Real Election Reform: Every Vote Counts

[turbo]

Elections can be won in the media and the press, but they are lost at the polls, when people are denied the opportunity to vote or are required to vote by methods that can be hacked or subverted.

I would like to propose that every single vote in the US be supplied with a paper ballot, with partial arrows (shafts missing) so that the voters can connect the head and tail of the arrow to point to their choice. (This is the method used in my last residence.) Every ballot would be tabulated by an optical scanner and every ballot would be preserved to be recounted in the event of a dispute. Optical scanners can be dumbed-down to the level at which they cannot be hacked, unlike touch-screen and other electronic machines, and if there are irregularities, the ballots can easily be re-tabulated with scanners that are certified and are under control of a bi-partisan agency.

Under such a system, we could move confidently to a popular-vote electoral system. This would eliminate gerrymandering and social engineering, and make voter suppression efforts much harder to mount.

I'm open for suggestions. If Obama wins (Hope!), I'm going to start hammering him and his administration with this. We can't afford to have more elections hinge on the honesty of local registrars, attorney generals, secretaries of state, each with their own axes to grind. We need a consistent and verifiable method of voting that allows all individuals to express themselves. BTW, I think that every citizen ought to be able to vote via absentee ballot with no special requirements. This would reduce congestion at the polls and would allow everybody to vote. Some states require that you be infirm or disabled before you can apply for an absentee ballot. What about an an elderly person who is relatively fit, but cannot stand for hours, or a caregiver to a child, elderly, relative, or a person who has only an hour or two to spare before they have to be at their job or risk getting fired? Should they be disenfranchised because they have critical duties that cannot be ignored?

 

[Moonbear]

Unfortunately, I'm not expecting election reform unless something completely catastrophic happens to bring it about. The reason is simple. The current system worked for every person elected to an office with the power to change it.

 

[turbo]

Unfortunately, I'm not expecting election reform unless something completely catastrophic happens to bring it about. The reason is simple. The current system worked for every person elected to an office with the power to change it.

You're absolutely right. I hope that in the pursuit of fairness and real one-person-one-vote elections that we can shame the Dems and the Reps into moving in the right direction. Robert Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast have been working together to try to show how our electoral process is being subverted, and they are doing a credible job, BUT aside from Huffington Post and Democracy Now! they get no coverage. The mainstream press and aired media ignore the problem.

 

[russ_watters]

To me that would imply that they are not doing a credible job, but ok...

 

[turbo]

To me that would imply that they are not doing a credible job, but ok...

They are doing a great job, but mainstream media derives ad-revenue from the parties when the parties are in a spending mood, and when the media characterize every battle as a toss-up. They are not into minutia about the fairness of voting - they are scooping up bucks. I get nothing from Obama in my mail-box - I get at least 2-3 mailers every other day from McCain railing about how unpatriotic Obama is, or how he is going to dismantle America and make a socialist society. It's pretty sick. McCain hopes to pry away the ONE electoral vote that he might get from getting a majority in the popular vote, and he is getting really radical and nasty to try to pull it off. You would not believe even a small percentage of the crap that McCain is accusing Obama of.

 

[Moonbear]

They are doing a great job, but mainstream media derives ad-revenue from the parties when the parties are in a spending mood, and when the media characterize every battle as a toss-up. They are not into minutia about the fairness of voting - they are scooping up bucks.

I agree, the media want to push the elections in the direction of more controversy. If everyone got along and played nice, they'd have no juicy stories to report on. But, this is the general population's fault too, because we (not necessarily you and me, but the population in general) gobble up these juicy stories and tune out the stations with mundane, non-sensationalized news stories.

I get nothing from Obama in my mail-box - I get at least 2-3 mailers every other day from McCain railing about how unpatriotic Obama is, or how he is going to dismantle America and make a socialist society. It's pretty sick. McCain hopes to pry away the ONE electoral vote that he might get from getting a majority in the popular vote, and he is getting really radical and nasty to try to pull it off. You would not believe even a small percentage of the crap that McCain is accusing Obama of.

