Why we need a ballot **BOX**

[Loren Pechtel]

https://about.unimelb.edu.au/newsro...rs-find-trapdoor-in-swissvote-election-system

Oops, the Swiss e-voting system had a hidden trapdoor.

There are simply too many ways to tamper with the system that would be hard to detect and even if detected it would be hard to figure out who to blame.

We need paper ballots in a box, or a system like we have here where the voting machines are electronic but print out your vote on a roll like you find in a cash register--it scrolls up where you can see it. The paper goes onto a takeup reel, while the machine might be hacked the tape can't be and since the machine prints what's on the tape there's no issues of mismarking, hanging chad or the like.

 

[Arctish]

In Alaska we use paper ballots that are scanned and fed into a secure ballot box.

I hear that most states tried to do away with paper ballots as a cost saving measure, but the integrity of the voting system is too important to justify using an easily hacked and/or unreliable system.

 

[TV and credit cards]

We use the "cash register" printout you speak of here in Ohio. It's behind plexiglass and one would have to make a genuine effort to read it but it's there. As you review and verify your vote selections on the giant tablet, it scrolls along dutifully printing away. I'm surprised the Republicans haven't gotten rid of them. We are essentially a one party state now.

 

[Terrell]

Here (Orange County FL) we have paper ballots as well. Bubble in your choices, then feed them to a scanner.

 

[Tigers!]

In Australia we use paper ballots that are put into boxes with 4 seals. The votes (yes all of them) are counted by hand. Slow yes, but reliable and hard to corrupt.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In Canada, we fill out a paper form and feed that into a machine. It reads the votes to give an instant tally, but all the paper records are there in order to verify the results, although when a dispute occurs, some of those paper records may be rejected as invalid in accordance with whichever Kremlin directive covers the local race in question.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We used to use the pine cone and birch bark method but the bark kept breaking, and it got heavy after too many votes.

[YouTube]https://youtu.be/BAR9XYwL9iQ[/YouTube]

 

[southernhybrid]

There's the start of a movement in Georgia to use paper ballots. Meanwhile, our corrupt governor who many people think won the election due to voter suppression and other under handed things related to voting, wants to buy more of the terrible, unreliable electronic voting machines that we've been using here for about 20 years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We use the "cash register" printout you speak of here in Ohio. It's behind plexiglass and one would have to make a genuine effort to read it but it's there. As you review and verify your vote selections on the giant tablet, it scrolls along dutifully printing away. I'm surprised the Republicans haven't gotten rid of them. We are essentially a one party state now.

I find it quite readable. The ones here don't print as you go, but rather when you hit done it prints and asks for a confirmation that the printout matches. Only after you agree does it record the vote. Disagree and it goes back to voting and prints a line voiding the vote that was just displayed.

 

[bilby]

In Australia we use paper ballots that are put into boxes with 4 seals. The votes (yes all of them) are counted by hand. Slow yes, but reliable and hard to corrupt.

I agree. It's an excellent system, designed not only to work, but to be seen to work.

The entire process - from examining the boxes being sealed, through the process of voting, to opening, and then counting the ballots is subject to scrutiny by both the Electoral Commission, and the candidates (or their authorized representatives). The AEC are VERY diligent in ensuring that the entire process is closely monitored, while each individual vote remains secret.

It would be very difficult to design a machine based system that was not only as secure, but also as easily verified to be secure by all interested parties. Certainly, no better system has yet been demonstrated.

It's far more expensive than machine counted votes - but it's not particularly expensive in the big scheme of things. Saving money at the expense of opening (or even potentially opening) loopholes wherein the process could be corrupted strikes me as being a very poor trade. Saving time, likewise. The successful candidates will be in office for a few years. Nobody has a sufficiently pressing need to know the result as soon as possible as the render speed more important than security. If it takes a week to count the votes, then let it take a week.

 

[Crowcause]

In Australia we use paper ballots that are put into boxes with 4 seals. The votes (yes all of them) are counted by hand. Slow yes, but reliable and hard to corrupt.

I agree. It's an excellent system, designed not only to work, but to be seen to work.

The entire process - from examining the boxes being sealed, through the process of voting, to opening, and then counting the ballots is subject to scrutiny by both the Electoral Commission, and the candidates (or their authorized representatives). The AEC are VERY diligent in ensuring that the entire process is closely monitored, while each individual vote remains secret.

It would be very difficult to design a machine based system that was not only as secure, but also as easily verified to be secure by all interested parties. Certainly, no better system has yet been demonstrated.

It's far more expensive than machine counted votes - but it's not particularly expensive in the big scheme of things. Saving money at the expense of opening (or even potentially opening) loopholes wherein the process could be corrupted strikes me as being a very poor trade. Saving time, likewise. The successful candidates will be in office for a few years. Nobody has a sufficiently pressing need to know the result as soon as possible as the render speed more important than security. If it takes a week to count the votes, then let it take a week.

