5 ms·

The best thing about paper ballots is their simplicity: even children can understand how to count and monitor them. Nearly any citizen has the skills to partici

by a_c_s 11y ago

The best thing about paper ballots is their simplicity: even children can understand how to count and monitor them. Nearly any citizen has the skills to participate and to spot fraud. In comparison only a small percentage of the populace understands programming, fewer still would be able to write a secure voting system and fewer still would be able to debug such a voting system (code is harder to debug than to write). Given the above and the high stakes of government elections I think we have yet to find a technology superior to simple paper ballots.

slapshot 11y ago
> even children can understand how to count and monitor them Except they have no error correction and admit ambiguity as to a voter's intent. That's all great and theoretical, but the inability of some voters in 2000 in Florida to fully punch a paper ballot led to a recount that under some scenarios would have led to President Al Gore rather than President George W. Bush. Maybe the occasional hanging chad is worth the other positive attributes of paper, but don't write off all the advantages of an electronic system (error correct, instant results, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- harry8 11y ago
  With the utmost respect, you can screw up anything. The florida voting paper and damn hole punching was and remains utterly crazy. Obviously so to the overwhelming majority of people in a way that anything electronic isn't and will never be. "This is really bad form design, look at this layout" - she said pointing to the piece of paper she was holding. Most people can assess the merit of that argument, and in the case of Florida, have done so in a reasonable manner - whatever their conclusion. "This is a bad electronic system" - 99% of people have to trust an authority to even begin to form a view on that which makes disinformation and propaganda of the usual kind, ie advertising and lobbying, more effective than it deserves to be based on merit alone. Now that's fine for soda purchases but not good enough to trust your democracy to.
- specialist 11y ago
  > the inability of some voters in 2000 in Florida to fully punch a paper ballot Blame the user? The fault lies with the election administrator who had not followed procedures and properly cleared the voting machines of chads from prior elections. > don't write off all the advantages of an electronic system (error correct, instant results, etc) None of which are true. The sole advantage to electronic voting systems is to expedite the transfer of public monies to cronies. Well, a second advantage is to obfuscate the whole process.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  This is an incredibly salient point, because the conspiracy theorist in me screams that it was intentional in order to sway public opinion in favor of electronic voting machines, in order to let Them fix elections. I truly believe the whole scheme of electronic voting is intended to defraud the public of their right to vote.
- a_c_s 11y ago
  You can simply and easily do instant results by using an optical scan voting system: ballots are scanned as they are submitted by the voter to the ballot box. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_scan_voting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_scan_voting_system
nosuchthing 11y ago
Why not both — several copies of paper receipts can be provided with serial numbers. One goes to the voter, the others would go to the vote counters. Digital can be used for a quick count, if there are any questions or need for verification the paper trail is there. *Archival quality, not thermal paper.
- dublinben 11y ago
  One of the most fundamental requirements of the ballot is secrecy. If you are provided with a receipt, you can be coerced to demonstrate that you have voted a certain way.
  - snuxoll 11y ago
    A fundamental problem with electronic voting systems in general is unless the code is open nobody has any way to know if their vote is actually secret or not - and even then we have no way of verifying the machine hasn't been tampered with.
    - fapjacks 11y ago
      Frankly I am totally astonished that it's not required that voting machines consist of open source software and hardware.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    UK ballots are supposed to be secret, but they're not really. Here's a bit of the history of moving from open votes to secret votes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-31630588 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-31630588 This article discusses what should happen to ballot slips after and election, compared to what actually happens, and describes the potential for de-anonymizing votes. http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1051,00.html http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1051,00...
  - nosuchthing 11y ago
    The "receipt" could basically be a paper ballet.
bernawil 11y ago
These article refers to 2 vulnerabilities showed. 1. The ssl certificates for the transmission of vote counts where leaked. 2. PAPER ballots, which have an rfid chip to HELP the automatic vote counting could be used to duplicate a PAPER ballot. I don't know about point 1, and I'd like someone with experience in that to check it up, but point 2 is just not an issue. This is because this isn't really electronic voting, this is an electronic assisted paper ballot. It's just a paper ballot which is printed with the help of a touchscreen. People are supposed to check each ballot in each voting table, but know they have rfid readers to make it faster. When they read a ballot as containing a double vote they just declare it invalid. Also, vote numbers must be equal to the amount of people that voted, you just can't duplicate votes.
- _lce0 11y ago
  This is wrong. And I have read this argument so many times. This needs to stop. 1. First, a "white vote" is just an empty ballot Nothing prevents the card being printed later, and used as if you voted in the first place. 2. there's no way to void your ballot. You are supposed to write "void" in the card, but nothing prevents the authorities from reading from the chip, or worst writing down "void" to your non-void ballot. 3. The chip can hold multiple votes Which the software will count, but will raise no warning whatsoever. Also, in the case of a difference between the chip counter and the paper count, which one should be trust? Should we throw away the entire table? if so, then a simple vote could then nullify the entire table
  - bernawil 11y ago
    1. It's the same for traditional ballots, "Fiscales" and the table president prevent it. They go one ballot at a time checking if the vote has to be voided for failing with the protocol and adding the votes. Now they just have an automatic medium to double check the count. Each party has an incentive to find anything to void the oposition's votes. 2. Yes there is. This last election a friend of mine got his ballot voided because he didn't fold it while putting it in the box, which would reveal the ballot ("voto cantado"). 3. Again, counters go one ballot at a time if one turns double it's voided.

