4 ms·

As usual, good old fashioned pen and paper is worlds better than this or any other attempt by overzealous tech people with a hammer looking to hit this particul

As usual, good old fashioned pen and paper is worlds better than this or any other attempt by overzealous tech people with a hammer looking to hit this particular nail.

schroeding 2y ago
Agreed, the classic process also requires no trust into something technical (which, to most people, is equal to magic - hell, even as a CS major it's non-trivial to understand this), but only trusting ten-thousands of your fellow citizens with very different political affiliations, keeping each other in check. Easy to understand, easy to implement, easy to be a part of.
pessimizer 2y ago
Good old fashioned pen and paper has tons of problems, and doesn't meet most of the guarantees that these voting systems are going after. Also, good old-fashioned pen and paper, when used, is surrounded by various systems and various equipment in order to: keep it anonymous and to make sure that a voter can't prove their vote to others, prevent false votes from being added and real votes from being thrown away, etc. Which is why you get things like voting booths, indelible ink marks on people's hands, elaborate secured containers for cast votes with elaborate seals, and extensive timed processes around how votes should be handled while being moved or counted, including complicated politically-aware algorithms about the selection of observers and counters, and counter-observers (and even foreign observers.) The rules about spoilage in most paper and pen voting systems are probably more complicated and involved than the core algorithms of any of these voting systems. There's was no golden age of voting when elections were trustworthy. Anonymity is a hard problem.
- schroeding 2y ago
  > Also, good old-fashioned pen and paper, when used, is surrounded by various systems and various equipment I don't know what the US does, but this is how it works in Germany: Around half-ish of the polling station staff are clerks of the local administration (normal office workers of the city hall, who almost always serve their whole life - they are not re-appointed by the current ruling party), half (or more) are citizens. If not enough citizens sign up voluntarily, random citizens are drafted. The equipment is: A list of all eligible citizens, who can vote (no registration is required), a ballot box with a very flimsy padlock, for which the polling station staff has the key, mobile privacy screens for the voters, pens and the actual ballots. If a citizen wants to vote, they show their national ID (something which the US does not have, I know, but that's not the fault of the paper voting process) and get a ballot. They make their choice behind the privacy screen and put the ballot in the ballot box. After the polling station closes, the ballot box is shaken around a bit and anyone[1] can come to look / supervise the polling station staff as they count the votes. The number of votes must be round about equal to the number of voters. The result if given to the city hall via phone, the ballots get put into the ballot box and can be recounted later, if necessary. City hall puts all results on their website, so the polling stations can verify. If a ballot has more than the allowed number of votes or something written on it, the polling station staff holds a quick vote, majority decides. That's all, the whole process. No ink, no complex seals (the key for the ballot box is in a box with the blank ballots, it's only there to prevent accidental opening of the ballot box), no timed process (except "voting until 18 o'clock"), no politically motivated selection of polling station staff or observers. Would you really say that this is more complicated than electronic voting, including understanding the algorithms? Especially for someone with no CS background. And it works - will you sometimes have one ballot more than voters? Yeah, sure, because someone may forgot to count a voter. But those tiny, human discrepancies IMO don't matter when you have >1000 ballots. The result is correct enough, and based on keeping each other in check, not on technical security measures. Everyone can understand the process, and everyone can be a part of it. It does not meet the correctness guarantees of (perfect, untamperable) electronic voting, but it's IMO a heck of a lot simpler, just as trustworthy at scale and anonymous. [1] literally anyone, even non-citizens, no registration required - we even give them coffee if some is still left :D
