voting "machines" eliminate voting
Posted Mar 18, 2008 16:28 UTC (Tue) by grouch
In reply to: voting "machines"
Parent article: Sequoia v. Ed Felten
It wouldn't matter if the voting machine used software, transistors or gears -- if the voters cannot watch and verify the process of voting, the voting is flawed. (At least in the case of geared voting machines, the gears could be made observable by the general public at all times during the process. This can't happen with electrons).
Typical, current process in the U.S.:
- A voter can swear to having pressed a button (physical or image).
- An "election official" can swear to having seen a machine's state change.
- Interested observers can swear to having seen someone enter a booth or interact with a machine.
- A number is produced by a machine.
Which of the above verifies any part of: One vote has been cast by one voter, is held safely for counting until voting is finished and then is properly counted?
Typical paper balloting:
- A voter can swear to having marked a ballot and to having placed that ballot in a storage container.
- An "election official" can swear to having seen a voter place a paper into the storage container.
- Interested observers can swear to having seen someone place a paper into a storage container and the storage container was unmolested.
- Interested observers can swear to a count of votes from ballots obtained from the storage container.
In the so-called voting involving an electronic device, the internal operations of the device are concealed from the electorate. A number comes from those internal operations of the device but no one can attest to that number being representative of the electorate.
Unless and until voters can observe the activity of electrons in wires, publicly verifiable voting by electronics is impossible.
to post comments)