Really? I don't get any ads from either one of them. I've gotten a few robo-calls, but really not even much of that. I get plastered with a lot more ads for local elections.

 

[turbo]

Really? I don't get any ads from either one of them. I've gotten a few robo-calls, but really not even much of that. I get plastered with a lot more ads for local elections.

Maine's 2nd district is really rural and uneducated, and McCain is pounding us with mailers demonizing Obama and accusing him of pretty much everything. The fact that he is pulling out all the stops to try to win one electoral vote in one piddly state is telling.

 

[Moonbear]

Maine's 2nd district is really rural and uneducated, and McCain is pounding us with mailers demonizing Obama and accusing him of pretty much everything. The fact that he is pulling out all the stops to try to win one electoral vote in one piddly state is telling.

Telling of what? That he knows it's going to be a close election and every electoral vote counts? We get the TV ads here, but probably no fliers because both campaigns are already convinced this state is going for McCain so neither is wasting extra money on us.

 

[russ_watters]

In any case, on the original topic, paper balloting seems like a terrible idea to me, especially when you add in absentee balloting. It will make fraud and manipulation childs-play. Today, groups like Acorn go out and register voters. If everyone voted at home, they'd be helping people fill out the ballot cards. And what if people steal the cards out of the mail (either before or after they are filled out)? Absentee ballots are necessisary, but to me they seem like the very easiest target for fraud and manipulation.

 

[turbo]

In any case, on the original topic, paper balloting seems like a terrible idea to me, especially when you add in absentee balloting. It will make fraud and manipulation childs-play. Today, groups like Acorn go out and register voters. If everyone voted at home, they'd be helping people fill out the ballot cards. And what if people steal the cards out of the mail (either before or after they are filled out)? Absentee ballots are necessisary, but to me they seem like the very easiest target for fraud and manipulation.

Perhaps, but at least there is a paper-trail of ballots that can be recounted if necessary. When electronic voting machines are hacked, with no paper trail, it is impossible to verify election results by an alternate count.

 

[russ_watters]

Recounting fraudulent paper votes doesn't make them any less fraudulent. So that is the same problem either way.

The actual security/accuracy difference between paper and electronic is two-fold:
-One takes no skill at all to "hack" since it is paper. The other is encrypted.
-One has built-in/guaranteed counting error and the other doesn't. Talk of the importantance of recounts is only really relevant when there is an inherrent error to be addressed.

What this comes down to, as always, is the "Black Box". People don't trust what they don't understand or can't see. Actual security is irrelevant to them because fear takes over. There are also still people who don't use ATMs.

Heck, Turbo-1, you're a democrat: you do know that if all of the balloting in Florida had been electronic, Gore would be President today, right? The inherrent error in paper balloting, skewed in economic demographics, was enough to swing that election. You should be demanding electronic balloting!

[edit again] Note also that making every ballot paper does not even-out the error (not that we should even want to accept such a thing). Paper ballots have the inherrent flaw of not providing instant feedback about whether your vote is being/has been counted (see: hanging chads), which means people who are not good at following directions will never know if they voted correctly.

 

[turbo]

Recounting fraudulent votes doesn't make them any less fraudulent. So it is the same problem either way. The difference is that one takes no skill at all to "hack" since it is paper and the other is encrypted. What this comes down to, as always, is the "Black Box". People don't trust what they don't understand or can't see. Actual security is irrelevant to them because fear takes over.

Speaking of security, the GOP is harping on ACORN pretty heavy, claiming that they are trying to steal the election. Why is that? When the League of Women Voters holds registration drives, they are doing EXACTLY what ACORN is doing. The only difference is that ACORN is targeting voters in poorer neighborhoods, and many of those neighborhoods have high minority populations. The GOP knows that ACORN can't steal the election - they just don't want economically-disadvantaged or minority people voting, because they will likely vote Democratic.

