Monday, November 10, 2008
elections are often surprisingly close
The classic Canadian example I usually use is the last Referendum on Quebec independence where it was 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes".
There is another great example going on right now in the Minnesota senate race.
According to Daily Kos, "Today's latest results show [Democratic challenger Al Franken] is now trailing Republican incumbent Norm Coleman by 204 votes."
Wikipedia currently shows the tally at
Popular vote Coleman:1,211,562 Franken:1,211,356 Barkley:437,389
If you want that in percentages that's Coleman 41.988%, Franken 41.981%
That means if your voting machines have even a .01% error rate, they've already thrown the election. And the high-tech threat to Minnesota's optical mark-sense scanners? Dust.
Undecided Minnesota Senate Race Used Machines that Flunked Accuracy Tests - Wired - November 5, 2008
In an earlier posting, Wired writes
ES&S Voting Machines in Michigan Flunk Tests, Don't Tally Votes Consistently - Wired - November 3, 2008
Say what you will about human failure modes, but dust usually isn't one of them.
Given that
1. Elections are often surprisingly close
2. Integrity of the count is paramount (your vote must be correctly counted)
3. Machines have many failure modes
4. A paper count by humans can be open and easily verified and rechecked
Then the best option to ensure confidence in election results is: hand-counted paper ballots.
(I don't know whether the Minnesota recount will require hand-counts.)
There is another great example going on right now in the Minnesota senate race.
According to Daily Kos, "Today's latest results show [Democratic challenger Al Franken] is now trailing Republican incumbent Norm Coleman by 204 votes."
Wikipedia currently shows the tally at
Popular vote Coleman:1,211,562 Franken:1,211,356 Barkley:437,389
If you want that in percentages that's Coleman 41.988%, Franken 41.981%
That means if your voting machines have even a .01% error rate, they've already thrown the election. And the high-tech threat to Minnesota's optical mark-sense scanners? Dust.
Undecided Minnesota Senate Race Used Machines that Flunked Accuracy Tests - Wired - November 5, 2008
In an earlier posting, Wired writes
The problems occurred during logic and accuracy tests in the run-up to this year's general election, Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson disclosed in a letter submitted October 24 (.pdf) to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The machines at issue are ES&S M-100 optical-scan machines, which read and tally election results from paper ballots.
Johnson worried that such problems -- linked tentatively to paper dust build-up in the machines -- could affect the integrity of the general election this week.
ES&S Voting Machines in Michigan Flunk Tests, Don't Tally Votes Consistently - Wired - November 3, 2008
Say what you will about human failure modes, but dust usually isn't one of them.
Given that
1. Elections are often surprisingly close
2. Integrity of the count is paramount (your vote must be correctly counted)
3. Machines have many failure modes
4. A paper count by humans can be open and easily verified and rechecked
Then the best option to ensure confidence in election results is: hand-counted paper ballots.
(I don't know whether the Minnesota recount will require hand-counts.)
Labels: election, electronic voting, optical scan, usa
Saturday, January 12, 2008
e-voting was a bad idea and is reaping the whirlwind
The basic premise of e-voting went something like this:
1) Electronics makes things "efficient" and will save money.
2) Elections are a government service just like any other.
Underlying this was an extraordinarily naive concept of elections as uncontroversial events that would never be challenged, and that no one would ever make a serious attempt to commit election fraud. There would never be close races. In essence, a disdain for the whole voting process, because it implies that a single vote will never make a difference.
This is simply demonstrably untrue, as elections with contested results have been a worldwide problem, with accusations flying, often with violent repercussions. Time and time again we have seen incredibly close elections.
The reality is: the more complicated and indirect you make the voting process and the vote counting process, the more you open the system to suspicions of fraud, and associated loss of confidence in the results of the election.
As I've said before, voting is an incredible act of civic alchemy, in which the will of the many is transmuted into tremendous power for a very few (e.g. in the US, a few hundred people leading a nation of 300 million). WITHOUT COMPLETE CONFIDENCE, this cannot work; a million people are not going to hand over power to a single politician unless they are confident s/he was actually selected by a fair vote.
In a partisan environment with close-fought elections, this means that now
EVERY SINGLE ELECTION WILL BE CHALLENGED
Oh, brilliant cost savings there, you idiot technocrats. Instead of pen and paper and election results in hours with full confidence of the electorate, elections will now turn into endless recounts, court challenges, and code examinations. Since it is almost impossible to prove that machines weren't hacked, any case where there is not a full paper trail will end up basically unresolvable.
Hand counted paper ballots were never broken,
the only way to fix this problem is to go back to them.
New Hampshire is lucky they have optical scan (the least-worst of the electronic options) so that confidence can be restored by a manual recount.
For a taste of what's to come, see ArsTechnica - Analysis: Why the "Hillary hacked NH?" story is important (Updated)
1) Electronics makes things "efficient" and will save money.
2) Elections are a government service just like any other.
Underlying this was an extraordinarily naive concept of elections as uncontroversial events that would never be challenged, and that no one would ever make a serious attempt to commit election fraud. There would never be close races. In essence, a disdain for the whole voting process, because it implies that a single vote will never make a difference.
This is simply demonstrably untrue, as elections with contested results have been a worldwide problem, with accusations flying, often with violent repercussions. Time and time again we have seen incredibly close elections.
The reality is: the more complicated and indirect you make the voting process and the vote counting process, the more you open the system to suspicions of fraud, and associated loss of confidence in the results of the election.
As I've said before, voting is an incredible act of civic alchemy, in which the will of the many is transmuted into tremendous power for a very few (e.g. in the US, a few hundred people leading a nation of 300 million). WITHOUT COMPLETE CONFIDENCE, this cannot work; a million people are not going to hand over power to a single politician unless they are confident s/he was actually selected by a fair vote.
In a partisan environment with close-fought elections, this means that now
EVERY SINGLE ELECTION WILL BE CHALLENGED
Oh, brilliant cost savings there, you idiot technocrats. Instead of pen and paper and election results in hours with full confidence of the electorate, elections will now turn into endless recounts, court challenges, and code examinations. Since it is almost impossible to prove that machines weren't hacked, any case where there is not a full paper trail will end up basically unresolvable.
Hand counted paper ballots were never broken,
the only way to fix this problem is to go back to them.
New Hampshire is lucky they have optical scan (the least-worst of the electronic options) so that confidence can be restored by a manual recount.
For a taste of what's to come, see ArsTechnica - Analysis: Why the "Hillary hacked NH?" story is important (Updated)
Labels: electronic voting, optical scan, rant, usa