I 100% agree! I have never understood the need for speed when it comes to election results when accuracy should be the upmost priority. Is this being pushed by the news media for their 'scoops'? Trying to think of what other factors would be pressuring those making these decisions to feel that the system must give results within minutes and hours at most. If they are looking at cost of a few more hours of poll workers time, considering what is at stake, that difference is nothing. From what I have heard, mail-in is gaining some popularity and in some cases all of the ballots aren't in for a few days after the election anyway, especially military and out of country.

 

[Tigers!]

In Australia we use paper ballots that are put into boxes with 4 seals. The votes (yes all of them) are counted by hand. Slow yes, but reliable and hard to corrupt.

I agree. It's an excellent system, designed not only to work, but to be seen to work.

The entire process - from examining the boxes being sealed, through the process of voting, to opening, and then counting the ballots is subject to scrutiny by both the Electoral Commission, and the candidates (or their authorized representatives). The AEC are VERY diligent in ensuring that the entire process is closely monitored, while each individual vote remains secret.

It would be very difficult to design a machine based system that was not only as secure, but also as easily verified to be secure by all interested parties. Certainly, no better system has yet been demonstrated.

It's far more expensive than machine counted votes - but it's not particularly expensive in the big scheme of things. Saving money at the expense of opening (or even potentially opening) loopholes wherein the process could be corrupted strikes me as being a very poor trade. Saving time, likewise. The successful candidates will be in office for a few years. Nobody has a sufficiently pressing need to know the result as soon as possible as the render speed more important than security. If it takes a week to count the votes, then let it take a week.

I 100% agree! I have never understood the need for speed when it comes to election results when accuracy should be the upmost priority. Is this being pushed by the news media for their 'scoops'? Trying to think of what other factors would be pressuring those making these decisions to feel that the system must give results within minutes and hours at most. If they are looking at cost of a few more hours of poll workers time, considering what is at stake, that difference is nothing. From what I have heard, mail-in is gaining some popularity and in some cases all of the ballots aren't in for a few days after the election anyway, especially military and out of country.

Speaking from an Australian perspective the media seem to be the ones really pushing having to know the result as soon as possible.
Don't know why? The sun will still rise in the morning and your mother will still love you even if we don't know the result that night.
We have caretaker provisions in place that allow for the machinery of government to continue as long as it takes to get the result.
The seats are not declared until the Electoral Commission declares them despite the media thinking it is them.
The pollies do not start getting paid until they are sworn in so they have a vested pecuniary interest in a fast result but they have no influence over the counting or tallying.

You also thank the Aussies for the secret ballot concept and application.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's far more expensive than machine counted votes - but it's not particularly expensive in the big scheme of things. Saving money at the expense of opening (or even potentially opening) loopholes wherein the process could be corrupted strikes me as being a very poor trade. Saving time, likewise. The successful candidates will be in office for a few years. Nobody has a sufficiently pressing need to know the result as soon as possible as the render speed more important than security. If it takes a week to count the votes, then let it take a week.

I think we can get the best of both worlds--voting machines that make a paper log. Machine counting, no flawed ballots but you have a paper record to cross-check against.

However, I think a small percentage of those papers should be randomly checked against the machine records.

 

[bilby]

It's far more expensive than machine counted votes - but it's not particularly expensive in the big scheme of things. Saving money at the expense of opening (or even potentially opening) loopholes wherein the process could be corrupted strikes me as being a very poor trade. Saving time, likewise. The successful candidates will be in office for a few years. Nobody has a sufficiently pressing need to know the result as soon as possible as the render speed more important than security. If it takes a week to count the votes, then let it take a week.

I think we can get the best of both worlds--voting machines that make a paper log. Machine counting, no flawed ballots but you have a paper record to cross-check against.

However, I think a small percentage of those papers should be randomly checked against the machine records.

What's the point? Why do you think machines are adding anything useful that offsets their being easier to tamper with than paper ballots?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's far more expensive than machine counted votes - but it's not particularly expensive in the big scheme of things. Saving money at the expense of opening (or even potentially opening) loopholes wherein the process could be corrupted strikes me as being a very poor trade. Saving time, likewise. The successful candidates will be in office for a few years. Nobody has a sufficiently pressing need to know the result as soon as possible as the render speed more important than security. If it takes a week to count the votes, then let it take a week.

I think we can get the best of both worlds--voting machines that make a paper log. Machine counting, no flawed ballots but you have a paper record to cross-check against.

However, I think a small percentage of those papers should be randomly checked against the machine records.

What's the point? Why do you think machines are adding anything useful that offsets their being easier to tamper with than paper ballots?

1) No flawed ballots. No double votes, no unclear marks, no hanging chad.

2) Much cheaper.

By checking them against the tapes you make it impractical to tamper with them.

