5 ms·

We use traditional paper ballots in Spain, and we have the full results within 2-3h of polls closing. The trick is using a distributed system. Each ballot box

We use traditional paper ballots in Spain, and we have the full results within 2-3h of polls closing. The trick is using a distributed system. Each ballot box is opened, counted and tallied at the same time. The results (along with the votes themselves for posterior re-counting if needed) are sent to local electoral authorities who input the updates into a central system in real time. It essentially takes as long as it takes to count the fullest ballot boxes in big cities. Funny that you mentioned speed as an argument for electronic voting, though. I never understood how the US uses it, yet it takes them days to get the full results.

nebula8804 2y ago
>We use traditional paper ballots in Spain, and we have the full results within 2-3h of polls closing. Thats great for a country of 44 million, not so great with a country the population of 333 million spread across multiple time zones. >The trick is using a distributed system. Each ballot box is opened, counted and tallied at the same time. The results (along with the votes themselves for posterior re-counting if needed) are sent to local electoral authorities who input the updates into a central system in real time. It essentially takes as long as it takes to count the fullest ballot boxes in big cities. Lets set aside the issues involved with transmitting data electronically (sounds like just a distributed electronic system). Each state in the US runs its own election process and has its own budget. You would have numerous problems implementing this system across a country with 4 primary time zones(lets ignore the lone two states with separate time zones for now). >Funny that you mentioned speed as an argument for electronic voting, though. I never understood how the US uses it, yet it takes them days to get the full results. What are you talking about? The last several elections were typically decided within 12-24 hrs of the polls closing on the east coast. Where are you getting your "days" from? Maybe you are just reading Spanish news that is days behind in covering American news?
- throwawayffffas 2y ago
  Simple math tells you just need 10ish times the people counting. > The last several elections were typically decided within 12-24 hrs of the polls closing on the east coast. Where are you getting your "days" from? Arizona was still counting 3 or 4 days later. Also 24 hours is a day.
  - nebula8804 2y ago
    Arizona counts by paper ballot and is suffering from the problem that DRE is designed to solve. Their multiple days election is a function of a very close race and is not typically indicative of the majority of past election results. Maybe we are living in an era where each race will be razor close, which actually makes the argument for DRE.
- adriancr 2y ago
  EU elections work just fine on paper. EU has 449M people vs 331M in USA. Multiple time zones as well. Each country has its own process and budget too.. So your argument is moot.
  - nebula8804 2y ago
    This is not an argument. It is the official reasoning on why DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) is used. Said by both state legislators and election security researchers.
    - adriancr 2y ago
      In that case it's poor reasoning and they can do better.
      - nebula8804 2y ago
        They have done better: Since 2016 a majority of states with "DRE only" have switched to DRE with verifiable paper trail. It provides quick results with the backup option of manual counting. They could go further by doing statistical risk limiting auditing for all elections and not just the ones that are close but it is still a large step forward since 2016.
        adriancr 2y ago