 

[Hurkyl]

Optical scanners can be dumbed-down to the level at which they cannot be hacked

People who make claims like this are the people I am most suspicious of -- because it usually means one of the following:
1. The person has no idea about security
2. The person is trying to pull one over on me

But I see a glaring omission in your plan -- how would I, as a voter, ensure that my vote was counted, and counted correctly?

(And in a way that doesn't allow me to be to be coerced / bribed to vote in a specific way -- e.g. giving each voter a paper "receipt" that explicitly states how 'e voted is a bad idea)

 

[LowlyPion]

Recounting fraudulent paper votes doesn't make them any less fraudulent.

The fact remains that paper ballots are harder to fake. They leave a paper trail.

Once your "encrypted" vote is thrown into the bowels of a computer there's no way to unscramble the omelet.

 

[Hurkyl]

Once your "encrypted" vote is thrown into the bowels of a computer there's no way to unscramble the omelet.

You give up too easily. The problem is not as impossible as you make it seem.

 

[LowlyPion]

But I see a glaring omission in your plan -- how would I, as a voter, ensure that my vote was counted, and counted correctly?

(And in a way that doesn't allow me to be to be coerced / bribed to vote in a specific way -- e.g. giving each voter a paper "receipt" that explicitly states how 'e voted is a bad idea)

I don't object to touch screens so long as there is a paper receipt that the voter can review and deposit as a check against the machine before leaving. No receipt leaves the polling place.

If the voter sees a discrepancy they can immediately dispute it. And the time stamp and machine number leaves a way to deal with it. If there is discrepancy then vote totals can be matched if need be. Monte Carlo methods can be used to randomly spot check machines and precincts and confidence can be developed that the numbers are representative.

Isolated onesies fraud (voting where you lived and where you moved) will likely always be difficult to stop, but that is not a great concern when it comes to 100 million plus votes.

 

[LowlyPion]

You give up too easily. The problem is not as impossible as you make it seem.

It's not a matter of giving up. If it is to be a secret ballot, then once the vote goes down the chute the voter has no recourse. There is no longer any way to distinguish between votes, and hence no way to remediate error.

 

[Evo]

Some areas have the paper ballot, which is optically scanned into a computer, so it is recorded and tabulated electronically, and they also have the paper ballot which was inserted into the machine as an original backup.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's not a matter of giving up. If it is to be a secret ballot, then once the vote goes down the chute the voter has no recourse. There is no longer any way to distinguish between votes, and hence no way to remediate error.

You're simply not being imaginative enough. A brief google search for

zero-knowledge proof voting​

turns up some interesting things.

This page was an interesting (free) one.

 

[turbo]

Some areas have the paper ballot, which is optically scanned into a computer, so it is recorded and tabulated electronically, and they also have the paper ballot which was inserted into the machine as an original backup.

That's the method that is used in the county seat here. There are 15-20 booths and a couple of optical scanners/tabulators in use. It's old technology, but it's a lot more reliable than electronic voting machines AND it's verifiable. If anomalous results turn up, the ballots can be re-scanned on another scanner for verification or hand-counted. In close elections, the candidates almost always opt for a hand-count.

 

[LowlyPion]

You're simply not being imaginative enough. A brief google search for

zero-knowledge proof voting​

turns up some interesting things.

This page was an interesting (free) one.

The fatal flaw remains in any of the schemes. There is no way to protect against the system itself being rigged by the provider - the state.

If Federal Regulators can not be counted on to not lose the trillions that have gone from the economy, how can they be counted on to account for proper tabulation?

The system knows how to tell me what my vote is - fine. I already know that. But that is a charade. The public is no closer - save their own specific vote - to knowing that the tabulations themselves are correct.

 

[NeoDevin]

To everyone arguing for paper ballots over electronic ones: How do you prevent the same people you assume would hack the voting machines from (for example) simply adding an extra 500 or more ballots marked with the candidate of their choice? Or ballots can conveniently get lost.
I think it is easier to forge or lose paper ballots than it is to hack a voting machine.

