4 ms·

> I want every vote counted by humans. Then you have to trust these humans to count accurately. Many people don't.

by VMG 15y ago

doc4t 15y ago
I think we can safely assume that the number of votes inaccurately counted is not statistically significant. In the cases where a tie is present a second or even third count usually takes place. I will trust this system of humans counting any day over a sum function in a database implemented by a private company with their own agenda
- planckscnst 15y ago
  > I will trust this system of humans counting any day over a sum function in a database implemented by a private company with their own agenda How about over an open source one? I have occationally thought of starting a kickstarter for an open-source voting system. It would be completely open- even down to choosing an open-source processor, and completely and transparently audited.
  - doc4t 15y ago
    The point is not open source code. You still have to place trust in the system and the people executing it. While this is also true for a paper based manual-counted system the later is so transparent to anyone that cheating becomes very very difficult. Source code will never be transparent to anyone but programmers.
- VMG 15y ago
  > I will trust this system of humans counting any day over a sum function in a database implemented by a private company with their own agenda You don't have to trust a proprietary sum function. That is what crypto voting is about.
  - doc4t 15y ago
    I admittedly don't know much about crypto voting. What I do know is this: When the entire process is analog I (and everyone else) can transparently verify what is going on. From I submit my vote to it is counted so many people are involved from all political parties that cheating becomes virtually impossible. Once you start to digitize the process you loose transparency completely. I can not see what is going on. The counting is computerized. I have to place trust in however implemented the algorithm. Also since I don't know much about crypto I even have to place trust in the guy telling me he did it right. I loose my ability to verify that the process is running untampered...and I'm a clever guy. I know CS and math and what not. Imagine the alienation of common people without IT education Voting is just one of those things that should not be computerized - there is no benefit. The current model is even costless since the people involved in the administration of votes and counting are volunteers (at least in DK).
ghostDancer 15y ago
As we do it in Spain and i think in most western countries, there is more than one person counting the votes and each one controls the others and verifying that is correct.Even there are people from different parties surveying the count.
- VMG 15y ago
  How can you trust the group counting the votes? Just because somebody proclaims to belong to another party?
  - spindritf 15y ago
    They are designated by the party, not just people who walked in and declared they will be observing the voting process on behalf of the party.
  - ghostDancer 15y ago
    And the non-party people are chosen at random from inhabitants of the area, they pay you a misery and most of them don't want to be there, they just want to finish and if no one says nothing and everything is correct they go home if not maybe they have to begin again to count so they are motivated to do it right.
Hellcat 15y ago
you are right, you can't(!!!) count on people to count the votes correctly. Many of those people have better things to do, and simply want to go home to their families. That's where the Wombat system excel!

> I want every vote counted by humans. Then you have to trust these humans to count accurately. Many people don't.

by VMG 15y ago

> I want every vote counted by humans. Then you have to trust these humans to count accurately. Many people don't.

doc4t 15y ago

I think we can safely assume that the number of votes inaccurately counted is not statistically significant. In the cases where a tie is present a second or even third count usually takes place. I will trust this system of humans counting any day over a sum function in a database implemented by a private company with their own agenda

planckscnst 15y ago
> I will trust this system of humans counting any day over a sum function in a database implemented by a private company with their own agenda How about over an open source one? I have occationally thought of starting a kickstarter for an open-source voting system. It would be completely open- even down to choosing an open-source processor, and completely and transparently audited.
- doc4t 15y ago
  The point is not open source code. You still have to place trust in the system and the people executing it. While this is also true for a paper based manual-counted system the later is so transparent to anyone that cheating becomes very very difficult. Source code will never be transparent to anyone but programmers.
VMG 15y ago
> I will trust this system of humans counting any day over a sum function in a database implemented by a private company with their own agenda You don't have to trust a proprietary sum function. That is what crypto voting is about.
- doc4t 15y ago
  I admittedly don't know much about crypto voting. What I do know is this: When the entire process is analog I (and everyone else) can transparently verify what is going on. From I submit my vote to it is counted so many people are involved from all political parties that cheating becomes virtually impossible. Once you start to digitize the process you loose transparency completely. I can not see what is going on. The counting is computerized. I have to place trust in however implemented the algorithm. Also since I don't know much about crypto I even have to place trust in the guy telling me he did it right. I loose my ability to verify that the process is running untampered...and I'm a clever guy. I know CS and math and what not. Imagine the alienation of common people without IT education Voting is just one of those things that should not be computerized - there is no benefit. The current model is even costless since the people involved in the administration of votes and counting are volunteers (at least in DK).

ghostDancer 15y ago

As we do it in Spain and i think in most western countries, there is more than one person counting the votes and each one controls the others and verifying that is correct.Even there are people from different parties surveying the count.

VMG 15y ago
How can you trust the group counting the votes? Just because somebody proclaims to belong to another party?
- spindritf 15y ago
  They are designated by the party, not just people who walked in and declared they will be observing the voting process on behalf of the party.
- ghostDancer 15y ago
  And the non-party people are chosen at random from inhabitants of the area, they pay you a misery and most of them don't want to be there, they just want to finish and if no one says nothing and everything is correct they go home if not maybe they have to begin again to count so they are motivated to do it right.

Hellcat 15y ago

you are right, you can't(!!!) count on people to count the votes correctly. Many of those people have better things to do, and simply want to go home to their families. That's where the Wombat system excel!