4 ms·

IMO the answer has always been: - vote marking machines (eg it marks a voter readable ballot that is the official record). You get fast preliminary results an

by lokar 1y ago

IMO the answer has always been: - vote marking machines (eg it marks a voter readable ballot that is the official record). You get fast preliminary results and improved voter accessibility but still have very high tamper resistance. - risk limiting audits in all jurisdictions

whimsicalism 1y ago
- a national id that is easy for any US citizen to acquire (and a separate, similar id for all legal residents)
- ezfe 1y ago
  drive by opinions aren't really helpful, we're talking about the technical voting machines, not election policy
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    I think it is obviously on topic for this article specifically highlighting this problem and doubt I'm being downvoted due to some neutral criterion separating 'machine' from 'policy'. > See, the SAVE Act got a lot of attention in the media because it will take away eligible Americans’ ability to vote because it requires in-person registration with specific documentary proof of citizenship (like a passport or State ID + birth certificate) that millions of citizens lack. State ID alone is not enough. 47 states don’t print “U.S. citizen” anywhere on them.
    - Spooky23 1y ago
      No, it’s a rabbit hole argument that appeals to people who are ignorant of the reality of identity or are fine with disenfranchising people. Given the context that the federal government is currently rounding up US persons and detaining or exiling them without due process, it’s a doubly asinine argument.
      - whimsicalism 1y ago
        this is much more “argument by free association” than anything i said. i simply said we should have a national ID. the current per-state system is a mess and laughable from the rest of the world
        Spooky23 1y ago
        The system is such that there are 6,000 jurisdictions issuing ~20,000 types of birth certificates in the United States. It's a bonkers system, and relying on these breadcrumbs for a fundamental right is awful. For 80% of people, national ID is a no brainer. The other 20% are the issue, and it's a problem that won't be solved in this framework of government in the US.
        whimsicalism 1y ago
        seems like we should hire 1k software engineers and assign 20 birth certificate types to schema standardize and ingest to each
        Spooky23 1y ago
        We pretty much have those already. The long-term issue is that it's seen as a "states rights" issue and both the more extreme left and right wing political players are against ID for different reasons. With specific relevance to voting, what happens to the exceptions? 1% of the US population is 3.5M people. Birth certificate provenance and lack of procedure at birth is only one source of exception. Other examples: - elderly people who lose access to records - children whose parents fail to secure documents. - non-custodial parents who refuse to provide documents to their children - women whose names change from marriage/divorce - native americans whose tribal papers - minors who cannot get required identity documents because their social security card is lost and onerous to replace. (requires in-person appearance and takes 9-24 months) Voting is a fundamental right. You can establish with high certainty the identity of a individual using easy to obtain proofs. The number of non-citizens voting illegally is a tiny number. This whole controversy is about suppressing the votes of the poor and infirm, as denying their rights has a clear ROI to one of the political parties.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
My jurisdiction in Canada uses an OCR machine on a paper ballot. The paper ballot is the official record and recounts are done by hand. Seems to be the obvious way to do things.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  pretty sure this is how it is typically done in the US and pretty sure Canada even uses these same machines mostly
  - echelon 1y ago
    Some states are really behind. Several states use Scantron, and a few jurisdictions (IIRC) still use punch ballot. The state of Georgia uses these modern "digitally select, then print a ballot with QR code and legible names" ballots. They're great and feel optimal.
    - Ancapistani 1y ago
      I'm not comfortable without having a physical "receipt" that shows my vote that I can take with me. I understand why we don't do that - it would enable people to pay for votes with confidence, or to influence the votes of others via intimidation - but it would certainly make me feel better.
      - echelon 1y ago
        You don't take it with you. It's your ballot, and you submit it into a lock box when you're done. One A4-sized piece of paper with your legibly printed choices and a QR code is your ballot. When they count your vote later, they have a high-speed system that can scan all the QR codes almost instantly. It's why we know the results in as little as an hour. If there are any questions, or if the race is tight, a team of auditors can look at the ballot pages to check for any discrepancies. They'll check to make sure the machines themselves weren't tampered with by checking that the printed names and other ballot initiatives match the QR codes.
cogman10 1y ago
In idaho we have a paper ballot and scantrons (effectively). Simple, cheap, fast, and easy to audit. I don't really see why this isn't the standard beyond very dense populations needing bigger election offices or ideally extended early voting.
- echelon 1y ago
