It’s easier for an admin or owner of a closed source computer system to stuff tens of thousands than it is to stuff one ballot.
In the uk, ballot boxes are watched by volunteers including school children.
The thing is, in the USA, the exit polls ( where people stand outside and ask how people voted) are significantly off in many states, causing most USA news to not use that in predicting national elections. That is significant in the multi hundred year history of the practice and democracies world wide.
It was a joke but thanks for the very detailed answer which I wholeheartedly agree with.
Closed source systems suck, they just allow for vulnerabilities to go unchecked. I’m a big proponent for open source solutions.
Otoh physical items with loads of people involved are indeed harder to tamper with. A viable electronic solution should imho still include those people and physical trails as a backup.
Been programming for 40 years, I’m of no special talent, it’s my trade.
If I can think of several ways to bypass any possible security of electronic voting, if the owner is participating. Then people smarter than me can do better.
And having administered large systems that have hardware and software parts, I have convinced myself it’s simply not possible to make sure they all behave well and are doing what is expected of them . Even open source.
On top of that, there is possibility of careless or bad admins, stolen admin keys, and on top of that hacking.
I will never underestimate smart people, who gain money and power, to not tamper with complex systems. So low tech, where each step can be verified with mark one human eyeballs and witnessed by the gaggle of people who have competing interests, is the only way to do democracy.
The systems perfected in Europe a long time ago work well enough I think
Your comment is very interesting and thanks for typing it. After a bit of reflection I think you’re right.
I learnt a bit recently about the Bush/Al Gore election in the US and how Florida votes were handled. Thanks Climate Town for throwing me down that rabbit hole.
It shook my confidence quite a bit especially about how automated systems often fail to handle edge cases and how it can create problems down the line.
I spent a few years, off and on, trying to raise interest in such things. Much to my surprise I found nothing going on to rectify this. And few active conversations.
This really did not change among the entire political spectrum from ultra conservatives, to religious, to white suprematists, to centralists, environmentalists, liberals, progressives, socialists ,black lives matters , or environmentalists.
This led me to completely look at American politics as three groups: those who ignore this and are active supporters in political discussions , those that realize this and don’t comment much about it, and those who do not care.
I would love to see the US states use the same counting solution as in France.
About augmenting counting, I do not know much, there can be many solutions to that ranging from the semi technological (hand scanners) to full automation. But, in my opinion, I like to avoid extra complexity in the process.
I like the idea that the checks come from allowing unlimited recounts done on demand by any representative. I am not sure about the French records, but I think the record in the UK was set in the 1800s in a regional election at something like 37 recounts?
Representatives(s) of candidate watching each counting place, should feel free to be little tyrants to make that building do recount after recount until there is no excuse to do more. Its slow, but at the end there is no dispute, and no possibility of cheating.
I am always interested in hearing about people raising awareness.
stuffs ballot box
It’s easier for an admin or owner of a closed source computer system to stuff tens of thousands than it is to stuff one ballot.
In the uk, ballot boxes are watched by volunteers including school children.
The thing is, in the USA, the exit polls ( where people stand outside and ask how people voted) are significantly off in many states, causing most USA news to not use that in predicting national elections. That is significant in the multi hundred year history of the practice and democracies world wide.
It was a joke but thanks for the very detailed answer which I wholeheartedly agree with.
Closed source systems suck, they just allow for vulnerabilities to go unchecked. I’m a big proponent for open source solutions.
Otoh physical items with loads of people involved are indeed harder to tamper with. A viable electronic solution should imho still include those people and physical trails as a backup.
Never fully trust a treacherous computer :p
Thanks for your reply , I enjoyed it.
Been programming for 40 years, I’m of no special talent, it’s my trade.
If I can think of several ways to bypass any possible security of electronic voting, if the owner is participating. Then people smarter than me can do better.
And having administered large systems that have hardware and software parts, I have convinced myself it’s simply not possible to make sure they all behave well and are doing what is expected of them . Even open source.
On top of that, there is possibility of careless or bad admins, stolen admin keys, and on top of that hacking.
I will never underestimate smart people, who gain money and power, to not tamper with complex systems. So low tech, where each step can be verified with mark one human eyeballs and witnessed by the gaggle of people who have competing interests, is the only way to do democracy.
The systems perfected in Europe a long time ago work well enough I think
It’s a very late reply but here I am.
Your comment is very interesting and thanks for typing it. After a bit of reflection I think you’re right.
I learnt a bit recently about the Bush/Al Gore election in the US and how Florida votes were handled. Thanks Climate Town for throwing me down that rabbit hole.
It shook my confidence quite a bit especially about how automated systems often fail to handle edge cases and how it can create problems down the line.
Thanks for replying.
I spent a few years, off and on, trying to raise interest in such things. Much to my surprise I found nothing going on to rectify this. And few active conversations.
This really did not change among the entire political spectrum from ultra conservatives, to religious, to white suprematists, to centralists, environmentalists, liberals, progressives, socialists ,black lives matters , or environmentalists.
This led me to completely look at American politics as three groups: those who ignore this and are active supporters in political discussions , those that realize this and don’t comment much about it, and those who do not care.
This is important activism. Thank you for doing it and sharing some insights.
afaik here in France we use paper ballots and physical collection. Which is quite nice after thinking about it a bit.
What is your opinion on automated solutions being used as an aid for human workers iff it doesn’t replace them?
Same if they’re used only as a secondary check not a primary counting method?
PS: I’ll try to raise awareness around me.
I would love to see the US states use the same counting solution as in France.
About augmenting counting, I do not know much, there can be many solutions to that ranging from the semi technological (hand scanners) to full automation. But, in my opinion, I like to avoid extra complexity in the process.
I like the idea that the checks come from allowing unlimited recounts done on demand by any representative. I am not sure about the French records, but I think the record in the UK was set in the 1800s in a regional election at something like 37 recounts?
Representatives(s) of candidate watching each counting place, should feel free to be little tyrants to make that building do recount after recount until there is no excuse to do more. Its slow, but at the end there is no dispute, and no possibility of cheating.
I am always interested in hearing about people raising awareness.