hereme888 2y ago
Except when mail-in ballots with the same signature and handwriting send in tens of votes each for unqualified "voters"/dead people. So I'd amend your statement to "pen and paper, with official ID and in-person verification".
- NorthTheRock 2y ago
  In the US, there's no evidence that this happens - just a bunch of media narratives and failed lawsuits after the 2020 election that couldn't provide an ounce of proof when push came to shove.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Eh, there's voter fraud in the US. Some of it is very ironic too [1]. > He voted by absentee ballot and again in person on election day but claimed in social media posts that he did it to show how insecure absentee voting is. He pleaded guilty to one of the charges and was sentenced to 6 months of probation and ordered to complete 40 hours of community service and pay $500 in restitution. [1] [2] However, I didn't see any cases for 10+ votes as a deceased person for 2020. There is somebody that voted 26 times using alive people though [3]. The overall moral is though, there is fraud and it does get caught. When you think there's "widespread" fraud that isn't being detected it ends up always being a simple explanation (i.e. people lived in the state at the time of the election and moved afterwards). [1]: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=All&year=2020&case_type=24487&fraud_type=24489 https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=Al... [2]: herit.ag/3WpMOb9 [3]: herit.ag/3yE3mD3
mariusor 2y ago
I think that stamp and paper ballots are actually hampering the democratic process. There are many downsides of physical ballots: the need to physically be at one location, having to set aside a day to vote, lack of interest for younger demographics... all of these could go away with a good electronic ballot. The more people can vote, the better the democratic process will be. Making it easier for _everyone_ to vote should be a priority.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  > having to set aside a day to vote That only happens if the people in charge of the elections are enemies of democracy. It also means that the results are being manipulated and not particularly legitimate. The election day is obviously a public holiday. There are plenty of polling locations, so you never have to go far to vote, unless you live in a particularly remote rural area. And because there are enough polling locations, you should not have to stand in line for more than a couple of minutes.
  - mariusor 2y ago
    I don't know where you're voting from, but most of my adult life I had long queues to wait in - granted I was an expat crowding an embassy's corridor - and even if I don't have to work that day, I can think of better things that I could do with my time than that. And it's not all about me or you, it's about all the people that do have to take a day off even if it's a holiday, and the people that don't live next to a polling location, and about the people that are on vacation and need to vote in a train station or air port. There are always people inconvenienced by the act of physically going to a ballot station. Electronic voting would help them.
    - jltsiren 2y ago
      I'm from Finland. I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes to vote within the country. Once I had to wait for maybe 5 minutes in an embassy, but the other times I went to an embassy there was nobody except me. There are also a few early voting days to give people more chances to vote if the actual voting day is too inconvenient. As far as I understand, online voting has been shown to have minimal to no effect on voter turnout. Most of the time, people don't skip voting because it's too inconvenient but because they are not interested or they forgot.

