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: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:45AM (4 children)
Hmm - secure paper ballots counted by hand requires
a handful of unskilled people counting for a day for every few thousand ballots
Secure electronic voting requires
a troupe of multi-party IT experts capable of thoroughly auditing *every* voting or ballot-counting machine in the days before the election, right down to the internal microcode on the CPU and other micro-controllers. All working at all times in teams of no less than two members loyal to opposing-parties, since non-expert observers would be virtually useless in detecting tampering or willful negligence.
constant unbroken multi-party security for every machine from the moment of the audit until the final count is publicly declared
I think the manual count is liable to come out substantially cheaper.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:56AM (3 children)
You forgot the cost of the machinesthe cost pf transporting and installing the machines, and any issues with power or access
With paper, all you need is a dry place and some pencils, so moving the location in an emergency is also far easier.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @08:56AM
An indelible marker would make the marks less prone to tampering.
...but you weren't far off the mark.
{Slingblade voice} "Mark". Git it?
(I believe one of them^W^W^W GP was from Arkansas.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:19AM (1 child)
Nope. Just figured I'd compare them straight on human costs. Then all other costs only further damn an already irredeemable concept.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:27AM
Fair enough.
The other benefits are that paper can support proportional voting (Which is quite likely just plain better than first-past-the-post), as well as large numbers of candidates, which would, quite likely break existing computer systems:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-16/senate-ballot-paper-stretches-beyond-a-metre-in-nsw/4892934 [abc.net.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex