  Wow so we need some explicit record of abstaining that the voter can submit and check the status on.
  - anikan_vader 4y ago
    What elections you vote in is, in many cases in the US, pretty much public information.
  - afandian 4y ago
    Is there an officially recognised category of spoiled ballot paper in the US like in the UK?
    - yardie 4y ago
      Yes. I’m a poll inspector. Spoiled ballots go into a separate lockbox. At the end of the night everything is tabulated (winners, losers, provisional ballots, spoiled ballots) and posted at the voting precinct. The spoiled ballots box is sealed and taken to the election office to be inspected. This is for 1 state. Every state manages elections differently. BTW, if you can sign up to be a poll worker. It’s a thankless job that takes 1 day a year. Most poll workers are retirees and I was one of the youngest there.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    Leaving aside the question of whether it's realistic for the system to depend on non-voters checking their vote's status - what would be the procedure if someone claimed they were wrongly shown as having voted? After all, it's easy to imagine a situation where certain groups might want to manufacture evidence of voter fraud.

ncmncm 4y ago

California was one of those places until Kamala Harris fixed it. No doubt the machines were sold off to one of those. Should have scrapped them.

stretchwithme 4y ago
How did she fix it?
- extropy 4y ago
  The machine prints a paper ballot that is considered the actual vote. Any electronic copy is just a counting optimization. https://www.wired.com/2003/11/e-votes-must-leave-a-paper-trail/ https://www.wired.com/2003/11/e-votes-must-leave-a-paper-tra...
  - oneplane 4y ago
    That is how voting with electronics should be. It's great for entertainment/news etc to get early results but ultimately it doesn't matter if it takes a day or two with analog counting. Same day results really don't help with anything.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      The printed paper "ballot" may not be what the voter intended. There are multiple stories of electronic voting machines changing the vote on the screen. The voter corrects it, and the correct ballot is printed. But, if the voter misses the change, then an incorrect ballot is printed. Sometimes, the voter has to correct it more than once. Here in New Hampshire, we use paper ballots marked with a felt tip pen. They are scanned with an optical reader, but it's straightforward to do a manual recount of the official paper ballots. Electronic balloting machines are an invitation to programmatic fraud. I attended a Free Software Foundation annual meeting some years ago. The assembled group was asked whether they preferred electronic voting systems over paper ballots. Not a single hand went up.
      - YokoZar 4y ago
        This is why designs usually require the voter to be able to inspect the paper ballot before finalizing it. Shenanigans like that would be caught, as the machine has no way of knowing how close the voter will look.
        ryantgtg 4y ago
        In yesterday’s California election (Los Angeles County, specifically), it had me review all of my choices on the screen (after I was done), then it printed out the form so I could review the printed copy. Then (very confusingly) the final step was to insert the form back into the machine. Basically everyone was confused by this review and reinsert process, but still it seemed like a good system for ensuring there are no glitches.
        hef19898 4y ago
        You could also just replace all that with a paper ballot.
        Ichthypresbyter 4y ago
        I have had arguments with disability activists about this- apparently, some interpretations of American disability rights legislation require electronic devices to be made available to allow voters whose disability prevents them using a pen to mark their ballot unassisted.
  - greyhair 4y ago
    We have those in NJ now. They are very cool. The printed ballot is presented to the voter, protected under glass, to verify that it is correct. It is then swallowed by the machine and the vote registered. Very clear printed text. No hanging chads.

dangoor 4y ago

Georgia replaced their machines with ones that have paper trails.

unclebucknasty 4y ago
Good. I never understood a rationale for not having a paper trail.
- rlewkov 4y ago
  Assuming your a member of a union Before election Union boss: "we expect everyone to vote for candidate X" After election Union boss: "show me your vote receipt"
  - vxNsr 4y ago
    The receipt is kept with the machine. I’ve never been anywhere where they give you proof of who YOU voted for.
    - fn-mote 4y ago
      I don't know the scheme used, but _you_ also need to be able to verify that the vote was counted correctly in this situation. So make sure you read the receipt. It's better than what we have. Vote-changing can be uncovered by an audit. ... But I still prefer the coercion-resistant systems that let you verify your own vote was counted correctly after the fact. Someone else posted a link to a bunch of papers.
      - JoBrad 4y ago
        As several people have commented, many systems print the receipt, which you then hand in to be counted. That’s the way my state does it, too. So you can see who your vote is being cast for.
      - WWLink 4y ago
        In CA when you vote, there's a tracking mechanism you can use to see your vote was counted. A few years back I remember the ballots had a receipt you could tear off and use to verify it online later. What would be cool is if you combined that serial number with a hash generated by filling in the ballot after the fact. Eg you go to a page, supply your serial number and the things you voted for, and it tells you if it was counted and matches what you're saying. Of course, this could still be used that way... but in CA ballots usually have enough options that it would be difficult for a malicious actor to have that much intent haha. Most people would probably forget which smaller issues they voted for though.... so I dunno if it'd be reliable.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vlovich123 4y ago

Philly is on that list though according to that article.

gnfurlong 4y ago

Delaware definitely replaced their voting machines after that article was published. I think in 2020.

brightball 4y ago

I’m in SC. Last election the machine printed out a paper copy of my ballot that I had to drop into a locked bin on the way out the door.

schnable 4y ago

Philly has paper trail now, but only for the past couple years.

joecool1029 4y ago

>But 5 states still don't do that: Always bugged me too, but the good news is dirty jerz just got new machines that are auditable this year. Just voted yesterday in primaries and the machines print a paper ballot with answers ready to review. Before it drops into a lockbox, it gives you a final chance to accept or reject what is printed.

cobbzilla 4y ago

Receipts would not have mattered here. The guilty parties were literally casting votes for people they knew would not show up. It’s an identity issue, much harder, and with its own set of controversies.

jxramos 4y ago
Wow so we need some explicit record of abstaining that the voter can submit and check the status on.
- anikan_vader 4y ago
  What elections you vote in is, in many cases in the US, pretty much public information.
- afandian 4y ago
  Is there an officially recognised category of spoiled ballot paper in the US like in the UK?
  - yardie 4y ago
    Yes. I’m a poll inspector. Spoiled ballots go into a separate lockbox. At the end of the night everything is tabulated (winners, losers, provisional ballots, spoiled ballots) and posted at the voting precinct. The spoiled ballots box is sealed and taken to the election office to be inspected. This is for 1 state. Every state manages elections differently. BTW, if you can sign up to be a poll worker. It’s a thankless job that takes 1 day a year. Most poll workers are retirees and I was one of the youngest there.
- michaelt 4y ago
  Leaving aside the question of whether it's realistic for the system to depend on non-voters checking their vote's status - what would be the procedure if someone claimed they were wrongly shown as having voted? After all, it's easy to imagine a situation where certain groups might want to manufacture evidence of voter fraud.