There is a problem with that: We have a “secret ballot” – the point of which is to eliminate bribery and coercion from the system, by making it impossible for the voter to prove how he or she voted, and therefore impossible for the briber or bully to demand such proof. We lose that element of secrecy if we allow the voter to take a copy of his or her ballot home, or keep a file copy that can reliably be matched to a particular voter. Rebecca Mercuri’s add-on to the touchscreen voting machine, OTOH, merely prints out a paper copy, under glass, which the voter can quickly check to make sure it matches his or her choices; that done, the printout goes into a sealed box, bearing no information identifying the voter.
I agree. We need to move on. Let’s fight about votes being counted/not counted in the 2004 election! 
(See “A Corrupted Election: Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls were right,” by Steve Freeman and Josh Mittledorf, In These Times, 2/15/05, http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/.)
That article said a 5% error is a statistical impossiblity. Is that terminology even valid? Aren’t we talking about a confidence interval? Highly unlikely, maybe, but a statistical impossibility? Take me back to stats 101 and walk me through this–I’m missing something (second time in a one-page thread, that’s really something).
BG, you’re right, I hadn’t thought of that. Okay, a voter can see the paper copy for confirmation (if he wants), but doesn’t get a copy. Still not a real problem, except for the faction that can be counted upon to say “It will cost money, therefore it will cost *too much * money”.
I’m in favor of that, but I believe we can reach that result without passing this bill.
A part of which would include some voter education.
I’ve seen some complaints about ‘voter intimidation’ that were nothing more than voters being ignorant and taking offense when election workers enforced federal and state election laws as they were sworn to do. Reading through those “election incidences” logs makes steam come out of my ears. Being told to move your car when you are parking illegally at the polling place is not voter intimidation. Being told to put a voting guide out of sight is not voter intimidation. Being asked to remove a campaign button is not voter intimidation. Simillarly, being told you can’t vote because you didn’t register your new address with the state is not being disenfranchised, bullied, or denied your rights, either.
Voting is not just some God-given right that officials must move heaven and earth to allow you to do. There are certain procedures to be followed, and a would-be voter who doesn’t follow them is going to run into problems. Let us not mislabel those problems. I have no doubt we have some problems with fraud and poor procedure and what not, and I’d like to see efforts made to reduce those. Some of these voter complaints, however, could be taken care of simply by bringing them up to speed on the laws.
Remember that the margin of victory in this race was 129 votes.
Increase the number of provisional ballots, and you increase the chance of either innocent mistakes like this, or outright fraud. Since voter registration in this country is an easy process, I feel that an invitation to error or criminality is misguided.
I won’t support this bill, and will support measures to prevent voter fraud like database checks and presentation of ID at the polls.
That is the funniest thing I’ve seen on the board in awhile. Every wealthy person I know works a 60-70hr week. Compare that to the other end of the scale, (people on welfare) they have ALL DAY to vote. Advantage goes to the welfare recipient.
The reason hardcopy backup is necessary for security is simple. With hardcopies, forging ten votes is ten times as much work as forging one vote. With electronic-only records, forging one million votes is not one whit more difficult than forging one vote. Thus, the latter has a catastrophic failure mode that is not present in the former.
This, like any other scheme that allows a voter to show his vote to others after the fact (e.g. for a payoff such as “One Hundred Dollars” or “Two Intact Kneecaps”), is an extremely bad idea.
Look at, yes. Take away, absolutely not, for the reason noted in my previous message.
I have difficulty with the idea of same day registration. The prospect for fraud seems to be rather high. It would increase the need for provisional ballots and for more personnel to veify them.
This leads to a larger issue. It’s not rocket science to fill out a form with your name and address 30 days prior and show up where you are supposed to if you want to vote. It is apparently in the best interests of the Democrats to manufacture as many tales of “voter intimidation” as they can. That way, they can make themselves feel better by telling themselves that they would have won if those evil Republicans hadn’t “stolen the election”…whatever the election in question.
Federal holidays would only affect government workers and that would be skewed toward jobs in large metropolitan areas. Or put another way, jobs created and controlled by predominantly Democratic politicians.
This bill is aimed at:
- Government employees
- Criminals
- People too lazy to register in a timely manner
- People who can’t figure a simple ballot (such as the Florida butterfly ballot)
This isn’t even a thinly disguised attempt at trolling for votes.
We already have a paper trail with punch card ballots. They’re cheap to operate and easily verifiable for accuracy with a card reader that prints out the results. People need only sign the ballot to make it traceable.
The only change I would like to see is a mandate to verify all registered voters to reduce voter fraud.
