NationStates Jolt Archive

Whenever you're at the ariport, you slide your ticket through this stand which validates it, and you board your flight.


Well why not use the same sort of technology for voting?

Voters would get a ballot made the same way the ticket was. Then they punch out a part which would indicate their choice - when sent through the machine, wherever the hole is would correspond w/a candidate. After passing through the machine, the ballots could then fall into a collection bin where they could be recounted. That way, the E-voting stays fair and there's a paper trail

Aren't punch-ballots already machine-counted? If so, I don't see the difference.

Aren't punch-ballots already machine-counted? If so, I don't see the difference.

I didn't think they were

I didn't think they were

They are indeed. Just checked.

I didn't think they were

If they weren't, counting election results would take weeks, even months.

Voters would get a ballot made the same way the ticket was. Then they punch out a part which would indicate their choice - when sent through the machine, wherever the hole is would correspond w/a candidate. After passing through the machine, the ballots could then fall into a collection bin where they could be recounted. That way, the E-voting stays fair and there's a paper trailthat's exactly how punch card ballots work

You know...they could just make an electronic machine that came up with a screen that said real big
"Who do you choose for the President of the United States?"
then list the options, you touch the name box of the candidate of your choice and the machine punches a card...that way you've got the cards for the paper trail, but the machine punches for you and the card is like your receipt. This would make an accurate system with a paper trail.

If they weren't, counting election results would take weeks, even months.

Hmm, in the UK, where ballots are counted by hand, the results for most constituencies are returned within a day.

The UK is just a bit smaller than the US.

The UK is just a bit smaller than the US.

???


So just employ the same proportion of counters per head of electorate as in the UK. Unless you were implying that the Pony Express riders might get tired carrying the news back to the big cities...

???


So just employ the same proportion of counters per head of electorate as in the UK. Unless you were implying that the Pony Express riders might get tired carrying the news back to the big cities...
Ah yes, walking backwards technologically = good.

Anyway, this is another instance of a logical post getting ignored (my other post).

Ah yes, walking backwards technologically = good.


You know the saying 'don't fix it if it ain't broken'? Also sometimes rendered as 'don't pick scabs? Explain to me the fatal flaw in having people put crosses on bits of paper which are then tabulated by hand resulting in results being available within a day, would you?

You know the saying 'don't fix it if it ain't broken'? Also sometimes rendered as 'don't pick scabs? Explain to me the fatal flaw in having people put crosses on bits of paper which are then tabulated by hand resulting in results being available within a day, would you?

The results are tallied by local boards which are open to corruption and human error.

You know the saying 'don't fix it if it ain't broken'? Also sometimes rendered as 'don't pick scabs? Explain to me the fatal flaw in having people put crosses on bits of paper which are then tabulated by hand resulting in results being available within a day, would you?
It's more expensive, less reliable, and takes longer then what our technology is capable of.

The results are tallied by local boards which are open to corruption and human error.

The papers are retained for inspection and audit or recount if required.

How is the constructor/programmer of an electronic device not open to corruption or human error?

How long did it take to get a result in Florida?
How reliable was it?
How much did it cost?
Eh...the thing about technology is that you can't expect it to work perfectly to start with.

How big was the first computer?
How reliable was it?
How much did it cost?
...and look at computers today...

The real problem with technology is that people like you don't have the patience required to make it work. I'm not all for testing it out in real time before it's tested on things that don't matter, however, electronic voting systems would be extremely cheap, reliable, and fast, compared to humans, if they're given a chance. By the way, Florida 2000 elections weren't done electronically. They were counted by a machine maybe...but whatever...they weren't voted electronically. Now, would you please read my first post on this thread if you want to continue debating with me?

The papers are retained for inspection and audit or recount if required.

How is the constructor/programmer of an electronic device not open to corruption or human error?
Read my first post on this thread.

The papers are retained for inspection and audit or recount if required.

Yeah, and you remember what happened in Miami-Dade with the Democratic county electoral board.

How is the constructor/programmer of an electronic device not open to corruption or human error?

Because computer code is easily analyzed and the circuitry involved in a voting machine is not complex at all. And since it can be audited, do you really think a programmer or the company making the machines are really willing to risk major jail time messing with them?

Eh...the thing about technology is that you can't expect it to work perfectly to start with.

How big was the first computer?
How reliable was it?
How much did it cost?
...and look at computers today...

The real problem with technology is that people like you don't have the patience required to make it work.

You are making unwarrented assumptions about exactly what kind of person I am.

By the way, Florida 2000 elections weren't done electronically. They were counted by a machine maybe...but whatever...they weren't voted electronically.

Yes, I deleted my post when I realised my error there.

Now, would you please read my first post on this thread if you want to continue debating with me?