        > They could go further by doing statistical risk limiting auditing for all elections I doubt that would help with avoiding or correcting any damage. Lets take the obvious scenario, someone does a blatant large scale steal of an election. (they get access to manufacturer, set up their own firmware to be updated on all voting machines) Imagine the damage in that case. Let's say you do detect and try to correct. It's already too late. The winners will contest statistic analysis and say fake news then tie it and any recount up in lawsuits. (perhaps combined with arranging for some ballots to be destroyed in secondary storage so any recount would be contestable too) They will assume power and it will be too late. (there is a time limit for recount and supreme court might decide to force usage of bad results) Or they might be prevented from getting in power (how would that work, who would be leading?) You will have revolts and unrest either way... That sort of chaos would be exactly what a foreign power like Russia or China would want. Punishing them would be impossible and they would have already won at this point, it wouldn't even matter who wins eventually. Domestic actors might also view this as their only option to win and use it regardless... If they get in power it's game over, if they lose they might still be in a powerful position with lots of support. So why not avoid the issue entirely and go paper ballots with independent observers.
- agubelu 2y ago
  > Thats great for a country of 44 million, not so great with a country the population of 333 million spread across multiple time zones. > You would have numerous problems implementing this system across a country with 4 primary time zones(lets ignore the lone two states with separate time zones for now). You have mentioned timezones twice but haven't really explained why or how they would be an issue. Spain has two timezones, early results are withheld until polls close in the westmost timezone. The EU spans across multiple timezones as well, and elections to the European Parliament follow the same principle. > Lets set aside the issues involved with transmitting data electronically (sounds like just a distributed electronic system). Data is transmitted electronically and made publicly available on a per-ballot-box basis. Representatives of political parties with obviously competing interests are present during the counting process (and any member of the public who wishes to can attend it as well) and keep their own tally. If they find out that it diverges from the published results, they can ask for a re-count, which is possible because the physical votes are preserved. In fact they are treated as evidence and follow proper chain of custody by the national police. > What are you talking about? The last several elections were typically decided within 12-24 hrs of the polls closing on the east coast. Where are you getting your "days" from? Maybe you are just reading Spanish news that is days behind in covering American news? I distinctly remember live following the 2020 presidential election, going to sleep after all polls closed in the US, and waking up 8 hours later with the race still undecided. How is this possible with a fully electronic system? Why is it not near-instant? This is what I haven't understood yet and would love to be explained. From Wikipedia (emphasis mine): > On the morning of November 7 at approximately 11:25 a.m. EST, roughly three and a half days after polls had closed, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, the Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News all called the election and Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes for Biden
  - nebula8804 2y ago
    >I distinctly remember live following the 2020 presidential election, going to sleep after all polls closed in the US, and waking up 8 hours later with the race still undecided. How is this possible with a fully electronic system? Why is it not near-instant? This is what I haven't understood yet and would love to be explained. They were suffering from the downsides of switching to an all paper ballot system: If you recall there was a worldwide pandemic occurring in 2020 so as a result all states offered paper ballots which were mailed in. And that election cycle, a record-breaking number of ballots were cast by mail. In Pennsylvania, things were delayed because the state wasn't allowed to start the process of verifying and counting ballots until Election Day. Pennsylvania is the state with the most votes left to count, as the end of the election and it went into Thursday if I recall. Some states, like Nevada, are also continuing to accept any mail-in ballots that arrive by Tuesday, Nov. 10, as long as they were postmarked by Election Day. That means votes were still trickling in, and all of those would have been counted. The 2020 election essentially proved my point.

