3 ms·

The thing about paper ballots is that the ways to cheat with them are well-known ("finding" ballots in the trunk of a car, "losing" ballot boxes on the way to t

by rmunn 9mo ago

The thing about paper ballots is that the ways to cheat with them are well-known ("finding" ballots in the trunk of a car, "losing" ballot boxes on the way to the counting center, counting the ballots behind locked doors with observers not present, and so on), and have been well known for centuries. So the counters to them (ballot boxes sealed with an official seal once full, only sealed ballot boxes will be opened and counted, neutral observers present at all times when ballot boxes are being transported and/or counted, and so on) are also well-known. If those anti-cheating counters are in place, that gives you quite a lot of trust in the results. And if observers get thrown out and then ballot counting continues behind closed doors, you can have a reasonable suspicion that cheating is going on, and can make a stink and demand a redo of the vote. With Internet voting, the ways to cheat are not all that well-known among the general population, and even among an audience like HN I bet we couldn't come up with all the ways to cheat. (That's not a challenge!) So there's going to be fundamentally less trust in the election process than with paper ballots, even if the Internet-voting system was actually made completely secure. (And I'm not persuaded it can be made completely secure, given that secret ballots are a fundamental requirement of the process). So yes, paper ballots are very much the way to go.

rmunn 9mo ago
Oh, and if the election is on something so polarizing that there are no "neutral" observers, then rather than neutral observers you can have observers from both (or all) parties/sides present, with cameras rolling, while the counting is going on.
john_minsk 9mo ago
I strongly disagree. If the system is transparent enough and provides mechanisms for verification and control - No reason to distrust it. I would prefer a system where even in 20 years I can go online and check how my vote was counted in older elections - this way stealing my vote would be impossible. The issue is how to preserve privacy...
- rmunn 9mo ago
  > I would prefer a system where even in 20 years I can go online and check how my vote was counted in older elections - this way stealing my vote would be impossible. Understandable, but then vote-buying becomes possible. The reason vote-buying is impossible in a secret ballot is because you can't prove how you voted to anyone else. If you can look up your own ballot even five minutes after it's dropped into the box, then you can show your screen to someone else who then hands you $100 for voting the right way, and elections change from being "who has persuaded the most voters?" into "who has the most money to buy votes with?"
  - bluGill 9mo ago
    Vote buying and worse 'vote for me or I'll shoot you'. Buying is the more common scam but there are worse options for evil people
    - gbear605 9mo ago
      A related issue is “vote for my preferred candidate, or I’ll abuse you” as a way for husbands to control wives. That’s especially relevant when one party is favored by a majority of men while the other party is favored by a majority of women.
      - NewJazz 9mo ago
        s/husband/boss Or despot, or ruthless water district rep (lol)
    - HaZeust 9mo ago
      You can also do this today by telling someone to take a picture of their vote by smartphone or you'll shoot them. Millions post a picture of their ballot on high-energy political forums every 2 years already. This hypothetical is unhelpful.
      - luxcem 9mo ago
rmunn 9mo ago
P.S. On the subject of counting ballots behind closed doors, look up Athens, TN in 1946 if you haven't heard about it before. It's a fascinating story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 has a very long account, but the short version is: the sheriff of McMinn County was widely believed to be cheating on ballots by, among other things, having his deputies count the ballots behind closed doors. In 1940, 1942, and 1944, he and his cohorts "won" the election. But in 1946, a bunch of WW2 veterans returning home had formed their own voting block and had run some candidates opposing the sheriff and his cronies. When the sheriff's men took ballot boxes away to count behind closed doors again in the county jail, the WW2 vets armed themselves (without permission) from the local National Guard armory and besieged the jail. The sheriff's men eventually surrendered and returned the ballot boxes which, once counted in front of unbiased observers, showed that the sheriff's candidates had lost and the veteran candidates had won. (Surprise, surprise). It got made into a 1992 movie called "An American Story" (which covers many things, the Battle of Athens being just one of them). I have no idea how accurate the movie is (I know it's not 100% accurate, but how much it changed I don't know).
- ceejayoz 9mo ago
  There's a town in Alabama that skipped elections for 60 years; they'd just hand it off to a buddy. Someone finally registered to run and won by default, so ten days later they had a secret do-over to avoid a Black mayor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbern,_Alabama#Mayoral_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbern,_Alabama#Mayoral_dispu...