I think if you look back although you may have posted prior to me in the thread, it was you that later quoted my post and responded to me before I responded to you, unless you have also been posting here under the names Seryowm or Itinerant Tree Dweller. It seems mighty strange that you enter into a discussion with me and then try and place requirements on my participation in it...

I think if you look back although you may have posted prior to me in the thread, it was you that later quoted my post and responded to me before I responded to you, unless you have also been posting here under the names Seryowm or Itinerant Tree Dweller. It seems mighty strange that you enter into a discussion with me and then try and place requirements on my participation in it...
I said "with me"

Although, I'm glad you admit to not reading my idea on solving the voting system...but still debate my points on electronic voting systems (without even knowing what I really think about them) (since you didn't read my first post).

Because computer code is easily analyzed and the circuitry involved in a voting machine is not complex at all. And since it can be audited, do you really think a programmer or the company making the machines are really willing to risk major jail time messing with them?


No more or less so than anyone else that it has been said could be open to corruption or human error when it came to dealing with paper ballots.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6905651&postcount=7

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6905652&postcount=8

Actually, if you'll notice, my first post on this thread was #7 and your first pos was #8, so I was on this thread before you. Now, please read Post #7.

No more or less so than anyone else that it has been said could be open to corruption or human error when it came to dealing with paper ballots.
Your skepticism could be answered by reading post #7 on this thread.

No more or less so than anyone else that it has been said could be open to corruption or human error when it came to dealing with paper ballots.

Oh come on. Nothing is totally foolproof but when it comes to counting and tallying I'd trust an inspected, tested machine over a person any day.

Although, I'm glad you admit to not reading my idea on solving the voting system...

No, I did read it. Point out to me where I said I didn't.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6905651&postcount=7

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6905652&postcount=8

Actually, if you'll notice, my first post on this thread was #7 and your first pos was #8, so I was on this thread before you. Now, please read Post #7.

Yes, which is why I wrote "although you may have posted prior to me in the thread".

No, I did read it. Point out to me where I said I didn't.
You didn't say you didn't, but by the way you talk, it is as if you either didn't read it or didn't understand it...I gave you enough credit to be able to understand it if you read it so assumed that you just hadn't read i.

You didn't say you didn't, but by the way you talk, it is as if you either didn't read it or didn't understand it...I gave you enough credit to be able to understand it if you read it so assumed that you just hadn't read i.

I read it, I didn't find it particularly interesting (no offence intended). What interested me was the statement that counting ballots would take weeks or months (post #5), whereas in the UK it is managed in a day or so. Particularly since the US has a 'lame duck' period between the results and the change of President (or President starting another term), unlike the UK where there is a change over pretty much as soon as results are known, I failed to see why even if a week had to pass for results to come out there would be any major impact on the political process.

I read it, I didn't find it particularly interesting (no offence intended). What interested me was the statement that counting ballots would take weeks or months (post #5), whereas in the UK it is managed in a day or so.
Population of the UK: 60,270,708
Population of the US: 293,027,571

To do it at the same speed of the UK, we would need approximately 5 times as many ballot counters than the UK...or we could just develop the technology that could count votes instaneously (which means faster, and in the long run cheaper), but that could also print paper receipts to leave some sort of paper trail.

To do it at the same speed of the UK, we would need approximately 5 times as many ballot counters than the UK...or we could just develop the technology that could count votes instaneously (which means faster, and in the long run cheaper), but that could also print paper receipts to leave some sort of paper trail.

Yes, but the cost of ballot counters per head of electorate would be the same regardless of the number of electorate, allowing for some variation at very large and small ends of the scale.


Having a paper trail seems strange: it implies to me that the electronic voting system is not to be trusted, whereas the paper trail is to be trusted. If that is the case you come back down to having hand (mechanically) counted ballots as the final unchallengeable arbiter.

Yes, but the cost of ballot counters per head of electorate would be the same regardless of the number of electorate, allowing for some variation at very large and small ends of the scale.


Having a paper trail seems strange: it implies to me that the electronic voting system is not to be trusted, whereas the paper trail is to be trusted. If that is the case you come back down to having hand (mechanically) counted ballots as the final unchallengeable arbiter.
Paper trail is necessary. There is no way to get around it.
If the electronic voting system gets some sort of bug and erases all the votes, you have your receipt to prove that you voted and prove who you voted for.
If the electricity goes out and the same sort of error happens, etcetera, blah blah.
If someone challenges the results of the election, and asks for a recount, you have to have the paper receipt as a machine will give you the same result every time.

Paper trail is necessary. There is no way to get around it.
If the electronic voting system gets some sort of bug and erases all the votes, you have your receipt to prove that you voted and prove who you voted for.
If the electricity goes out and the same sort of error happens, etcetera, blah blah.
If someone challenges the results of the election, and asks for a recount, you have to have the paper receipt as a machine will give you the same result every time.