nebula8804 2y ago

>We use traditional paper ballots in Spain, and we have the full results within 2-3h of polls closing. Thats great for a country of 44 million, not so great with a country the population of 333 million spread across multiple time zones. >The trick is using a distributed system. Each ballot box is opened, counted and tallied at the same time. The results (along with the votes themselves for posterior re-counting if needed) are sent to local electoral authorities who input the updates into a central system in real time. It essentially takes as long as it takes to count the fullest ballot boxes in big cities. Lets set aside the issues involved with transmitting data electronically (sounds like just a distributed electronic system). Each state in the US runs its own election process and has its own budget. You would have numerous problems implementing this system across a country with 4 primary time zones(lets ignore the lone two states with separate time zones for now). >Funny that you mentioned speed as an argument for electronic voting, though. I never understood how the US uses it, yet it takes them days to get the full results. What are you talking about? The last several elections were typically decided within 12-24 hrs of the polls closing on the east coast. Where are you getting your "days" from? Maybe you are just reading Spanish news that is days behind in covering American news?

throwawayffffas 2y ago
Simple math tells you just need 10ish times the people counting. > The last several elections were typically decided within 12-24 hrs of the polls closing on the east coast. Where are you getting your "days" from? Arizona was still counting 3 or 4 days later. Also 24 hours is a day.
- nebula8804 2y ago
  Arizona counts by paper ballot and is suffering from the problem that DRE is designed to solve. Their multiple days election is a function of a very close race and is not typically indicative of the majority of past election results. Maybe we are living in an era where each race will be razor close, which actually makes the argument for DRE.
adriancr 2y ago
EU elections work just fine on paper. EU has 449M people vs 331M in USA. Multiple time zones as well. Each country has its own process and budget too.. So your argument is moot.
- nebula8804 2y ago
  This is not an argument. It is the official reasoning on why DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) is used. Said by both state legislators and election security researchers.
  - adriancr 2y ago
    In that case it's poor reasoning and they can do better.
    - nebula8804 2y ago
      They have done better: Since 2016 a majority of states with "DRE only" have switched to DRE with verifiable paper trail. It provides quick results with the backup option of manual counting. They could go further by doing statistical risk limiting auditing for all elections and not just the ones that are close but it is still a large step forward since 2016.
      - adriancr 2y ago
        > They could go further by doing statistical risk limiting auditing for all elections I doubt that would help with avoiding or correcting any damage. Lets take the obvious scenario, someone does a blatant large scale steal of an election. (they get access to manufacturer, set up their own firmware to be updated on all voting machines) Imagine the damage in that case. Let's say you do detect and try to correct. It's already too late. The winners will contest statistic analysis and say fake news then tie it and any recount up in lawsuits. (perhaps combined with arranging for some ballots to be destroyed in secondary storage so any recount would be contestable too) They will assume power and it will be too late. (there is a time limit for recount and supreme court might decide to force usage of bad results) Or they might be prevented from getting in power (how would that work, who would be leading?) You will have revolts and unrest either way... That sort of chaos would be exactly what a foreign power like Russia or China would want. Punishing them would be impossible and they would have already won at this point, it wouldn't even matter who wins eventually. Domestic actors might also view this as their only option to win and use it regardless... If they get in power it's game over, if they lose they might still be in a powerful position with lots of support. So why not avoid the issue entirely and go paper ballots with independent observers.
agubelu 2y ago
> Thats great for a country of 44 million, not so great with a country the population of 333 million spread across multiple time zones. > You would have numerous problems implementing this system across a country with 4 primary time zones(lets ignore the lone two states with separate time zones for now). You have mentioned timezones twice but haven't really explained why or how they would be an issue. Spain has two timezones, early results are withheld until polls close in the westmost timezone. The EU spans across multiple timezones as well, and elections to the European Parliament follow the same principle. > Lets set aside the issues involved with transmitting data electronically (sounds like just a distributed electronic system). Data is transmitted electronically and made publicly available on a per-ballot-box basis. Representatives of political parties with obviously competing interests are present during the counting process (and any member of the public who wishes to can attend it as well) and keep their own tally. If they find out that it diverges from the published results, they can ask for a re-count, which is possible because the physical votes are preserved. In fact they are treated as evidence and follow proper chain of custody by the national police. > What are you talking about? The last several elections were typically decided within 12-24 hrs of the polls closing on the east coast. Where are you getting your "days" from? Maybe you are just reading Spanish news that is days behind in covering American news? I distinctly remember live following the 2020 presidential election, going to sleep after all polls closed in the US, and waking up 8 hours later with the race still undecided. How is this possible with a fully electronic system? Why is it not near-instant? This is what I haven't understood yet and would love to be explained. From Wikipedia (emphasis mine): > On the morning of November 7 at approximately 11:25 a.m. EST, roughly three and a half days after polls had closed, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, the Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News all called the election and Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes for Biden
- nebula8804 2y ago
  >I distinctly remember live following the 2020 presidential election, going to sleep after all polls closed in the US, and waking up 8 hours later with the race still undecided. How is this possible with a fully electronic system? Why is it not near-instant? This is what I haven't understood yet and would love to be explained. They were suffering from the downsides of switching to an all paper ballot system: If you recall there was a worldwide pandemic occurring in 2020 so as a result all states offered paper ballots which were mailed in. And that election cycle, a record-breaking number of ballots were cast by mail. In Pennsylvania, things were delayed because the state wasn't allowed to start the process of verifying and counting ballots until Election Day. Pennsylvania is the state with the most votes left to count, as the end of the election and it went into Thursday if I recall. Some states, like Nevada, are also continuing to accept any mail-in ballots that arrive by Tuesday, Nov. 10, as long as they were postmarked by Election Day. That means votes were still trickling in, and all of those would have been counted. The 2020 election essentially proved my point.