|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2004 : 21:46:04
|
I've heard at least a few people here on the SFN lament the lack of a paper record with many of the electronic voting machines. Unfortunately, I don't see the point.
As far as I am aware, once you submit your paper ballot, it also leaves your control, and - just like with electronic voting - you have to trust the security of the voting system to see your vote get counted as intended. Obviously, people intent on changing an election's outcome who have a confederate who's involved in ballot transportation could do a lot of damage.
Yes, it's easier to rig electronic-only results, but paper voting isn't "safe" by any means.
A step towards safe voting would be to hand each voter a signed copy of their vote. Signed by the voter and a poll worker. Yes, voting anonymity is not allowed in this system, especially since in case of a recount, people would need to either take their receipts back to the polling station for validation, or poll workers would come to the voters' homes to see the receipts.
No, it isn't perfect, either, but it'd make it very much more difficult to surreptitiously change a vote. So not only would we have voting transparency, but also voting fraud transparency, as the criminals would be forced towards bribery, extortion and/or violence to get votes cast in certain ways. No computer hacking, and no ballot-box switching.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 21:59:31 [Permalink]
|
Hmm. You raise good points. It does seem to require a trade off of either anonymous voting or secure voting. Personally, I have no problem with semi-anonymous voting, meaning the proper authorities could investigate to see whether I voted for a particular candidate, but not, say, my neighbor.
In the end though, elections are only as incorruptible as the governments which hold them. What needs to be limited is the damage a few corrupted officials can have on an otherwise sound system. That's why paperless, electronic voting is particularly sinister. The havoc-to-manpower-required ratio is off the charts. In the past if you wanted to stuff ballots, you needed a small army of willing accomplices. Now the same can be accomplished by slipping a single disgruntled programmer a few greenbacks.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/09/2004 23:55:39 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 23:07:17 [Permalink]
|
True, H. but even a paper record isn't going to fix electronic voting, as the paid-off programmer simply needs to alter the results by just the right amount so that a recount would be unlikely. Not so much that the vote blatantly contradicts exit polling, and not so little to automatically trigger a recount due to a tiny margin of victory. With no recount, the paper record would go unused.
Actually, that's true for my system, too. What's needed, perhaps, for any system, is a double-check of a randomly-selected sample of votes. If a certain percentage of the double-checked votes come up wrong, that would also trigger an automatic recount. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2004 : 00:00:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What's needed, perhaps, for any system, is a double-check of a randomly-selected sample of votes. If a certain percentage of the double-checked votes come up wrong, that would also trigger an automatic recount.
That is really the only way.
Although I'm working on a system where the pollers actually come house to house. Once your vote is recorded, your arm is permanently branded by the state (to prevent double-voting.) If you wish not to vote, simple mark your front door with the blood of a lamb. In the event of contested results, all members of the challenging party are rounded up into train cars and shipped to "counting centers" to ensure an acurate tally.
I'm still working on the particulars, but that's the general outline.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2004 : 07:40:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What's needed, perhaps, for any system, is a double-check of a randomly-selected sample of votes. If a certain percentage of the double-checked votes come up wrong, that would also trigger an automatic recount.
That is really the only way.
Although I'm working on a system where the pollers actually come house to house. Once your vote is recorded, your arm is permanently branded by the state (to prevent double-voting.) If you wish not to vote, simple mark your front door with the blood of a lamb. In the event of contested results, all members of the challenging party are rounded up into train cars and shipped to "counting centers" to ensure an acurate tally.
I'm still working on the particulars, but that's the general outline.
It's a good idea, HH, but I'm working on a better one. In my system, we do away with votes altogether. Instead, we adopt-- get this-- a permanent leader who only leaves office upon death or abdication. This saves tremendous resources both in paper and time, plus it frees up television to abandon "election coverage" so more episodes of Fear Factor.
As a test run, I plan to position myself as the "President for Life" and see what happens. |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2004 : 07:44:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
If you wish not to vote, simple mark your front door with the blood of a lamb.
Does it have to be a lamb? I know it's not biblical, but what about the blood of a Siamese cat? Damn thing is really getting on my nerves.
Great plan otherwise.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2004 : 08:59:01 [Permalink]
|
The program code should be made public, for transparency purpose.
As long as all computers are disconnected from any networks, the risk of hacking should be minimal. The gain is that with an open source any decent programmer would be able to see if there were something fishy about the code.
Having the vote collecting computer separate from the reporting computer makes for simple programmes, and simple hardware, thus minimizing the risk of error. Yet, the record of the votes will still be stored on a computer with all it's flaws (HDD-crash, Microsoft operating system etc.) Paper Ballots will always be there, unless someone sets it on fire, or soak them in water.
It's about eliminating risk-factors. How about a blown fuse? The computers will need UPS to avoid unintentional shutdown. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2004 : 20:32:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave and all,
It is very possible to have electronic voting with each vote also stamping a paper ballot to verify that your vote was cast correctly and give an auditable ballot to check results with. The fact that these voting machines have done away with the individual ballot is most alarming. Now we simply have compilation machines that give a total of votes cast with that machine. Unfortunately, these machines, in certain elections, have failed and even malfunctioned or, worse, been tampered with, such that your vote for "x" has turned amazingly into a vote for "y". This is not to mention the "tallying" computers that can be hacked into and votes changed. By law, all tallying had to be done with election judges in charge of the process of counting. Now, the laws have been changed in many states to allow this to be done by computer echnicians, or verified by same, or just allowed without complaint. We have a serious breach in security going on in our elections that needs to be addressed. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