  Scantrons are subject to voter error, confusion, mis-labeling. They're almost as bad as punch-ballot. The state of Georgia finally has the perfect voting machine setup after many years of "hackable" digital-only voting machines: - Voters are given a signed, electronic card to make choices at a voting booth (same as before, in the suspicious "hackable" era). - As of 2020, after you make your elections, you receive a full-page paper printout which records your choices on A4-sized paper. This is your ballot. The names of your choices are clearly visible so you can physically review all of your votes in a large, easy to read font. All of it is crisply printed with no "hanging chads", misprinting, or under-inked results. There's only one page. - The paper ballots also have a large QR code that can easily be machine-read, but the human-readable portions are permanently linked with the QR code for later auditing. - You scan and deposit your paper ballot and card together in a secure lock box that cannot be opened without key. This system feels perfect.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >- The paper ballots also have a large QR code that can easily be machine-read, but the human-readable portions are permanently linked with the QR code for later auditing. How do you ensure secret ballots when it's printing an opaque identifier (the QR code) on your ballot?
    - echelon 1y ago
      Statistical auditing. After the elections you sample the ballots to make sure they match. If you find any instances of error, that immediately raises red flags about the entire vote set. In a close election, you comb over the results.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rwmj 1y ago
Just use paper, that's the answer. It works fine. There is simply no need at all for a machine to be involved. > You get fast preliminary results A non-problem. Exit polls can do this if you really need it.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  i think 2020 election proved there are strong legitimacy reasons to prefer a quick count that is almost certainly correct with subsequent paper verification
  - beeflet 1y ago
    what reasons
    - whimsicalism 1y ago
      people attribute some of the election denialism to the fact that initial results showed Trump winning followed by a very late night reversal due to delay in counting mailins
      - walkabout 1y ago
        It's also sometimes the case that rural and suburban precincts report before cities, which obviously slants results toward Republicans in early returns. But in the end you're dealing with people who point at a bunch of large but near-empty counties being red and only a few (very high-population) being blue as proof of a "landslide" in a race where their guy won with less than 50% of the votes cast going for him. They don't understand really basic shit. There's not much sense in going out of your way to get through skulls that dense. Whatever you do, if their leaders say "jump" they'll say "how high?" If their leaders say "fraud!" they'll say "yeah! Hang the Democrats and their collaborators!" Bend over backwards with even more safeguards, and they'll just keep being upset over the same stuff if the right people tell them to.
        1y ago
fabian2k 1y ago
Plain paper ballots work very well in other countries. That would probably need more adjustments in organization though in the US. And we still get fast preliminary results at 6pm the same day.
xtiansimon 1y ago
> “vote marking machines” ?? In NYS the main process for voting is voter marks their paper ballot and then scans the marked ballot into the “reader” (DS200). Optionally, there is a “marking” machine (Automark) which has accessibility features. But this machine only marks the ballot, and does not read. The marked ballot must still be scanned. Are you proposing to eliminate the single scanner and have a new machine developed which marks and scans ballots? If that’s the case, that would be incredibly expensive and greatly slow the voting process. I say this having worked at polls for 15 years. Also, in the article— > “…the SAVE Act got a lot of attention […] because it requires in-person registration with specific documentary proof of citizenship (like a passport or State ID + birth certificate) that millions of citizens lack.” Some confusion in this, because while a passport may prove citizenship, it is not sufficient to prove eligibility to vote. Why? Because it doesn’t show your address, and eligibility from the Bureau of Elections standpoint is residency in an Assembly District/Election District. IE, you vote where you live because of local candidates and initiatives.
- lokar 1y ago
  There are two issues: Ballot design has a big impact on self marked ballots. Most of the time it’s fine, but some times it fails badly and a significant number of voters fill it out wrong without knowing. Second, for a small but significant fraction accessibility is an issue (visually impaired, language issues). This approach is fairly standard and affordable
  - xtiansimon 1y ago
    And all of your concerns are addressed: - voters have three chances to vote if they make a mistake, knowingly. - the Automark helps with accessibility and independence, and you can ask a trusted friend/family member to assist. As to voters choosing the wrong candidate unknowingly, I don’t see software/hardware changes the problem. Just as easy to made bad design choices here (imho they’re worse than paper). As to affordability of hardware, that is not clear to me at all. The comparable costs of printed paper ballots and two machines (I think it’s per ED, or 750-1000 ppl in NY), versus 5-6+ units is not obvious. And where are these marking machines “standard”?

