E-Voting FUBAR

[Boerseun]

Paper-based ballots that went 'swimming with the fishes' can't be recounted, either.

 

There won't really ever be a perfect system, be it paper or machine based, or even in a mixed mode.

[Turtle]

Paper-based ballots that went 'swimming with the fishes' can't be recounted, either.

 

There won't really ever be a perfect system, be it paper or machine based, or even in a mixed mode.

 

So why spend millions of dollars on something that is already shown to have major faults? Could you, would you, with a goat? I do not like it Sam I Am. :naughty:

[Boerseun]

I don't really know, old Shelly one, but in accepting the fact that all imaginable systems will be flawed to a certain extent, won't it make sense then to go with the system that will decrease voter apathy? Let's say that only 40% of potential voters go and vote in a paper-based system, where 10% of the votes might be tampered with and/or spoilt, or we implement a system where (because of the increased convenience) voter turnout and participation goes up to 80%, and the spoils goes up to 15%? Okay - higher spoils, but the remaining 65% untampered votes would give the government a much stronger mandate.

 

Hmmmm...

 

Interesting, both ways - but I don't think we should simply dismiss it, no?

[C1ay]

I kind of like the system they use in third world regions where monitoring, registration, etc.. is unwieldy. They simply dye each voter's finger with a permanent ink, i.e. dyed finger = voted. The only way to thwart such a system is to cutoff your voting finger if you want to vote twice. Me thinks this is not much of a worry.....

[Cedars]

I am suspious of the technology. I prefer some other way to verify the outcome and I think the people at Princeton bring up legitimate concerns. Princeton has clearly shown that election fraud is possible with this particular companies voting machines. But to answer the question, FUBAR. A voting method without verification cannot be partially FUBAR, and Princeton has proven it is not foolproof.

 

I think the answer would be to install multiple methods of voting in each congressional district. Maybe one polling station using this type of machine and the other using paper ballot scanners (the type of electronic machine used here). I think this would be the closest way one could insure stablity of the ballot. Each county having different types of voting machine divided by city/township/whatever may have the potential of showing some kind of discrepancy. It would also be easier to issue a new vote under this kind of a circumstance should some kind of software glitch occur.

[ronthepon]

The only way to thwart such a system is to cutoff your voting finger if you want to vote twice. Me thinks this is not much of a worry.....

And there are cases where they use muscle(or chemical, stowed away in little brass cylinders) power to avoid the application of dye, or a coating fingers with thin layers of synthetic adhesive (a.k.a. glue), which can be removed along with the dye applied on top...

 

The methods are exploited even by us guys... who are not even of voting age.

[hallenrm]

I think the technology that can be relatively secure would be similar to that used for e-banking. If millions of people can use their credit cards and transact with their banks online, I see very little reason why a similar technology cannot be adopted for voting, especially in a rich country like US.

 

The solution lies in decentralizing and distributing the polling centers very thinly with appropriate software to detect possible rigging.

 

The problem with the present system, I perceive, is because the state is afraid of any innovations and higher expenditure. :)

[Turtle]

If millions of people can use their credit cards and transact with their banks online, I see very little reason why a similar technology cannot be adopted for voting, especially in a rich country like US.

 

 

The problem with the present system, I perceive, is because the state is afraid of any innovations and higher expenditure. :)

 

As I said earlier, there is a BIG problem over here with identity theft and bank fraud.

As to your latter comment, this is not the case. The government(s) are the ones pushing it and they mispend our money faster than they can print it.

Pertinent link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51595-2004May24.html

[hallenrm]

I browsed through the link indicated in your post, but am still not convinced that my thoughts and those expressed in the link are really on the same lines. What I am proposing is voting through internet on secure sites. If the money of millions of customers who use e-banking is largely secure, save a small percentage of thefts, I really see no reason why a million websites maintained by several thousand trusted NGO's with appropriate software and instant connectivity to a few hundred servers can really help to contain the frauds.

[Turtle]

I browsed through the link indicated in your post, but am still not convinced that my thoughts and those expressed in the link are really on the same lines. What I am proposing is voting through internet on secure sites.