  - defrost 9mo ago
    Alabama Goddam
  - rmunn 9mo ago
    Hadn't heard about that one. Fascinating. Especially since the Black mayor then challenged the secret do-over, won, as was reinstated as mayor. Then the next year there was an actual election for the first time in over 60 years, and the Black mayor won reelection 66 to 26. Not 66% to 26%, 66 votes to 26 votes. Which just goes to show what a small town that was. P.S. Population of that town in 2020, according to the census? 133 people.
twright0 9mo ago
An interesting anecdote, another good example of a reasonably modern example of paper ballots enabling election stealing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_13_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_13_scandal Caro covers this pretty extensively in his LBJ biography series, but it's reasonably clear from the evidence that LBJ won his senate seat by some pretty crude paper voting record manipulation after the fact - changing a '7' to a '9' by writing over the number with a pen - almost certainly with LBJ's knowledge. Given that his senate seat eventually put him in the presidency, it's probably the most consequential voter fraud ever committed in American history (that we know about, I suppose).
- rmunn 9mo ago
  From the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article: "Six days after polls had closed, 202 additional votes were added to the totals for Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, 200 for Johnson and two for Stevenson." Those numbers alone should make anyone suspicious. If you have an urn containing about 20,000 balls in two colors, red and green (this election happened in 1948 and the 1950 census listed that county's population as 27,991; let's assume that roughly 20,000 people would have been old enough to vote in 1948) and you randomly draw out 202 balls (about 1% of the total number in the urn), you would expect the number of balls you draw out to be roughly proportional to the red-blue mix in the urn. (1% of the total is big enough to expect a roughly-unbiased sample). So if you draw out 99% red balls and 1% green balls, then either you have a very very skewed proportion of colors in the urn, or else someone is cheating. Given the TINY margin of victory in that race (87 votes out of nearly a million, 988,295 to be precise), it's very very unlikely that precinct 13 happened to be skewed 99% towards LBJ when the state as a whole was so closely balanced.
  - twright0 9mo ago
    I really encourage interested folks to read the biography (though it's an undertaking). According to Caro, part of the background is that the relevant southern Texas precincts were well understood to have vote counts up for purchase; over the course of election counting, both sides would have their controlled districts release counts based on what the other side was reporting to stay in the race. These counts would vary in legitimacy and how skewed they were based on the precinct and need of the candidate that had swayed the boss to their side. But tactics like having armed guards supervise the casting of votes to ensure the favored candidate got a large majority, or simply distributing vote receipts to people who never voted at all and recording votes on their behalf, or making numbers up entirely, were quite common. Typically, though, Caro argues that because both sides did this, and they did it incrementally, it usually wasn't enough to sway an election one way or another, but rather was just part of the cost of doing business. He even says that LBJ lost his Senate election earlier that decade because he got cocky and told the bosses of the districts he had bought to just release all their numbers right away, letting his opposition then juice their numbers just enough to win. It's really the timing, more than the margin, that makes it clear what happened (and the crudeness of the forgery); after every other precinct reported and finalized, they corrected their number by barely more than needed to win. The 100 to 1 vote margin was actually not that far off from the vote margin that the precinct reported in the first place (... which, of course, really tells you that the whole thing was made up from whole cloth).
luxcem 9mo ago
Not only that but paper in a voting booth is so simple that anyone can check that it is done properly. It may be a burdensome process, but very simple to understand. Every modernization of the process has major drawbacks. – Electronic voting machines cannot be verified by just any voter, and the vote count is not transparent. – Remote voting (even paper-based) does not guarantee freedom of choice: it cannot be ensured that the person is not under pressure at home, or even that it is truly that person who is voting. - Voting alone in a private booth ensures that no one can verify who a person voted for. It is therefore difficult to buy votes, since it is impossible to confirm that a person followed any instructions. The fact that any voter can verify and ensure that everything is conducted properly, without having to trust a third party, is essential to guaranteeing the integrity of the vote.
KurSix 9mo ago
With online systems, you can follow every visible procedure and still have no idea whether anything went wrong

by rmunn 9mo ago

rmunn 9mo ago

Oh, and if the election is on something so polarizing that there are no "neutral" observers, then rather than neutral observers you can have observers from both (or all) parties/sides present, with cameras rolling, while the counting is going on.

john_minsk 9mo ago

I strongly disagree. If the system is transparent enough and provides mechanisms for verification and control - No reason to distrust it. I would prefer a system where even in 20 years I can go online and check how my vote was counted in older elections - this way stealing my vote would be impossible. The issue is how to preserve privacy...

rmunn 9mo ago
> I would prefer a system where even in 20 years I can go online and check how my vote was counted in older elections - this way stealing my vote would be impossible. Understandable, but then vote-buying becomes possible. The reason vote-buying is impossible in a secret ballot is because you can't prove how you voted to anyone else. If you can look up your own ballot even five minutes after it's dropped into the box, then you can show your screen to someone else who then hands you $100 for voting the right way, and elections change from being "who has persuaded the most voters?" into "who has the most money to buy votes with?"
- bluGill 9mo ago
  Vote buying and worse 'vote for me or I'll shoot you'. Buying is the more common scam but there are worse options for evil people
  - gbear605 9mo ago
    A related issue is “vote for my preferred candidate, or I’ll abuse you” as a way for husbands to control wives. That’s especially relevant when one party is favored by a majority of men while the other party is favored by a majority of women.
    - NewJazz 9mo ago
      s/husband/boss Or despot, or ruthless water district rep (lol)
  - HaZeust 9mo ago
    You can also do this today by telling someone to take a picture of their vote by smartphone or you'll shoot them. Millions post a picture of their ballot on high-energy political forums every 2 years already. This hypothetical is unhelpful.
    - luxcem 9mo ago

rmunn 9mo ago

P.S. On the subject of counting ballots behind closed doors, look up Athens, TN in 1946 if you haven't heard about it before. It's a fascinating story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 has a very long account, but the short version is: the sheriff of McMinn County was widely believed to be cheating on ballots by, among other things, having his deputies count the ballots behind closed doors. In 1940, 1942, and 1944, he and his cohorts "won" the election. But in 1946, a bunch of WW2 veterans returning home had formed their own voting block and had run some candidates opposing the sheriff and his cronies. When the sheriff's men took ballot boxes away to count behind closed doors again in the county jail, the WW2 vets armed themselves (without permission) from the local National Guard armory and besieged the jail. The sheriff's men eventually surrendered and returned the ballot boxes which, once counted in front of unbiased observers, showed that the sheriff's candidates had lost and the veteran candidates had won. (Surprise, surprise). It got made into a 1992 movie called "An American Story" (which covers many things, the Battle of Athens being just one of them). I have no idea how accurate the movie is (I know it's not 100% accurate, but how much it changed I don't know).

ceejayoz 9mo ago
There's a town in Alabama that skipped elections for 60 years; they'd just hand it off to a buddy. Someone finally registered to run and won by default, so ten days later they had a secret do-over to avoid a Black mayor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbern,_Alabama#Mayoral_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbern,_Alabama#Mayoral_dispu...
- defrost 9mo ago
  Alabama Goddam
- rmunn 9mo ago
  Hadn't heard about that one. Fascinating. Especially since the Black mayor then challenged the secret do-over, won, as was reinstated as mayor. Then the next year there was an actual election for the first time in over 60 years, and the Black mayor won reelection 66 to 26. Not 66% to 26%, 66 votes to 26 votes. Which just goes to show what a small town that was. P.S. Population of that town in 2020, according to the census? 133 people.