by lokar 1y ago

whimsicalism 1y ago

- a national id that is easy for any US citizen to acquire (and a separate, similar id for all legal residents)

ezfe 1y ago
drive by opinions aren't really helpful, we're talking about the technical voting machines, not election policy
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  I think it is obviously on topic for this article specifically highlighting this problem and doubt I'm being downvoted due to some neutral criterion separating 'machine' from 'policy'. > See, the SAVE Act got a lot of attention in the media because it will take away eligible Americans’ ability to vote because it requires in-person registration with specific documentary proof of citizenship (like a passport or State ID + birth certificate) that millions of citizens lack. State ID alone is not enough. 47 states don’t print “U.S. citizen” anywhere on them.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    No, it’s a rabbit hole argument that appeals to people who are ignorant of the reality of identity or are fine with disenfranchising people. Given the context that the federal government is currently rounding up US persons and detaining or exiling them without due process, it’s a doubly asinine argument.
    - whimsicalism 1y ago
      this is much more “argument by free association” than anything i said. i simply said we should have a national ID. the current per-state system is a mess and laughable from the rest of the world
      - Spooky23 1y ago
        The system is such that there are 6,000 jurisdictions issuing ~20,000 types of birth certificates in the United States. It's a bonkers system, and relying on these breadcrumbs for a fundamental right is awful. For 80% of people, national ID is a no brainer. The other 20% are the issue, and it's a problem that won't be solved in this framework of government in the US.
        whimsicalism 1y ago
        seems like we should hire 1k software engineers and assign 20 birth certificate types to schema standardize and ingest to each
        Spooky23 1y ago
        We pretty much have those already. The long-term issue is that it's seen as a "states rights" issue and both the more extreme left and right wing political players are against ID for different reasons. With specific relevance to voting, what happens to the exceptions? 1% of the US population is 3.5M people. Birth certificate provenance and lack of procedure at birth is only one source of exception. Other examples: - elderly people who lose access to records - children whose parents fail to secure documents. - non-custodial parents who refuse to provide documents to their children - women whose names change from marriage/divorce - native americans whose tribal papers - minors who cannot get required identity documents because their social security card is lost and onerous to replace. (requires in-person appearance and takes 9-24 months) Voting is a fundamental right. You can establish with high certainty the identity of a individual using easy to obtain proofs. The number of non-citizens voting illegally is a tiny number. This whole controversy is about suppressing the votes of the poor and infirm, as denying their rights has a clear ROI to one of the political parties.

bryanlarsen 1y ago

My jurisdiction in Canada uses an OCR machine on a paper ballot. The paper ballot is the official record and recounts are done by hand. Seems to be the obvious way to do things.

whimsicalism 1y ago
pretty sure this is how it is typically done in the US and pretty sure Canada even uses these same machines mostly
- echelon 1y ago
  Some states are really behind. Several states use Scantron, and a few jurisdictions (IIRC) still use punch ballot. The state of Georgia uses these modern "digitally select, then print a ballot with QR code and legible names" ballots. They're great and feel optimal.
  - Ancapistani 1y ago
    I'm not comfortable without having a physical "receipt" that shows my vote that I can take with me. I understand why we don't do that - it would enable people to pay for votes with confidence, or to influence the votes of others via intimidation - but it would certainly make me feel better.
    - echelon 1y ago
      You don't take it with you. It's your ballot, and you submit it into a lock box when you're done. One A4-sized piece of paper with your legibly printed choices and a QR code is your ballot. When they count your vote later, they have a high-speed system that can scan all the QR codes almost instantly. It's why we know the results in as little as an hour. If there are any questions, or if the race is tight, a team of auditors can look at the ballot pages to check for any discrepancies. They'll check to make sure the machines themselves weren't tampered with by checking that the printed names and other ballot initiatives match the QR codes.

cogman10 1y ago

In idaho we have a paper ballot and scantrons (effectively). Simple, cheap, fast, and easy to audit. I don't really see why this isn't the standard beyond very dense populations needing bigger election offices or ideally extended early voting.