As usual, good old fashioned pen and paper is worlds better than this or any other attempt by overzealous tech people with a hammer looking to hit this particular nail.

schroeding 2y ago

Agreed, the classic process also requires no trust into something technical (which, to most people, is equal to magic - hell, even as a CS major it's non-trivial to understand this), but only trusting ten-thousands of your fellow citizens with very different political affiliations, keeping each other in check. Easy to understand, easy to implement, easy to be a part of.

pessimizer 2y ago

Good old fashioned pen and paper has tons of problems, and doesn't meet most of the guarantees that these voting systems are going after. Also, good old-fashioned pen and paper, when used, is surrounded by various systems and various equipment in order to: keep it anonymous and to make sure that a voter can't prove their vote to others, prevent false votes from being added and real votes from being thrown away, etc. Which is why you get things like voting booths, indelible ink marks on people's hands, elaborate secured containers for cast votes with elaborate seals, and extensive timed processes around how votes should be handled while being moved or counted, including complicated politically-aware algorithms about the selection of observers and counters, and counter-observers (and even foreign observers.) The rules about spoilage in most paper and pen voting systems are probably more complicated and involved than the core algorithms of any of these voting systems. There's was no golden age of voting when elections were trustworthy. Anonymity is a hard problem.

schroeding 2y ago
> Also, good old-fashioned pen and paper, when used, is surrounded by various systems and various equipment I don't know what the US does, but this is how it works in Germany: Around half-ish of the polling station staff are clerks of the local administration (normal office workers of the city hall, who almost always serve their whole life - they are not re-appointed by the current ruling party), half (or more) are citizens. If not enough citizens sign up voluntarily, random citizens are drafted. The equipment is: A list of all eligible citizens, who can vote (no registration is required), a ballot box with a very flimsy padlock, for which the polling station staff has the key, mobile privacy screens for the voters, pens and the actual ballots. If a citizen wants to vote, they show their national ID (something which the US does not have, I know, but that's not the fault of the paper voting process) and get a ballot. They make their choice behind the privacy screen and put the ballot in the ballot box. After the polling station closes, the ballot box is shaken around a bit and anyone[1] can come to look / supervise the polling station staff as they count the votes. The number of votes must be round about equal to the number of voters. The result if given to the city hall via phone, the ballots get put into the ballot box and can be recounted later, if necessary. City hall puts all results on their website, so the polling stations can verify. If a ballot has more than the allowed number of votes or something written on it, the polling station staff holds a quick vote, majority decides. That's all, the whole process. No ink, no complex seals (the key for the ballot box is in a box with the blank ballots, it's only there to prevent accidental opening of the ballot box), no timed process (except "voting until 18 o'clock"), no politically motivated selection of polling station staff or observers. Would you really say that this is more complicated than electronic voting, including understanding the algorithms? Especially for someone with no CS background. And it works - will you sometimes have one ballot more than voters? Yeah, sure, because someone may forgot to count a voter. But those tiny, human discrepancies IMO don't matter when you have >1000 ballots. The result is correct enough, and based on keeping each other in check, not on technical security measures. Everyone can understand the process, and everyone can be a part of it. It does not meet the correctness guarantees of (perfect, untamperable) electronic voting, but it's IMO a heck of a lot simpler, just as trustworthy at scale and anonymous. [1] literally anyone, even non-citizens, no registration required - we even give them coffee if some is still left :D

hereme888 2y ago

Except when mail-in ballots with the same signature and handwriting send in tens of votes each for unqualified "voters"/dead people. So I'd amend your statement to "pen and paper, with official ID and in-person verification".

NorthTheRock 2y ago
In the US, there's no evidence that this happens - just a bunch of media narratives and failed lawsuits after the 2020 election that couldn't provide an ounce of proof when push came to shove.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Eh, there's voter fraud in the US. Some of it is very ironic too [1]. > He voted by absentee ballot and again in person on election day but claimed in social media posts that he did it to show how insecure absentee voting is. He pleaded guilty to one of the charges and was sentenced to 6 months of probation and ordered to complete 40 hours of community service and pay $500 in restitution. [1] [2] However, I didn't see any cases for 10+ votes as a deceased person for 2020. There is somebody that voted 26 times using alive people though [3]. The overall moral is though, there is fraud and it does get caught. When you think there's "widespread" fraud that isn't being detected it ends up always being a simple explanation (i.e. people lived in the state at the time of the election and moved afterwards). [1]: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=All&year=2020&case_type=24487&fraud_type=24489 https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=Al... [2]: herit.ag/3WpMOb9 [3]: herit.ag/3yE3mD3

mariusor 2y ago

I think that stamp and paper ballots are actually hampering the democratic process. There are many downsides of physical ballots: the need to physically be at one location, having to set aside a day to vote, lack of interest for younger demographics... all of these could go away with a good electronic ballot. The more people can vote, the better the democratic process will be. Making it easier for _everyone_ to vote should be a priority.

jltsiren 2y ago
> having to set aside a day to vote That only happens if the people in charge of the elections are enemies of democracy. It also means that the results are being manipulated and not particularly legitimate. The election day is obviously a public holiday. There are plenty of polling locations, so you never have to go far to vote, unless you live in a particularly remote rural area. And because there are enough polling locations, you should not have to stand in line for more than a couple of minutes.
- mariusor 2y ago
  I don't know where you're voting from, but most of my adult life I had long queues to wait in - granted I was an expat crowding an embassy's corridor - and even if I don't have to work that day, I can think of better things that I could do with my time than that. And it's not all about me or you, it's about all the people that do have to take a day off even if it's a holiday, and the people that don't live next to a polling location, and about the people that are on vacation and need to vote in a train station or air port. There are always people inconvenienced by the act of physically going to a ballot station. Electronic voting would help them.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    I'm from Finland. I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes to vote within the country. Once I had to wait for maybe 5 minutes in an embassy, but the other times I went to an embassy there was nobody except me. There are also a few early voting days to give people more chances to vote if the actual voting day is too inconvenient. As far as I understand, online voting has been shown to have minimal to no effect on voter turnout. Most of the time, people don't skip voting because it's too inconvenient but because they are not interested or they forgot.