As long as there is a secret ballot (ie. you cannot draw a 1 to 1 correspondence between voters and their votes) double checking the election results is impossible (a recount can only recount the same fraudulent votes again, it cannot distinguish between fraudulent and actual votes). I don't think anyone here is willing to switch to a public ballot to remedy this problem, so it's something we're all stuck with.

 

[LowlyPion]

How do you prevent the same people you assume would hack the voting machines from (for example) simply adding an extra 500 or more ballots marked with the candidate of their choice? Or ballots can conveniently get lost.
I think it is easier to forge or lose paper ballots than it is to hack a voting machine.

There are lots of checks along the way in a people intensive system. The broader the conspiracy - the greater the chance of detection.

Wherever you aggregate votes is an opportunity for abuse. Like those Diebold machines that could be modified to switch votes and maintain the right overall total voters without record - other than the chips that were swapped. They print out their totals. The poll workers sign it. And no recourse unless the chips could be examined and programs reviewed.

 

[Dale]

My county uses an optical ballot. However, they do not require any form of identification whatsoever. If one of my neighbors were to use my name and address, both of which are public knowledge, then they could cast a ballot in my name. The fact that the ballot is optical is rather irrelevant to the security of the whole process.

There are several good cryptographic voting protocols being developed. The goals are:
1) cast as intended - an individual's ballot should reflect their choices
2) counted as cast - the final tally should be an accurate count of the ballots
3) verifiability - everyone should be able to individually verify 1 and 2
4) legitimacy - malicious parties should not be able to add, duplicate, or delete ballots
5) privacy - a voter cannot prove how they voted to any third party

The optical ballot system used in my county is probably pretty good for 1 and 2, but it has no provisions for 3 and 4. There is a little bit of a privacy risk too since we carry the ballot from the booth to the box without an envelope.

There are also other ideas, such as range voting, that I think would have much more impact than changing to optical ballots.

 

[russ_watters]

The fact remains that paper ballots are harder to fake. They leave a paper trail.

That's just plain not true and here's why:

Once your "encrypted" vote is thrown into the bowels of a computer there's no way to unscramble the omelet.

Exactly. There are loads of opportunities for anyone who comes in contact with a paper ballot to alter it. And that doesn't include the opportunities to forge the ballot itself. With an electronic ballot, those possibilities don't exist: once it is in a computer - assuming the computer was set up correctly (which is not difficult - it is essentially impossible to tamper with.

Paper ballots are inherrently unsecure.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't object to touch screens so long as there is a paper receipt that the voter can review and deposit as a check against the machine before leaving. No receipt leaves the polling place.

If the voter sees a discrepancy they can immediately dispute it. And the time stamp and machine number leaves a way to deal with it. If there is discrepancy then vote totals can be matched if need be. Monte Carlo methods can be used to randomly spot check machines and precincts and confidence can be developed that the numbers are representative.

I used to object to this, but now I don't since it seems people have a strange fixation with paper reciepts, so you may as well give it to them. But why does this piece of paper work any better than a big, red, flashing button that says CONFIRM, that you push to confirm your choice?

It's not a matter of giving up. If it is to be a secret ballot, then once the vote goes down the chute the voter has no recourse. There is no longer any way to distinguish between votes, and hence no way to remediate error.

What recourse did all those votors in Florida have when they failed to correctly punch their chads?

The fatal flaw remains in any of the schemes. There is no way to protect against the system itself being rigged by the provider - the state.

If Federal Regulators can not be counted on to not lose the trillions that have gone from the economy, how can they be counted on to account for proper tabulation?

The system knows how to tell me what my vote is - fine. I already know that. But that is a charade. The public is no closer - save their own specific vote - to knowing that the tabulations themselves are correct.

But even with paper ballots, you aren't doing the counting yourself. So how do you ever have any chance of knowing if your vote is being counted?

You're talking conspiracy theory here: if the government itself wanted to rig an election, why do you think they would have any trouble at all rigging a paper ballot election?

You are also creating a false dichotomy. You are saying that electronic machines have flaws that they really don't and saying that paper is free from flaws that it so clearly has.

There are lots of checks along the way in a people intensive system. The broader the conspiracy - the greater the chance of detection.

