There is life after Y2K. If you call this a life. I've been working on electronic voting among other things.

If you ever thought there was a simple answer to the Florida debacle, think again. See the CPSR Report at

http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2001/Winter/index.html

It has several references to other good studies including a cold-shower reality check on Internet voting. There are a lot of other reports on the web indicating the same kinds of things.

The result will probably be a lot of posturing and hot air, but little real progress. Sorta like reasoning with Doomzies.

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2001

Answers

Voting by computer dangerous.

There are incredible opportunities for corruption if people vote at home over the internet. That is just the tip of the iceberg, it would be easy for someone to program it to add the vote in favor for or against an issue or candidate. It could be done in such a way that it couldn't be detected.

I have come up with an idea that would be cheap and easy that would illiminate mistakes. I just don't know who to talk to about it.

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2001

Cherri,

I agree that there are risks, but the same is true of paper ballots. People can "count them wrong" (read: deliberately). People can stuff the boxes. Whatever.

Something has to be done. One thing that I think we can fully agree on is that what happened in Florida should never happen again. The lack of a statewide standard, with some precincts using pencil and paper and others using electronic systems, simply added to the chaos.

For relatively low cost, we could institute a national standardized system for voting. We should do so. Making it easier for people to vote from home would also help ease concerns over checkpoints and harrassment.

And that's today's Editorial Comment. Once again, your mileage may vary.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2001

Hi Stephen--

Paper ballots are numbered. The numbers are recorded. The same ballot must come out of the voting booth as went in--the number is detached in front of an inspector who calls out the number and then the ballot is placed in the box. All ballots are accounted for at the end of the day: Unused; used; spoiled. The total must agree with the total ballots sent to a precinct.

I hear about 'stuffing the ballot box' but I don't quite see how this can be accomplished.

Several people inspect the paper ballot as the voter's intent is called out.

The problem comes with people getting tired. There is more room for error the longer the day. The precints need to be small. Canada's are fewer than 500 voters per voting place.

England, Canada, Australia and the USA all or in part still use paper ballots. At least with paper ballots you know going in to keep your eyes open. I'd rather trust people than be confident the machines were programmed as they should be. It wouldn't take much to have them work perfectly until say 7:15 am. and then..............

Do either of you think there will really be major changes in how we vote even by 2004?

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2001

The idea I have would use what we have now, even the punch card. It would entail an additional step which would ensure voter that intent was realized. This would alert the voter to unlodged chads or circles which were not filled properly.

Realisticly though, mechanical voting would be the only sure way to know that nothing was done to corrupt the outcome, although I suppose it is possible.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2001

Let's be realistic here. ANY system can be corrupted. All of Pam's safeguards are no better than the inspectors enforcing them. These are the people Mayor Daley hired for just that purpose. I doubt low- tech systems are harder to jigger -- at least Stephen's proposed system requires a real expert to mess with, whereas the stone simple paper ballot system can be circumvented with off-the-street, low-paid thugs and ward heelers.

In any case, our current systems of electronic banking and commerce, when they are compromised, don't tend to fall prey to hackers or phreaks. They fall prey to disgruntled or greedy or underpaid employees, to con men enticing passwords out of trusting or gullible people, etc. The weak point is always the people, nearly never the electronic safeguards.

Still and all, in an enterprise as extensive as a presidential election, there is bound to be a problem or two. People won't understand how to do it. Software will have bugs no matter how much testing is done. Until everyone can vote electronically, we will have hybrid systems and dual voting will be hard to monitor -- and the time may *never* come when everyone is wired up. And bear in mind that when many many *many* people are strongly motivated to abuse or trick the system, they will find ways to do so. Always have and always will, regardless of the nature of the system.

And this means that, regardless of the putitative accuracy of the method used, the chance of "too close to measure with this system" will forever be with us. Ties happen. Procedurally, we need a formal definition of a "limits-of-measurement tie" (for example, less than .005% difference or some such), and formally agreed-on procedures for resolving the outcome when such events happen. The spectacle of both sides ringing in small armies of lawyers, psychologists and spin merchants to finagle the system was pathetic, and the public autopsy of the underbelly of an election disillusioned a lot of idealists. We can and should do better than this, and the answer is NOT better voting machinery, it's better procedures for when the limits of whatever machinery is used are exceeded.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2001

Whatever makes you think that thugs would limit themselves to paper ballot precints?

Thugs? THUGS? What kind of an election board do you deal with?

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2001

Pam:

All kinds. The election history in the US is pretty ugly, just beneath the surface. And one of my points was that systems don't become more bulletproof just because they're simpler, partly because simpler people (if they're in charge) can diddle them. Thugs have been employed (they're cheap) to, uh, suggest that certain people might not want to cast ballots.

You might want to address my main argument, though. How do you decide a measurement tie, and how do you reconcile it and pick a winner?

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2001

Pam,

One of the biggest problems that we have in addressing this issue is that everyone assumes that their experience is the same nationwide. Perfect example: numbered ballots? I've never seen such a thing. Our ballots both in NC and here in AL are NOT numbered. They are simply paper forms that are handed out of a box on a first-come first-served basis.

What I am arguing for, in fact, is a nationwide standard JUST to address this.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2001

Hello Stephen--

I agree completely that there should be one form of voting used for the entire country and one type of ballot that would accommodate the various positions being elected.

I was obviously unaware that there were still un-numbered ballots. I believe New Zealand first used numbered ballots and New York state was the first state in the US to use them. Mid 1800's I think. 'Stuffing the ballot box' becomes a real possibility without numbered ballots.

Flint--

How are thugs more effective in preventing people from voting with paper ballots than voting with machines?

The perception certainly was that voting machines give accurate counts. Well, they don't. And they can be rigged in many ways while still giving the appearance of baing absolutely accurate.

Have you read about the test done in Texas years ago? It was done for an audience of reporters. They were asked to cast a vote for Goldwater or Johnson. The group voted overwhelminly for one candidate but when the machine counted the votes, the other candidate had recieved the votes. Have you read Ronnie Dugger's classic article about rigging voting machines?

I am in favor of hand recounts in close elections.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001

Pam:

I despair of communicating with you. I'll say the same thing for the third time. ANY voting method can be abused. PEOPLE are in charge of even numbered ballots. PEOPLE can be bribed. They can be fanatical supporters of one party. There ARE NO voting methods that can EVER be guaranteed to be safe.

You seem to be violently agreeing with me. Paper ballots can be stuffed, numbers or not. Voting machines can be rigged. Hand recounts depend on who gets to define what a vote is. We haven't even resolved the issue of "clear intent" versus "valid ballot".

So once again : we *might* be able to minimize errors or mischief, but we cannot eliminate ties. Ties can always happen. And we cannot eliminate suspicion. The losing side (especially in a close election) will *always* suspect foul play, whether they can find it or not.

So how do we resolve a tie?

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001

Flint:

I have finally identified my problems with your arguments. You are too steeped in the South. Like a pot of sun tea made in the Alabama sun. Voting there has always been dishonest. You transfer your experience to the rest of the country. Doesn’t happen in the north. Have you, for example, ever heard of voting irregularities in Chicago. *<)))

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001

Z,

If your sense of 'yumor gets any drier it'll dessicate itself.

Just add water to get an instant chuckle. :)

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001