by a_c_s 11y ago

slapshot 11y ago

> even children can understand how to count and monitor them Except they have no error correction and admit ambiguity as to a voter's intent. That's all great and theoretical, but the inability of some voters in 2000 in Florida to fully punch a paper ballot led to a recount that under some scenarios would have led to President Al Gore rather than President George W. Bush. Maybe the occasional hanging chad is worth the other positive attributes of paper, but don't write off all the advantages of an electronic system (error correct, instant results, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
harry8 11y ago
With the utmost respect, you can screw up anything. The florida voting paper and damn hole punching was and remains utterly crazy. Obviously so to the overwhelming majority of people in a way that anything electronic isn't and will never be. "This is really bad form design, look at this layout" - she said pointing to the piece of paper she was holding. Most people can assess the merit of that argument, and in the case of Florida, have done so in a reasonable manner - whatever their conclusion. "This is a bad electronic system" - 99% of people have to trust an authority to even begin to form a view on that which makes disinformation and propaganda of the usual kind, ie advertising and lobbying, more effective than it deserves to be based on merit alone. Now that's fine for soda purchases but not good enough to trust your democracy to.
specialist 11y ago
> the inability of some voters in 2000 in Florida to fully punch a paper ballot Blame the user? The fault lies with the election administrator who had not followed procedures and properly cleared the voting machines of chads from prior elections. > don't write off all the advantages of an electronic system (error correct, instant results, etc) None of which are true. The sole advantage to electronic voting systems is to expedite the transfer of public monies to cronies. Well, a second advantage is to obfuscate the whole process.
fapjacks 11y ago
This is an incredibly salient point, because the conspiracy theorist in me screams that it was intentional in order to sway public opinion in favor of electronic voting machines, in order to let Them fix elections. I truly believe the whole scheme of electronic voting is intended to defraud the public of their right to vote.
a_c_s 11y ago
You can simply and easily do instant results by using an optical scan voting system: ballots are scanned as they are submitted by the voter to the ballot box. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_scan_voting_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_scan_voting_system

nosuchthing 11y ago

Why not both — several copies of paper receipts can be provided with serial numbers. One goes to the voter, the others would go to the vote counters. Digital can be used for a quick count, if there are any questions or need for verification the paper trail is there. *Archival quality, not thermal paper.

dublinben 11y ago
One of the most fundamental requirements of the ballot is secrecy. If you are provided with a receipt, you can be coerced to demonstrate that you have voted a certain way.
- snuxoll 11y ago
  A fundamental problem with electronic voting systems in general is unless the code is open nobody has any way to know if their vote is actually secret or not - and even then we have no way of verifying the machine hasn't been tampered with.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    Frankly I am totally astonished that it's not required that voting machines consist of open source software and hardware.
- DanBC 11y ago
  UK ballots are supposed to be secret, but they're not really. Here's a bit of the history of moving from open votes to secret votes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-31630588 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-31630588 This article discusses what should happen to ballot slips after and election, compared to what actually happens, and describes the potential for de-anonymizing votes. http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1051,00.html http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1051,00...
- nosuchthing 11y ago
  The "receipt" could basically be a paper ballet.

bernawil 11y ago

These article refers to 2 vulnerabilities showed. 1. The ssl certificates for the transmission of vote counts where leaked. 2. PAPER ballots, which have an rfid chip to HELP the automatic vote counting could be used to duplicate a PAPER ballot. I don't know about point 1, and I'd like someone with experience in that to check it up, but point 2 is just not an issue. This is because this isn't really electronic voting, this is an electronic assisted paper ballot. It's just a paper ballot which is printed with the help of a touchscreen. People are supposed to check each ballot in each voting table, but know they have rfid readers to make it faster. When they read a ballot as containing a double vote they just declare it invalid. Also, vote numbers must be equal to the amount of people that voted, you just can't duplicate votes.

_lce0 11y ago
This is wrong. And I have read this argument so many times. This needs to stop. 1. First, a "white vote" is just an empty ballot Nothing prevents the card being printed later, and used as if you voted in the first place. 2. there's no way to void your ballot. You are supposed to write "void" in the card, but nothing prevents the authorities from reading from the chip, or worst writing down "void" to your non-void ballot. 3. The chip can hold multiple votes Which the software will count, but will raise no warning whatsoever. Also, in the case of a difference between the chip counter and the paper count, which one should be trust? Should we throw away the entire table? if so, then a simple vote could then nullify the entire table
- bernawil 11y ago
  1. It's the same for traditional ballots, "Fiscales" and the table president prevent it. They go one ballot at a time checking if the vote has to be voided for failing with the protocol and adding the votes. Now they just have an automatic medium to double check the count. Each party has an incentive to find anything to void the oposition's votes. 2. Yes there is. This last election a friend of mine got his ballot voided because he didn't fold it while putting it in the box, which would reveal the ballot ("voto cantado"). 3. Again, counters go one ballot at a time if one turns double it's voided.