Can a computer voting machine be designed that is simple to operate,tamperproof and produces a paper trail?
An old voting machine can do everything you listed. What a computer is for? To fihjt off Algore? Impossible.
There is no machine on Earth that is ‘tamper-proof’. You need security procedures and diligence to run any election.
A computerized voting system adds another layer of complexity onto the process, conceivably creating more ways to cheat. But I think you could make it secure enough - Las Vegas manages to run tens of thousands of slot machines pretty securely, although errors do creep in once in a while.
I’ve been giving some thought to how you could make a nearly tamper-proof election system. One way would be to give each voter a punch card that is encoded with a number. The number gets recorded along with the voter’s identification. The voter slides the card into the computer, the computer puts a list of candidates on the screen,and the voter selects the candidate by touching the screen where the candidate’s name appears. After they have selected their candidates, the computer prints the list on the screen, and says, “Ok?” Select “YES”, and the machine punches the card to indicate selections.
Here’s the trick - the same spot is NOT punched on every card for the same candidate. Rather, an algorithm is used based on the serial number of the card. If that algorithm is protected, then even the vote workers would have no way of knowing which cards were a vote for a particular candidate. That means no cards would ‘disappear’ into someone’s trunk, etc. Plus, the computer system could keep a tally of votes, and after the physical count of the cards the numbers could be compared. If there is a discrepancy, you can still revert to a hand count. But the interesting thing is that it’s impossible to bias the hand count, because the people looking at each ballot have no way of knowing which candidate a hole represents. So all they could really do is look for flaws on the card itself. If need be, a standalone machine with the same algorithm could count the votes, to make sure that the main computers hadn’t been compromised.
Comments?
AFAIK, we do not have problems with voter fraud or machine tampering. We are having problems with Algore and his lawyers. We have to invent a lawyer eliminating machine, and many problems, including the electoral one, will go away.
Lawyer blame Algore’s loss on cards, voters, counting machines, etc., but only in heavily Democratic precincts, where “recount” could turn the outcome. TRhink better! Do not play their game. The experience shows that new machines just whet lawyer appetite.
It IS possible to create a voting SYSTEM that is tamperproof, but no machine is secure if the system is insecure. The best current systems are “mark-sense” systems. You mark your ballot with a #2 pencil, insert your ballot into the ballot box, and the box’s computer sensor scans the marks during insertion. It is virtually errorproof, provides instant results, and leaves a perfect paper trail of hand-marked ballots. Since you are not allowed to erase on these ballots (if you change your mind after marking an entry, you have to request a new ballot) tampering with ballots would leave obvious evidence.
But these systems do nothing to prevent fraud BEFORE you vote, like for example, unscrupulous election officials denying you are registered, etc.
And BTW, Sam, your method of voting is unconstitutional. It is not possible to create a secret ballot system where voters or ballots are identified by serial numbers. It would be possible to track down an individual voter from their ballot. That’s illegal and unconstitutional. It must be a SECRET ballot. Every ballot must be indistinguishable from any other ballot.
For some theory on voting systems, I recommend this web
site:
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/
In particular, read the essay “Voting on Paper Ballots” at:
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/paper.html
And hey Manhattan, can’t you do anything about non-political threads being puked on by rabid political protesters? This thread is about voting systems in general, not Bore vs. Gush.
I think you must have checks and balances. As long as humans are involved, you can still have fraud. There is no law or machine you can create that prevents fraud. That is why you have election judges and officials from more than one party.
Peace
I disagree
Anytime someone goes to the trouble of going to the polls to vote his vote should count.No matter what the problem is.
Hell we have voting machines that were invented in the 1800s.
I’m also getting tired of people blaming Gore or Bush for doing what they have a right to do.Contest the results.
Don’t want to hijack my own thread so back to the topic.
Can we make voting less confusing and easier for people to understand and more accruate using computers?
Isn’t the secret ballot a right guaranteed by each state and not the Federal Constitution? I don’t find any reference to a secret ballot in the Constitution, but I’m sure that all the states require it.
Also, just because the serial number was recorded, it would be possible to NOT link that to the name of the voter, and thus maintain secrecy.
The ballot would have the serial number, but not the voter’s name on it.
Names are already taken, so all the information is there.
There would then be two lists: one of serial numbers and one of voter names. They would be unconnected.
The voter stub, however, could have both name and serial number on it. In this way, they could report each vote by the serial number (which could be randomly assigned), and each voter could check to ensure that his vote was recorded correctly, but no one else would know how another person voted.
Unless someone decided to connect them. Read the Jones essay on paper ballots. It is easy for someone to make note of the serial number of a ballot handed out to someone. Then you can go back and retrieve the person’s numbered ballot later. This is why numbered ballots are never used. You don’t have to connect a list, you just have to connect a single number to compromise any single person’s secrecy.