5 ms·

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-vote

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.
  - weaksauce 4y ago
    I had a paper ballot print out under plastic after I made my in person vote in california. you have to agree that everything matches up with what you actually voted for. the times that the "system messes up and the voter has to change it" it's almost always either user error or the touch screen being calibrated incorrectly.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    The most common cause of mis-vote is operator error. I've watched people use the touchscreen devices; with so many voters both unfamiliar with the mechanics of a touchscreen and unsteady on their feet (the median voter age is about 50), and with the machines made of cheap plastic resting on a table, they grip the machine to stabilize it and themselves. Their gripping thumb rests on the screen and creates phantom signal that makes it hard to localize the touch coordinate. This is the best argument I'm familiar with against the electronic machines we used to use, and our state switched to paper oval-fill ballots that are then electronically tabulated. But, I haven't seen the statistics yet on how many mis-counts we now have as a result relative to the old system and I'd be curious to see them... Ask yourself how confident you are that 100% of voters know how to successfully fully darken the oval. And since the system is anonymous, nobody looks over their shoulder to verify they understand how to do it before the vote is dropped in the box (though in the event of a close race, a manual recount will be automatically triggered and at that point, at least it'll be human eyes deciding whether the voter circling the oval indicates their intent to vote for that candidate).
- hef19898 4y ago
  The French presidential election got results within hours of closings, as does Germany in every election cycle. Without voring machines. How? Tons of ballot stations that count individually. Those preliminary results are recounted before it is official, usually without any deviations. I agree so, that if a system isn't set up that way, early results should not be important.
  - thatfrenchguy 4y ago
    As someone who’s done this before, it relies on tons of manual volunteer labor. You need around 0.75-1.25% of the population counting votes + the people running the polls. The way French elections are run is insanely elegant though, it’s basically perfect from a security/transparency l POV.
    - travisgriggs 4y ago
      But isn’t there something poeticly sound about this? It’s kind like “the family that eats together stays together” and other platitudes like that. A nation that requires a heavy involvement in the whole process is going to value it more. In the states, we worship money and automation, so we automate it true point where very few are involved. And then we’re surprised when “win at all cost” incidents start to rise over “determine the public will.”
      - otikik 4y ago
        It almost guarantees that the electorate won’t be consulted often, though. That’s something you can afford to do every 4 years, but not every 6 months.
        ar0 4y ago
        I don’t know. Switzerland works the same way and they have votes more often than every 6 months. (Also the average German will vote more often than just every 4 years due to European, national, state-level and regional elections.)
        4y ago
- steve_gh 4y ago
  In the UK we count ballots manually. We have 90%+ of results overnight. There is even a race between a few constituencies to be the first to officially declare a result. These guys are really well organised, and for a few days it is a huge piece of civic pride.
  - cm2187 4y ago
    With the results announced by a line up of all the candidates, almost always 2 or 3 mainstream candidates surrounded by candidates in clown or animal costumes…
- michaelgrosner2 4y ago
  It doesn't matter until the incumbent uses that delay to his advantage by declaring themselves the winner and trying to lead their followers into believing votes counted after that declaration are fraudulent.
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.

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.
- weaksauce 4y ago
  I had a paper ballot print out under plastic after I made my in person vote in california. you have to agree that everything matches up with what you actually voted for. the times that the "system messes up and the voter has to change it" it's almost always either user error or the touch screen being calibrated incorrectly.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  The most common cause of mis-vote is operator error. I've watched people use the touchscreen devices; with so many voters both unfamiliar with the mechanics of a touchscreen and unsteady on their feet (the median voter age is about 50), and with the machines made of cheap plastic resting on a table, they grip the machine to stabilize it and themselves. Their gripping thumb rests on the screen and creates phantom signal that makes it hard to localize the touch coordinate. This is the best argument I'm familiar with against the electronic machines we used to use, and our state switched to paper oval-fill ballots that are then electronically tabulated. But, I haven't seen the statistics yet on how many mis-counts we now have as a result relative to the old system and I'd be curious to see them... Ask yourself how confident you are that 100% of voters know how to successfully fully darken the oval. And since the system is anonymous, nobody looks over their shoulder to verify they understand how to do it before the vote is dropped in the box (though in the event of a close race, a manual recount will be automatically triggered and at that point, at least it'll be human eyes deciding whether the voter circling the oval indicates their intent to vote for that candidate).
hef19898 4y ago
The French presidential election got results within hours of closings, as does Germany in every election cycle. Without voring machines. How? Tons of ballot stations that count individually. Those preliminary results are recounted before it is official, usually without any deviations. I agree so, that if a system isn't set up that way, early results should not be important.
- thatfrenchguy 4y ago
  As someone who’s done this before, it relies on tons of manual volunteer labor. You need around 0.75-1.25% of the population counting votes + the people running the polls. The way French elections are run is insanely elegant though, it’s basically perfect from a security/transparency l POV.
  - travisgriggs 4y ago
    But isn’t there something poeticly sound about this? It’s kind like “the family that eats together stays together” and other platitudes like that. A nation that requires a heavy involvement in the whole process is going to value it more. In the states, we worship money and automation, so we automate it true point where very few are involved. And then we’re surprised when “win at all cost” incidents start to rise over “determine the public will.”
    - otikik 4y ago
      It almost guarantees that the electorate won’t be consulted often, though. That’s something you can afford to do every 4 years, but not every 6 months.
      - ar0 4y ago
        I don’t know. Switzerland works the same way and they have votes more often than every 6 months. (Also the average German will vote more often than just every 4 years due to European, national, state-level and regional elections.)
      - 4y ago
steve_gh 4y ago
In the UK we count ballots manually. We have 90%+ of results overnight. There is even a race between a few constituencies to be the first to officially declare a result. These guys are really well organised, and for a few days it is a huge piece of civic pride.
- cm2187 4y ago
  With the results announced by a line up of all the candidates, almost always 2 or 3 mainstream candidates surrounded by candidates in clown or animal costumes…
michaelgrosner2 4y ago
It doesn't matter until the incumbent uses that delay to his advantage by declaring themselves the winner and trying to lead their followers into believing votes counted after that declaration are fraudulent.

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.