A people intensive system has inherrently more chance for error, especially when it is large. There are something like a hundred thousand polling places. Ensuring security for all the votes is a massive task that simply isn't possible. Polling place workers are ordinary people with little special training or supervision. The counters are local officials who - bipartisan or not - have their own personal biases that affect their work - not to mention direct access to the voting that can be abused.

The only way to effectively secure such a process it to take it out of the hands of people. Once again, the problem here is that people - inexplicably - put more faith in people than they do in machines. ATMs are far superior to human tellers. For the same reasons, electronic voting machines are far superior to paper votes and human counting.

 

[edward]

Oprah's recent experience voting with the touch screen. You just need to watch the last 45 seconds. I have had the same thing happen at self check outs at the grocery store and Home depot. I press finish and the damn thing just sits there doing nothing.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6603

Should we call it Faith based voting??

 

[LowlyPion]

ATMs are far superior to human tellers.

That may well be. But then I have a record of what is deposited and I check what I get out right there and if there was a discrepancy I would call them on the spot.

I'm not worried about an ATM stealing my money.

But I do worry about enterprising programmers stealing my Government.

If an ATM has no problem giving a receipt every week, then a voting machine can surely manage it every couple of years.

 

[LowlyPion]

With an electronic ballot, those possibilities don't exist: once it is in a computer - assuming the computer was set up correctly (which is not difficult - it is essentially impossible to tamper with.

The most fundamental flaw and you refuse to face it.

The State provides the machines.

The State hires the programmers.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[NeoDevin]

The most fundamental flaw and you refuse to face it.

The State provides the machines.

The State hires the programmers.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The identical flaw exists in the paper ballot system. The state hires the counters, the state controls the ballot boxes after they're filled out...

 

[LowlyPion]

The identical flaw exists in the paper ballot system. The state hires the counters, the state controls the ballot boxes after they're filled out...

Yes. But why make it so they can computerize an effort to defraud?

If they have to work harder at cheating, so much the better.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes. But why make it so they can computerize an effort to defraud?

Obviously nobody is suggesting any voting scheme whose intent is to allow computerized fraud.

If they have to work harder at cheating, so much the better.

I'm going to assume you meant to say: "it is harder to cheat the paper ballot system". Would you care to offer any actual evidence of this, beyond computerphobia?

 

[turbo]

Yes. But why make it so they can computerize an effort to defraud?

If they have to work harder at cheating, so much the better.

Exactly! The nay-sayers equate voter fraud with election fraud, which is ridiculous. The effects of voters filing fraudulent ballots are minuscule compared to the highly leveraged effects that can come from hackers and political insiders perpetrating election fraud. Throw in voter intimidations (threats of arrests or loss of students' parents' tax deductions), voter caging (purging voters because their various public records don't match EXACTLY), and voter slowdowns/disenfranchisement (by simply understaffing and under-supplying polling places in minority neighborhoods), and it is quite apparent that election fraud is many orders of magnitude a larger problem than fraudulent voting. We have to quash the former, and guard against the latter.

Voting is a fundamental right of US citizens, and we should do everything in our power to make certain that everybody gets the opportunity to do so. Right now, the GOP is concentrating its efforts on preventing people from voting.

 

[russ_watters]

Oprah's recent experience voting with the touch screen. You just need to watch the last 45 seconds. I have had the same thing happen at self check outs at the grocery store and Home depot. I press finish and the damn thing just sits there doing nothing.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6603

Should we call it Faith based voting??

So she screwed up and the machine gave her a chance to correct her error. I'm not seeing a problem here.

Look, whether paper or electronic, no voting system can be completely idiot proof. But at least with a machine, you get a chance to correct your error. With most types of paper ballots, if you screw up, you'll never know it.

 

[turbo]

So she screwed up and the machine gave her a chance to correct her error. I'm not seeing a problem here.

People (especially the elderly, or people with visual impairments) may NOT have been able to detect the vote-flipping, and assumed the machine recorded the vote they made. That is a problem.