So in the end despite describing the use of hand/mechanically counted ballots as 'walking backwards technologically' the still seem to be the safer if slightly slower* option and the one that would over-ride the electronic result in case of dispute?

* I don't know when results are expected from electronic voting machines.

So in the end despite describing the use of hand/mechanically counted ballots as 'walking backwards technologically' the still seem to be the safer if slightly slower* option and the one that would over-ride the electronic result in case of dispute?

* I don't know when results are expected from electronic voting machines.
In case of a dispute, yes. Whenever I transfer money from my savings account to my checking account or vice versa, I print out a receipt in case the bank messes up and starts to say I'm writing bad checks, etcetera.

By the way, electronic voting can be counted instaneously. (Kind of like the polls here on NS)

By the way, electronic voting can be counted instaneously. (Kind of like the polls here on NS)

It is also much more cost-effective to add redundancy to an electronic system than a paper system.

By the way, electronic voting can be counted instaneously. (Kind of like the polls here on NS)

However under the current organisation of the US electoral system there is little advantage to an instantaneous result is there? Or does it come back to the issue of patience that you raised earlier?

However under the current organisation of the US electoral system there is little advantage to an instantaneous result is there? Or does it come back to the issue of patience that you raised earlier?
Well...
I tell you that an electronic system would give instaneous results because it is indeed faster than a human, hand counted system. However, in reality, there's quite a bit of time between November 2nd and January 20th.

Here's an interesting article about Electronic voting if anyone's interested:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

And here's a speech made by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley in front of Voting Systems Panel and members of the public during the presentation of the results of an audit of (Diebold Election Systems) hardware, software, and firmware installed in 17 California counties.
The audit revealed that among the random selection of Diebold's systems in those 17 counties, NO instances of certified software were discovered.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/kevinshelley2003dec16.asp

And you still claim electronic voting is tamper-proof?

And you still claim electronic voting is tamper-proof?

No, it needs dramatic improvement. Diebold must have the shittiest software developers in the world... I think I can design a better voting machine with a $2 microcontroller and LCD.

Having a paper trail seems strange: it implies to me that the electronic voting system is not to be trusted, whereas the paper trail is to be trusted. If that is the case you come back down to having hand (mechanically) counted ballots as the final unchallengeable arbiter.

However, the hand-counting would only be necessary if the election was very close. Thus, you wouldn't need the manpower or subjectivity implied in having hand-counted ballots unless the election was statistically so close that it became necessary.

And you still claim electronic voting is tamper-proof?

Considering that my boyfriend hit one of the cards with a little ESD and it not only erased the votes already on it, but also gave him admin rights to the computer, I laugh at anyone who even tries to claim that electronic voting is tamper-proof.

However, if not tampered with, it is faster and more accurate that a paper ballot system. Therefore, the paper ballots would only be needed in cases of a very close vote or a suspected instance of tampering.

Either way, most of the states decided a paper trail would be too expensive - so we're gonna need those several months to deal with all of the challenges that are going to be brought up in court the minute the election happens.

Considering that my boyfriend hit one of the cards with a little ESD and it not only erased the votes already on it, but also gave him admin rights to the computer

I find that hard to believe... :)

I find that hard to believe... :)

You may find it hard to believe, but it's absolutely true. He was trying to prove the the Senate committee in our state (he was an intern for one of the Senators) that a paper trail would be a good idea, so he was experimenting with one of the machines. All he really meant to show was that ESD (ie, from someone walking across the carpet and then touching metal) might erase votes from the card, so (in a close election) it might be important to have a paper trail. What he actually showed was that anyone with the knowledge to reprogram the computer that happened to hit a card with ESD, could alter all votes counted by that machine.

And even after pointing this out to said committee, the committee found that there was too much money involved in putting printers on the computers.

You may find it hard to believe, but it's absolutely true. He was trying to prove the the Senate committee in our state (he was an intern for one of the Senators) that a paper trail would be a good idea, so he was experimenting with one of the machines. All he really meant to show was that ESD (ie, from someone walking across the carpet and then touching metal) might erase votes from the card, so (in a close election) it might be important to have a paper trail. What he actually showed was that anyone with the knowledge to reprogram the computer that happened to hit a card with ESD, could alter all votes counted by that machine.

And even after pointing this out to said committee, the committee found that there was too much money involved in putting printers on the computers.

Who the fuck designs these machines? Maybe I should have worked for them, I'd be filing patents and making big bucks in no time.

Who the fuck designs these machines? Maybe I should have worked for them, I'd be filing patents and making big bucks in no time.

Diebold. If you know anything about computers and are at least halfway intelligent, please go take them over. =)