Er, I think you’re missing the point of this scheme. Each ballot would be individually encrypted and keysigned by a public/private keyset held by the voter. The private key, naturally, is private, unrecorded, unreproducible. This is a vast improvement over any plain hardcopy scheme. Of course, it doesn’t prevent issuing false registrations to people who are not legitimate voters, but neither do paper ballots; that’s a whole 'nother security issue, and one that is being made more complex by day-of registration and provisional ballots. As for foraging multiple votes in hardcopy, ask a few printers how difficult it would be to create counterfeit ballots, especially anonymous ones. An anonymously keysigned ballot is unique and traceable back to the voting station of origin.
Um, I’m not advocating that anyone take the ballot (or a copy) home with them. At most, you could allow them to use their private key to verify that the votes they made were correctly entered into the system, or issue a receipt based upon their public key, but I don’t see this as being necessary or even beneficial in terms of verification. As long as the system is transparent, the content can be encrypted, secured, and “trapdoored”, allowing only asynchronous verification so far as individual voters are concerned.
The banking system transfers billions of dollars a day electronically, without fear of fraud or loss via their system of verification. People send their credit information over the Internet using SSL, and so far as I’m aware, the only leaks that occur are at the end points (either the user leaving the sending computer open to spying, or the recipient not preventing crackers from hacking the database.) With public, nonpartisan oversight and a transparent, open source system, I don’t see why such methods can’t be used to significantly increase security and confidence in the voting system.
Stranger
“Hope ya don’t mind Moose and Vinnie lookin’ over yer shoulder while ya sign in…”
I keep paper backup records of my banking transactions, and wouldn’t trust the bank if they refused to provide same.
You really have no idea what he’s talking about…do you? :smack:
Which is exactly why I said to go ahead and hook up a printer to the machines…it will make the neo-luddites happy, they will feel all safe and secure with their little slips of paper (never realizing that this record means nothing because it could be altered or duplicated…if it came down to going back to the bank with their little slip of paper it would be the electonic record the bank would trust). 
Basically agree with much of what Stranger On A Train advocates, but I say go ahead and spend the extra millions on a printing system too. Make it big and imposing looking…with lots of cerchunking noises and lots of analogue dohickies sticking out of it so it looks…solid and trustworthy. It will make all the politicians and those who don’t have a clue about technology happy, thinking that NOW things are safe…and really, its just money and show in the end. Anything to get them to stop yammering about electronic voting systems is a good thing IMO.
-XT
Oooh, and steam! We should have steam!
And, dare I say it, but perhaps…a machine that goes “Bing!”
“Information Transit got the wrong man. I got the right man. The wrong one was delivered to me as the right man, I accepted him on good faith as the right man. Was I wrong?”
Ah…I should have realized before that this is the perfect opportunity to trot out some “Brazil” quotes.
“This is your receipt for your husband… and this is my receipt for your receipt.”
“Tuttle, Buttle…It’s been confusion from the word go!”
and my favorite:
“Don’t fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating.”
Stranger
Remember, kid, we’re all in this together.
I understand precisely what he’s talking about. He said that the voter would be able to verify his vote after the fact. That inherently means that he can verify his vote to someone who is engaged in vote-buying or coercion. QED.
It needs to be the other way around (i.e. computers, if any, used as an adjunct to the printed ballots).
Er, so let me get this straight; you oppose any kind of individual accountability, even if it is strictly voluntary, but you demand individual (hardcopy) accountability, even though the existing methods have been demonstrated as fallible. In any case, a public/private key system could be anonymous or not, depending on whether you record the keyset issued to each voter and whether you permit the voter to access the system afterward. Your focus on this issue is a red herring. I don’t think this is necessary, but it could be permitted if it were found to be so.
Most banks no longer keep paper records of transactions at all. Instead, they keep multiple electronic records, each encrypted or digitally signed to verify authenticity. (Perhaps someone with experience in the banking system can come along and give more specifics than my brief reading of the topic can provide.) They will offer you paper records, if you request, but their primary records are electronic and frankly, more secure than any paper records could be.
Here’s the wiki on digital signature and public key cryptography, if you’re interested.
Stranger
Well, as long as you think you understand its all good then.
Quite correct. And cars, if we decide to use them, should certainly have a buggy whip holder too. Couldn’t agree more.
Steam might be going a bit far. Could scare some folks off…too high tech. I was thinking of a nice hand crank though. The ‘Bing!’ idea is excellent though. Want to start a business together…we could make millions I think. The government and seemingly a large percentage of the citizens of this supposedly high tech nation would lap it up. 
-XT
My thoughts:
As long as a given ballot can’t be traced to an individual, no problem.
Yes. I know of no jurisdiction where voting is not open outside of working hours. This will only burden employers and inconvenience customers.
Are you sure it isn’t already illegal? If not, though, it should be.
Yes. I’d like the elements of my law-making and law-enforcement to be decided by people who actually respect the law, who I figure won’t be voting to make life easier for law-breakers. I’m all for voting one’s self-interest, but the system should be geared toward those who are interested in working within the law.
Absolutely.