SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the newer-is-not-necessarily-better dept.
The Intercept reports
The nation's secretaries of state gathered for a multi-day National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) conference in Washington, D.C., this weekend, with cybersecurity on the mind.
Panels and lectures centered around the integrity of America's election process, with the federal probe into alleged Russian government attempts to penetrate voting systems a frequent topic of discussion.
[...] One way to allay concerns about the integrity of electronic voting machine infrastructure, however, is to simply not use it. Over the past year, a number of states are moving back towards the use of paper ballots or at least requiring a paper trail of votes cast.
For instance, Pennsylvania just moved to require all voting systems to keep a paper record of votes cast. Prior to last year's elections in Virginia, the commonwealth's board of elections voted to decertify paperless voting machines--voters statewide instead voted the old-fashioned way, with paper ballots.
[...] Oregon is one of two states in the country to require its residents to vote by mail, a system that was established via referendum in 1998. [Oregon Secretary of State Dennis] Richardson argued that this old-fashioned system offers some of the best defense there is against cyber interference.
"We're using paper and we're never involved with the Internet. The Internet is not involved at all until there's an announcement by each of our 36 counties to [the capital] Salem of what the results are and then that's done orally and through a confirmation e-mail and the county clerks in each of the counties are very careful to ensure that the numbers that actually are posted are the ones that they have," he said. "Oregon's in a pretty unique situation."
[...] In New Hampshire, the state uses a hybrid system that includes both paper ballots and machines that electronically count paper ballots with a paper trail.
Karen Ladd, the assistant secretary of state for New Hampshire, touted the merits of the system to The Intercept. "We do a lot of recounts, and you can only have a recount with a paper ballot. You can't do a recount with a machine!" she said.
America's paper ballot states may seem antiquated to some, but our neighbors to the north have used paper ballots for federal elections for their entire history. Thanks to an army of officials at 25,000 election stations, the integrity of Canada's elections is never in doubt.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by therainingmonkey on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:09AM (16 children)
I don't know of anywhere in Europe which uses electronic voting machines. Why would you introduce potential bugs and vulnerabilities into your voting process?
Perhaps even more importantly, it seems like people who disagree with a result could blame the machines rather than accept a result. Transparency is vital in elections.
In the UK, we have a pretty sophisticated security system: The ballot box is metal, and padlocked shut. Volunteers from all different political persuasions stand around and watch the box until all the votes have been counted.
In France they make things even more transparent: The box is made from perspex.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:58AM (1 child)
Indeed, in Germany electronic voting machines have been ruled unconstitutional. [bundesverfassungsgericht.de]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @01:28AM
If the Nazis find this unconstitutional, then surely the Glorious Great Grand Don should also.
Lest his grandpappy roll in the grave.
/sarcasm Incase you nazi snowflakes get triggered.
(Score: 2, Touché) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:43AM (5 children)
You mean the electoral college? The whole raison d'etre of the electoral college was an admission that the voting public is stupid and don't know what they want, so they should nominate a proxy who will do the actual voting for president for them. The level of trust is total, and the trustworthiness in reality is almost zero.
Why the US population clings to this, I cannot fathom. Unless, of course, they are actually stupid.
Oh...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Interesting) by canopic jug on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:53AM (3 children)
You mean the electoral college? The whole raison d'etre of the electoral college was an admission that the voting public is stupid and don't know what they want, so they should nominate a proxy who will do the actual voting for president for them. The level of trust is total, and the trustworthiness in reality is almost zero.
In theory the Electoral College should have kicked in back in 2016. That was a textbook use-case. However, for ages and ages the electoral college members have been appointed from narrow pools in either party: only the most dogmatic, loyal, and synchophantic party members are sent. The result shortcircuits the designated purpose of the electoral college. There's not really a way around that if the electors are not operating in good faith, and they've proven they're not. However, there are several possible tweaks to work around that [usatoday.com], if they could (or would) ever be voted through.
The voting process has been getting successively worse every cycle [theguardian.com] for decades now. Even what should be a simple process of counting votes is and remains a fiasco, with NO WAY TO REPRODUCE OR VALIDATE THE RESULTS in any state, especially those that use machines to receive or tally votes [defcon.org]. It is almost as if both parties eagerly facilitate outside influence from many directions. Partial audits, like the one sponsored by Jill Stein in 2016, show that the results cannot be reproduced. So for all practical purposes the numbers are made up [foreignpolicy.com].
It's not a new problem. I remember the arguments online even before Bush II was appointed. My frustration has become not as much that the problems with the process exist, it's that for over 20 years they have been made only worse and worse. However, equally important as using paper-based voting are both the ability and desire to carry out the process competently. Outrageously, both ability and desire are lacking [bridgemi.com] even when paper ballots are used.