 

[bilby]

What's the point? Why do you think machines are adding anything useful that offsets their being easier to tamper with than paper ballots?

1) No flawed ballots. No double votes, no unclear marks, no hanging chad.

These are characteristics of machine voting. A ballot paper with the vote marked on it in indelible pencil is proof against some of these things. There's no such thing as a 'chad' unless you use a machine - are you sure you even read my post? Because your arguments here seem to assume that I am anticipating the use of a machine, and I explicitly am advocating for NOT doing that.

Illegible ballots are potentially a problem, but no worse a problem than those (such as 'hanging chads') that occur with machine voting. The AEC rules require that a vote be counted if it is possible to determine the clear intent of the voter, even if they don't exactly conform with the instructions. These instructions are very simple, and the vast majority of 'informal' papers (ones that cannot be counted), are clearly deliberately informal - often with profanities scrawled across them.

Double votes are less likely in a paper ballot system than with machine voting. In the AEC ststem, papers are issued to voters as they are crossed off the roll; The issuing officer stamps and initials the blank paper as it is issued, so even if they accidentally passed two papers stuck together to the voter, they would only end up with one valid paper.

If a voter makes a mistake, they can be issued a new paper, only by handing back the spoiled paper which is destroyed as a new ballot is issued.

In my experience, such re-issues are very rare - and I have been an official scrutineer at dozens of elections.

2) Much cheaper.

Don't care. Better to be secure than cheap, given the potentially HUGE cost to the nation of allowing the system to be subverted. The costs of paper ballots counted by hand are not that great. So the savings are not worth the risks.

By checking them against the tapes you make it impractical to tamper with them.

You can secure and recount paper ballots at any time. Your 'tape' is not in any way an improvement.

 

[SimpleDon]

In Australia we use paper ballots that are put into boxes with 4 seals. The votes (yes all of them) are counted by hand. Slow yes, but reliable and hard to corrupt.

I agree. It's an excellent system, designed not only to work, but to be seen to work.

The entire process - from examining the boxes being sealed, through the process of voting, to opening, and then counting the ballots is subject to scrutiny by both the Electoral Commission, and the candidates (or their authorized representatives). The AEC are VERY diligent in ensuring that the entire process is closely monitored, while each individual vote remains secret.

It would be very difficult to design a machine based system that was not only as secure, but also as easily verified to be secure by all interested parties. Certainly, no better system has yet been demonstrated.

It's far more expensive than machine counted votes - but it's not particularly expensive in the big scheme of things. Saving money at the expense of opening (or even potentially opening) loopholes wherein the process could be corrupted strikes me as being a very poor trade. Saving time, likewise. The successful candidates will be in office for a few years. Nobody has a sufficiently pressing need to know the result as soon as possible as the render speed more important than security. If it takes a week to count the votes, then let it take a week.

They are going to buy voting machines here in Georgia, USA, that print out a paper ballot that is scanable in case of a needed recount. The Republicans here are happy with their voter suppression, gerrymandering and absentee ballot voter fraud efforts that they don't feel the need to hack into the voting machines to assure their control of the state.

 

[bilby]

In Australia we use paper ballots that are put into boxes with 4 seals. The votes (yes all of them) are counted by hand. Slow yes, but reliable and hard to corrupt.

I agree. It's an excellent system, designed not only to work, but to be seen to work.

The entire process - from examining the boxes being sealed, through the process of voting, to opening, and then counting the ballots is subject to scrutiny by both the Electoral Commission, and the candidates (or their authorized representatives). The AEC are VERY diligent in ensuring that the entire process is closely monitored, while each individual vote remains secret.

It would be very difficult to design a machine based system that was not only as secure, but also as easily verified to be secure by all interested parties. Certainly, no better system has yet been demonstrated.

It's far more expensive than machine counted votes - but it's not particularly expensive in the big scheme of things. Saving money at the expense of opening (or even potentially opening) loopholes wherein the process could be corrupted strikes me as being a very poor trade. Saving time, likewise. The successful candidates will be in office for a few years. Nobody has a sufficiently pressing need to know the result as soon as possible as the render speed more important than security. If it takes a week to count the votes, then let it take a week.

They are going to buy voting machines here in Georgia, USA, that print out a paper ballot that is scanable in case of a needed recount. The Republicans here are happy with their voter suppression, gerrymandering and absentee ballot voter fraud efforts that they don't feel the need to hack into the voting machines to assure their control of the state.

The only 'machines' needed for voting are tamper evident ballot boxes, and a few indelible pencils.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The only 'machines' needed for voting are tamper evident ballot boxes, and a few indelible pencils.

But then you need to fly people all the way over from Russia with bags full of fake ballots and go through a whole song and dance to distract folks to sneak them into ballot boxes and then replace the tamper proof stuff you just broke. That seems overly complex as compared to just clicking a few buttons in a Kremlin office.