Electronic democracy in action

[chrishansenhome]

I have long advocated that paper and pencil voting be mandated in all elections, everywhere, because of the difficulties with most systems of electronic and Internet voting. As I am not influential, no one listens to me. However, in a recent security test, invited by the election board of Washington, DC, a seemingly secure system became so riddled with security holes that the "foul-mouthed, drunken Futurama robot Bender" was "elected" to the local school board in the test.

Make no mistake, voting over the Internet will come, someday. But until security is taken more seriously by those who are writing the software and constructing the machinery, such votes will be highly suspect, and susceptible to those who would like to control the outcome.

Comments

[skibbley.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I at least require a paper trail for machine voting. I'm amazed how easily people give up democracy,

[chrishansenhome.livejournal.com]

It's a combination of ignorance (the computer counting the ballots MUST be more accurate than a hand count, right?) and a lust after the latest technology for everything (We have computers, they are fast and accurate, so they MUST be better than paper and pencil for voting).

As a former tester/test manager, I know all too well the limits of technology. For elections in the UK, where there is usually just one race, perhaps two, there's no need for computing. In the US, where there can be hundreds of races, from dogcatcher to President, they see a greater need. However, there is also a greater risk, and those who would like to steal elections are rubbing their hands with glee.

[trawnapanda.livejournal.com]

here in the Gt White North, upper level elections are only one candidate at a time -- so an X against one name on a paper ballot works well; as long as we have first-past-the-post elections (I'm not convinced FPP is the best, but that's a different discussion).

At the municipal level, we're voting for multiple offices - mayor, councillor, board of ed at least, maybe more. For the last few years, we've had a paper ballot that is machine-readable: complete the arrow (darken a bubble, there'll be a broken arrow next to all of the candidates) for the candidate you want in each selection, put it into a privacy folder, and take it to the poll clerk. It's fed into a scanner-reader, which reads and totals immediately. Then the paper ballot goes into a ballot box, and this is the backup in case the electronic tally fails. The reader will squawk and reject any invalid ballot (voting for three candidates for mayor, f'rinstance) at the time of scanning.

Then at 8:05 after the polls have closed, the machine calls the central polling office and reports the results for poll number 295 (or whatever); and by 8:30 and all the polls/ readers reporting in, it's done and dusted. If there's an issue, the paper ballots can be recounted (I really think a paper trail is important).

It wouldn't be hard to implement this more widely (and the voting/ tallying method would work on a preferential ballot or more sophisticated than FPP too).

[chrishansenhome.livejournal.com]

Our elections are staggered, as you know. The general elections are now going to be held every five years unless a super-majority votes down the Government in the Commons. Local elections are for councilors only, and there are three to a ward. So you just "X" three for councilors. The Mayoral election is this May (I'm a poet), and it's preferential: number the candidates 1, 2, 3 in order of preference. The London Assembly is also elected then; I think that's preferential too but I can't remember from 4 years ago. And finally there's the European Parliament elections.

Almost all of these happen at different times, so the pencil and paper method is handy, along with manual tabulation. The California absentee ballots I fill out have the "complete an arrow" method on them too.

As long as there is a paper ballot to check the totals against, I'm happy for mechanical tabulation to take place. I'm not happy with touch-screens that produce no paper and no hard record of the ballot. And as for Internet voting: that's a method that is crying out for vote-stealing and ballot-rigging. The Chicago Democratic Machine of yesteryear would be envious of the advanced methods we now have to ensure that the vote stays rigged.

[trawnapanda.livejournal.com]

re: your last para -- along with all the "voter fraud" non-problems claimed by various GOP state legislators, now requiring all sorts of photo ID and the like (while almost simultaneously cutting back opportunities to get same, and charging for it). People going to a polling station and claiming to be someone else is not the (or even "a") major fraud site in elections now. On the interwebs, I agree with you.