TFA is about paper ballots. They are an essential foundation in a free and fair election. Same for hand counting. It's a first step, but only a first step.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday February 20 2018, @09:09PM (2 children)
Well it could have been, sure. But the leader of the international criminal conspiracy that was selling influence to the highest bidder ended up losing anyway, so it was unnecessary to override the vote.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:17AM
The electoral college had more than the choice between two styles of crook. Their task was to pick a president from the suitable candidates and they did not.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:12AM
From my reading of the Federalist papers, the electoral collage is supposed to be non-political, as in not politicians (and no parties then either), and choose the best statesman for the job. Note that originally the second place winner became Vice-President.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday February 20 2018, @02:46PM
As with most things theres the exoteric explanation thats an opiate to the masses and the esoteric true reason.
The exoteric reason for the electoral college is pretty lame so you get lots of complaining.
The true esoteric reason is they were engineering a new culture and you need a balance between Florida recount fiasco butthurt for the entire country vs expediency instead of arguing everywhere all the time after all elections. Its kinda like gerrymandering or pro sports in that it provides a certain sense of belonging and lack of conflict on a small scale even if there's large scale conflict elsewhere among other people.
The pro football analogy is interesting. The loser loses by a lot of points, lets say 50%; however the loser isn't a mere 50% of the athleticism of the winner. If you measured each teams athleticism to determine the winner of a match by having them run dashes and bench press and add them all up, then the difference between winner and loser team might be less than a percent, and people are going to freak about corruption and cheating. But manipulate the results into 14 vs 28 and they're a little calmer about losing.
Maybe another argument is its like rounding. If the election is decided by rounding errors, maybe that's an indication the result doesn't really matter anyway on a long term. Voting doesn't always provide good leaders or avoid bad ones, but sometimes likewise it doesn't really matter and that situation would be the definition of it. 49.9999 vs 50.0001 in the election results isn't a tragedy, its a success, overall, thats kinda sorta what the electoral college system is saying.
Sort of an opiate of the masses WRT elections. Can't have infinite irritation and pot stirring every election, yet having elections between typically hand picked candidates means not much changes yet the populace thinks it has power to change. Sometimes they get Trump'd. But usually it works and the system is engineered to keep people calm and uninvolved while feeling involved.
I'm just saying we'd have more riots than we already have if votes counted more than they do.
Its kind of a oil calming the waves on the pond thing; probably not ecologically sound in all conditions all the time, but sometimes gotta do it?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @03:50PM (4 children)
One practical reason is that US elections happen on very few fixed days in the year, and then have multiple offices to choose from.
If it were done with paper, you would need to have separate ballots and boxes for each office. The alternative, everything on one sheet, is what we have for absentee ballots, and those are error prone to hand count.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:49PM (3 children)
As TFS notes, Canada has never done it any other way and has results that are accurate, agreed on, quick enough, and 100 percent verifiable.
Hand-counted paper ballots FTW.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:21AM (2 children)
We also split our elections, Federal, usually a different year (and always at least a few months) then Provincial, and in both cases we vote for one person to represent us (though most vote by party). Municipal are more complex, but do happen on a different day again.
Besides the advantage of it being easier to count. It also divorces the elections and allows different/new parties at the different levels or even here in BC as an example, generally no parties at the municipal level (Vancouver being an exception).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:32AM (1 child)
Hey, you don't even have to try to convince me that you guys are smarter/better at Democracy.
There are so many places where USA could take lessons on how to do stuff right. [google.com]
...but, apparently, being the global hegemon and making rich people richer are USA's only priorities.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:58AM
It has its problems. Government that has a majority is almost a dictatorship as the parties almost always vote as a block. Too much American influence where the Prime Minister's are starting to think they're a President. And of course, first past the post voting system.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:02PM (2 children)
Sigh.
You do know this is the procedure everywhere there are paper ballots, right?
There are so many steps AFTER the ballot is dropped into the box, where things can go wrong, that your comment serves no purpose other than to trivialize the discussion.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:52AM
I sense strawmen.
Independent, volunteer observers, as well as nominated party observers, and paid staff actually doing the counts.
These people watch all day, and stay until the count is finished.
Total number of votes matches total signed off as attending that booth.. Then start counting the preferences.
Any variation between local polling stations more than x% triggers a recount.
No announced results until a certain percentage have been counted.
Usualły done within a few hours of the closure of the booths.
All done with paper. All able to be re-done at any time afterwards, until several years later.
Sure. Australia is only as big as California, by population, but if it works, it can work anywhere.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:30AM
We use cardboard ballot boxes here in Canada. The important thing is enough people watch the whole process from start to the finish of counting that no one has an opportunity to screw with the ballots.
It's really simple, count the ballots at the polling place in front of witnesses rather then taking them away to count.