twright0 9mo ago

An interesting anecdote, another good example of a reasonably modern example of paper ballots enabling election stealing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_13_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_13_scandal Caro covers this pretty extensively in his LBJ biography series, but it's reasonably clear from the evidence that LBJ won his senate seat by some pretty crude paper voting record manipulation after the fact - changing a '7' to a '9' by writing over the number with a pen - almost certainly with LBJ's knowledge. Given that his senate seat eventually put him in the presidency, it's probably the most consequential voter fraud ever committed in American history (that we know about, I suppose).

rmunn 9mo ago
From the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article: "Six days after polls had closed, 202 additional votes were added to the totals for Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, 200 for Johnson and two for Stevenson." Those numbers alone should make anyone suspicious. If you have an urn containing about 20,000 balls in two colors, red and green (this election happened in 1948 and the 1950 census listed that county's population as 27,991; let's assume that roughly 20,000 people would have been old enough to vote in 1948) and you randomly draw out 202 balls (about 1% of the total number in the urn), you would expect the number of balls you draw out to be roughly proportional to the red-blue mix in the urn. (1% of the total is big enough to expect a roughly-unbiased sample). So if you draw out 99% red balls and 1% green balls, then either you have a very very skewed proportion of colors in the urn, or else someone is cheating. Given the TINY margin of victory in that race (87 votes out of nearly a million, 988,295 to be precise), it's very very unlikely that precinct 13 happened to be skewed 99% towards LBJ when the state as a whole was so closely balanced.
- twright0 9mo ago
  I really encourage interested folks to read the biography (though it's an undertaking). According to Caro, part of the background is that the relevant southern Texas precincts were well understood to have vote counts up for purchase; over the course of election counting, both sides would have their controlled districts release counts based on what the other side was reporting to stay in the race. These counts would vary in legitimacy and how skewed they were based on the precinct and need of the candidate that had swayed the boss to their side. But tactics like having armed guards supervise the casting of votes to ensure the favored candidate got a large majority, or simply distributing vote receipts to people who never voted at all and recording votes on their behalf, or making numbers up entirely, were quite common. Typically, though, Caro argues that because both sides did this, and they did it incrementally, it usually wasn't enough to sway an election one way or another, but rather was just part of the cost of doing business. He even says that LBJ lost his Senate election earlier that decade because he got cocky and told the bosses of the districts he had bought to just release all their numbers right away, letting his opposition then juice their numbers just enough to win. It's really the timing, more than the margin, that makes it clear what happened (and the crudeness of the forgery); after every other precinct reported and finalized, they corrected their number by barely more than needed to win. The 100 to 1 vote margin was actually not that far off from the vote margin that the precinct reported in the first place (... which, of course, really tells you that the whole thing was made up from whole cloth).

luxcem 9mo ago

Not only that but paper in a voting booth is so simple that anyone can check that it is done properly. It may be a burdensome process, but very simple to understand. Every modernization of the process has major drawbacks. – Electronic voting machines cannot be verified by just any voter, and the vote count is not transparent. – Remote voting (even paper-based) does not guarantee freedom of choice: it cannot be ensured that the person is not under pressure at home, or even that it is truly that person who is voting. - Voting alone in a private booth ensures that no one can verify who a person voted for. It is therefore difficult to buy votes, since it is impossible to confirm that a person followed any instructions. The fact that any voter can verify and ensure that everything is conducted properly, without having to trust a third party, is essential to guaranteeing the integrity of the vote.

KurSix 9mo ago

With online systems, you can follow every visible procedure and still have no idea whether anything went wrong