 

As I earlier posted, only some 66% of US households have a computer; moreover, every US household has a mailbox and our polling places are well established. Again, there is nothing wrong with the system as it is so changing it is a waste of taxpayer money as well as an added security risk and a waste of material resources.

[Boerseun]

As I earlier posted, only some 66% of US households have a computer; moreover, every US household has a mailbox and our polling places are well established. Again, there is nothing wrong with the system as it is so changing it is a waste of taxpayer money as well as an added security risk and a waste of material resources.

Granted, but every town has few internet cafes and libraries with internet facilities.

As a comparison, no US citizen has a polling booth at home (except the mail thingy, but all mail items addressed to a specific address that is known to anybody with poll-rigging intentions can be hijacked in the mail system by a bribed postal worker - so there's no safety guarantee there, either).

Do it over the internet, and you might raise voter participation by making voting less of a schlepp. The higher the voter turnout, the bigger the government's mandate, and the closer you get to the ideal of 'government by the people' - not 'government by only those willing to queue for hours on end'.

Digital certificates should work fine. And via encryption, your vote will still be secure and secret.

As a matter of fact, I believe doing it this way will actually be a heck of a lot cheaper than the current system.

[pgrmdave]

Granted, but every town has few internet cafes and libraries with internet facilities.

 

Have you really been to poor rural America? There are many people who live without access to a library, or to an internet cafe. And these are the people most likely to not have access to a computer. I think that a physical paper ballot is less corruptable simply due to the numbers involved. It is nearly as easy to corrupt 1 million files as it is to corrupt 1, but to corrupt as many physical ballots is much more difficult.

[hallenrm]

Have you really been to poor rural America? There are many people who live without access to a library, or to an internet cafe. And these are the people most likely to not have access to a computer.

 

Granted, but isn't it much safer and economical to install internet based PC polling stations with wireless connectivity for these few places then risking the future of the strongest and most prosperous nation in the world. !! :D

[Turtle]

Granted, but isn't it much safer and economical to install internet based PC polling stations with wireless connectivity for these few places then risking the future of the strongest and most prosperous nation in the world. !! :wave:

 

Why do you continue to say there is a risk? There is Nothing wrong with the system as it is using paper ballots!:wave: Again, we have no problems as it is. If it aint broke, don't try and fix it.:D

[Boerseun]

Why do you continue to say there is a risk? There is Nothing wrong with the system as it is using paper ballots!:wave: Again, we have no problems as it is. If it aint broke, don't try and fix it.:D

If there really is nothing wrong with the current system, why is voter turnout so low? Can't only be a total non-interest in politics, it might have something to do with people not wanting to be inconvenienced.

 

If a poll has a turnout of 40%, and the winning party won by, let's say, 51% (as is quite common), then they represent 20% of the people.

 

And a government representing only 20% of the people is no government at all. They don't have a mandate. The government should expedite any measure to increase voter participation. In fact, the people should insist on it.

 

I don't believe that there's "nothing wrong" with the current system.

[hallenrm]

Why do you continue to say there is a risk? There is Nothing wrong with the system as it is using paper ballots! Again, we have no problems as it is. If it aint broke, don't try and fix it.

 

If that is so, what prompted you to start this discussion. In the opening post on this thread you said

 

As we near the Fall elections in the US, the unreliability, high costs, and vulnerability of electronic voting machines is developing into a serious issue.

Here's a new report from Princeton on just one such system:

 

And as it turns out, paper ballot is outdated and has many more shortcomings. Just look at the grouses about state elections in other large democracies like India!! :D

[Turtle]

If that is so, what prompted you to start this discussion....

And as it turns out, paper ballot is outdated and has many more shortcomings. Just look at the grouses about state elections in other large democracies like India!! :wave:

 

Sorry...if what is so? I don't understand the reference you make.:D

 

I do understand the idealistic view many of you have given, and in an idealistic world I agree a perfect e-voting scheme is jim-dandy. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. :wave: