Double Check Your Votes At The Polls

[Brooklyn]

I might not have been clear with what I posted, so I apologize for that. At no point was I intending to suggest any sort of Internet-based voting (I would never support such a thing now or in the future). Indeed, nothing having anything to do with the outcome of the election or any part of the input or tallying of any votes should have any sort of Internet connectivity. Doing so is begging for massive fraud on scales we haven't ever seen in this country.

Rather, this was intended as a quick and dirty thought experiment in how to post -results- of elections online in such a way that the integrity of the reported outcomes could be verified after the fact while preserving as much anonymity as possible. I'm also not claiming this is at all perfect or that anyone will ever do it or anything like it. Having verifiable election results isn't in the interests of either party when they're the ones with their hands on the controls.

Google computer balloting. It not simple.. Its an incompleate research project.. It may in fact not have a solution. It is a HARD problem.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Google computer balloting. It not simple.. Its an incompleate research project.. It may in fact not have a solution. It is a HARD problem.

Out of curiosity, I took your suggestion and had a look through the first several pages of results. Lots of stuff about voting in Pakistan, some links in Chinese that I can't read, several about the introduction of early computer voting machines in 2002/2003, and most of the rest talking about email scams. There was one article in the Baltimore Sun about how insecure the Diebold voting machines are, but I already know that and it doesn't impact what I was discussing (which is merely reporting the results after election day in a way that makes them verifiable). Was there a specific site you had in mind?

 

[Brooklyn]

Out of curiosity, I took your suggestion and had a look through the first several pages of results. Lots of stuff about voting in Pakistan, some links in Chinese that I can't read, several about the introduction of early computer voting machines in 2002/2003, and most of the rest talking about email scams. There was one article in the Baltimore Sun about how insecure the Diebold voting machines are, but I already know that and it doesn't impact what I was discussing (which is merely reporting the results after election day in a way that makes them verifiable). Was there a specific site you had in mind?

I posted a link in an earlier post.. and I am going to try and find it again but I am on a cell phone

I think Rebecca Mercuri was the name..

Also try variations like electronic voting...

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I posted a link in an earlier post.. and I am going to try and find it again but I am on a call phone

I think Rebecca Mercuri was the name..

Also try variations like electronic voting...

I found a page from her on electronic voting here: http://www.notablesoftware.com/RMstatement.html

It's a pretty decent treatment of the various problems with electronic voting and Internet voting, but honestly it doesn't change what I wrote at all. Most of what she listed gets resolved with what I wrote. Multiple times in there, she mentions a lack of a paper receipt for voters, yet right up at the top she correctly points out how useless a paper receipt truly is. The only way to make any voting system verifiable is to ensure every voter has the opportunity to see how their votes were added to the final tally and for everyone to see how the tally adds up to the result. Doing so allows you to preserve some level of anonymity, but not total. In fact, it likely isn't possible to have both verifiability and complete anonymity regardless of how the votes are cast or tabulated. Paper ballots have all kinds of fraud issues themselves and also lack verifiability. Switch a couple boxes of paper ballots and suddenly you're right back where you started.

 

[Brooklyn]

I found a page from her on electronic voting here: http://www.notablesoftware.com/RMstatement.html

It's a pretty decent treatment of the various problems with electronic voting and Internet voting, but honestly it doesn't change what I wrote at all. Most of what she listed gets resolved with what I wrote. Multiple times in there, she mentions a lack of a paper receipt for voters, yet right up at the top she correctly points out how useless a paper receipt truly is. The only way to make any voting system verifiable is to ensure every voter has the opportunity to see how their votes were added to the final tally and for everyone to see how the tally adds up to the result. Doing so allows you to preserve some level of anonymity, but not total. In fact, it likely isn't possible to have both verifiability and complete anonymity regardless of how the votes are cast or tabulated. Paper ballots have all kinds of fraud issues themselves and also lack verifiability. Switch a couple boxes of paper ballots and suddenly you're right back where you started.

No I know her personally I have discussed this in person.

There is no such thing as partial anonymity....at best that s pladable deniablity.. and if you know the work on prvacy you know thats not good enough.

And it violates the secret ballot
..


And it does not solve the fraud proplem, just the bug problem..

Deliberate inteigent bad actors can not be detected in a mutable system.. see also can Neumann..

The cost to solve these issues currently exceeds it benefits.


For years the simple minded have been sold the farce of computer infailibity.. those work work with then no better..


Also keep in mind in many countries voting the wrong way gets you killed... I can think of no better wat to surpress or manipulate their vote than " partial anominity."

In truth the authucation and the ballot can never be linked..

I can think of ways to detect manipulation with out comprising secrecy... .but not ways to pevent it..


No paper ballot s do not prevent fraud either.... nor locks theft.

The goal is make it hard enough not to be worth it. And possible to detect. Electronic voting fails on both accounts

 

[Blacksmith101]

Paper ballots don't prevent fraud but they provide a way that can be double checked.

No I don't care if we can not get the results instantly after the polls close. Take the time necessary to count the votes I can wait.

 

[Jimbob2.0]

Alarming, when I early voted it recorded one of the "judge" categories as not voted when I selected a candidate.

Not a blatant switch but alarming error. I wholeartedly agree, electronic voting is fine but these machines don't generate a summary for the voter (and judge) which is essential if a paper countup ever comes to pass.

 

[Mdot]

Democrats are switching parties right before the election, then registering as a republican judge. Can't trust the watchers either. Many are not what they seem to be.

I believe the voting machines are rigged and I personally think it goes beyond just a quick switch before you press submit. I bet the machines are networked and tabulating the election results as the voting is being done. I don't believe the switching is random. I believe the machines are trying to satisfy a predicted result.

 

[bullett67]

When I vote I always check twice, and then two more times!

 

[new_shooter]

If that is the case why aren't we hearing about Ds flipping to Rs. Not a single case - if there was the media would be on it.

D's are flipping to R's in some locales. Here's a recent example:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/...hines-switching-their-votes-to-gop-candidate/

As I say, if you don't think this problem goes both ways, you aren't paying attention.

And if someone thinks action only needs to be taken if the final result doesn't go THEIR way, then they are part of the problem.

I think votes need to be correctly tallied, even if I don't like the results.

 

[Blacksmith101]

D's are flipping to R's in some locales. Here's a recent example:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/...hines-switching-their-votes-to-gop-candidate/

As I say, if you don't think this problem goes both ways, you aren't paying attention.

And if someone thinks action only needs to be taken if the final result doesn't go THEIR way, then they are part of the problem.

I think votes need to be correctly tallied, even if I don't like the results.

That story says "A voter..." in Maryland I believe the report was 20 voters complained while at the polls and 8 machines were removed from service for "Recalibration".

You would expect a true random error rate to be an equally distributed bell curve spread between all parties running.

 

[Boom Boom]

You would expect a true random error rate to be an equally distributed bell curve spread between all parties running.

If the touchscreens tend to drift in the same direction (very likely), the outcome will be consistent (as reported).

There are also wild cards:
- People ham fisting it and expecting the machine to read their mind.
- People pressing in the wrong places because they can't see well.
- People unaccustomed to (intimidated by) tech who get frustrated and start pressing anywhere.

 

[Don H]

Touch screen drift isn't the real problem. Faulty tallies by the voting machines due to tampering is how to fix an election.

Check out this video, Benedict Arnold beats George Washington after all votes are cast for GW on a Diebold machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4FPuLNjvAc

 

[Brooklyn]

They could use capacitive touch screens that would not drift due to temperature..

Huum?

I am not an engineer but I do Google...

 

[ShoreShooter]

Best election comment of the day:


"VOTE -- Just in case it's not rigged."

 

[Mr H]

LOL... Right up there with "Swing hard... You might hit something"

 

[hodgepodge]

Word today is that people are swiping the touchscreen, like a phone or this Kindle.

People tomorrow will be reminded to tap the screen.


Remember to be kind to the poll workers.

 

[Norton]

I want to bump this and caution everyone to be VERY careful in the voting process.

I experienced this first hand this morning. Tried to select the "R" candidate for office and it went straight to the "D" and wouldn't let me change it.

I kept pecking away at the screen for about a full minute until it finally changed it.

Election judge blew me off.

Please, please, please……tell people to be very cautious in their selections today.

 

[Norton]

Word today is that people are swiping the touchscreen, like a phone or this Kindle.

People tomorrow will be reminded to tap the screen.


Remember to be kind to the poll workers.

Not my case at all. I know what I experienced this morning and it wasn't user error.

There's something wrong with those machines.

 

[Brooklyn]

I want to bump this and caution everyone to be VERY careful in the voting process.

I experienced this first hand this morning. Tried to select the "R" candidate for office and it went straight to the "D" and wouldn't let me change it.

I kept pecking away at the screen for about a full minute until it finally changed it.

Election judge blew me off.

Please, please, please……tell people to be very cautious in their selections today.

Call the hogan hotline. Did you get the name of the election judge..?

I will be doing a paper ballot since I have an absentee ballot...turns out I am in town..