echelon 1y ago
Scantrons are subject to voter error, confusion, mis-labeling. They're almost as bad as punch-ballot. The state of Georgia finally has the perfect voting machine setup after many years of "hackable" digital-only voting machines: - Voters are given a signed, electronic card to make choices at a voting booth (same as before, in the suspicious "hackable" era). - As of 2020, after you make your elections, you receive a full-page paper printout which records your choices on A4-sized paper. This is your ballot. The names of your choices are clearly visible so you can physically review all of your votes in a large, easy to read font. All of it is crisply printed with no "hanging chads", misprinting, or under-inked results. There's only one page. - The paper ballots also have a large QR code that can easily be machine-read, but the human-readable portions are permanently linked with the QR code for later auditing. - You scan and deposit your paper ballot and card together in a secure lock box that cannot be opened without key. This system feels perfect.
- gruez 1y ago
  >- The paper ballots also have a large QR code that can easily be machine-read, but the human-readable portions are permanently linked with the QR code for later auditing. How do you ensure secret ballots when it's printing an opaque identifier (the QR code) on your ballot?
  - echelon 1y ago
    Statistical auditing. After the elections you sample the ballots to make sure they match. If you find any instances of error, that immediately raises red flags about the entire vote set. In a close election, you comb over the results.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

rwmj 1y ago

Just use paper, that's the answer. It works fine. There is simply no need at all for a machine to be involved. > You get fast preliminary results A non-problem. Exit polls can do this if you really need it.

whimsicalism 1y ago
i think 2020 election proved there are strong legitimacy reasons to prefer a quick count that is almost certainly correct with subsequent paper verification
- beeflet 1y ago
  what reasons
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    people attribute some of the election denialism to the fact that initial results showed Trump winning followed by a very late night reversal due to delay in counting mailins
    - walkabout 1y ago
      It's also sometimes the case that rural and suburban precincts report before cities, which obviously slants results toward Republicans in early returns. But in the end you're dealing with people who point at a bunch of large but near-empty counties being red and only a few (very high-population) being blue as proof of a "landslide" in a race where their guy won with less than 50% of the votes cast going for him. They don't understand really basic shit. There's not much sense in going out of your way to get through skulls that dense. Whatever you do, if their leaders say "jump" they'll say "how high?" If their leaders say "fraud!" they'll say "yeah! Hang the Democrats and their collaborators!" Bend over backwards with even more safeguards, and they'll just keep being upset over the same stuff if the right people tell them to.
      - 1y ago

fabian2k 1y ago

Plain paper ballots work very well in other countries. That would probably need more adjustments in organization though in the US. And we still get fast preliminary results at 6pm the same day.

xtiansimon 1y ago

> “vote marking machines” ?? In NYS the main process for voting is voter marks their paper ballot and then scans the marked ballot into the “reader” (DS200). Optionally, there is a “marking” machine (Automark) which has accessibility features. But this machine only marks the ballot, and does not read. The marked ballot must still be scanned. Are you proposing to eliminate the single scanner and have a new machine developed which marks and scans ballots? If that’s the case, that would be incredibly expensive and greatly slow the voting process. I say this having worked at polls for 15 years. Also, in the article— > “…the SAVE Act got a lot of attention […] because it requires in-person registration with specific documentary proof of citizenship (like a passport or State ID + birth certificate) that millions of citizens lack.” Some confusion in this, because while a passport may prove citizenship, it is not sufficient to prove eligibility to vote. Why? Because it doesn’t show your address, and eligibility from the Bureau of Elections standpoint is residency in an Assembly District/Election District. IE, you vote where you live because of local candidates and initiatives.

lokar 1y ago
There are two issues: Ballot design has a big impact on self marked ballots. Most of the time it’s fine, but some times it fails badly and a significant number of voters fill it out wrong without knowing. Second, for a small but significant fraction accessibility is an issue (visually impaired, language issues). This approach is fairly standard and affordable
- xtiansimon 1y ago
  And all of your concerns are addressed: - voters have three chances to vote if they make a mistake, knowingly. - the Automark helps with accessibility and independence, and you can ask a trusted friend/family member to assist. As to voters choosing the wrong candidate unknowingly, I don’t see software/hardware changes the problem. Just as easy to made bad design choices here (imho they’re worse than paper). As to affordability of hardware, that is not clear to me at all. The comparable costs of printed paper ballots and two machines (I think it’s per ED, or 750-1000 ppl in NY), versus 5-6+ units is not obvious. And where are these marking machines “standard”?