Population density of Quebec: 14 people per square mile.
Population density of Florida: 111 people per square mile.
The conservatives won the election by 11% margin. In the USA 2004 elections the republicans won by 2.5% of the vote.
In the 2000 elections there was a 0.5% difference in the results. Democrates won the popular vote, the Republicans won the electoral votes. (Of course, the president was never really meant to be elected by popular vote anyways... only the electoral votes matter. The Congressional elections are the ones that people should be paying attention to, not the presidental elections)
So 10x difference in population density and 1/5 in the difference of the votes between the winner and the loser. This sort of thing really makes a huge difference.
If the Canadian elections came down to less then one percent difference then I can expect that you'll that people would be screaming bloody murder about every rumor of voter fraud. And people will be going to courts demanding recounts.. because 1%-.5% is a very very small difference.
The Canadians are dealing with elections on the same scale that the USA last seen since before the Civil War. Or on the same scale as Texas or Californian State elections.
While I like the idea of paper-only elections, in the USA elections are regulated on the county level. That is they each decide on their own what sort of election that is held. Some places do do paper-only. Some do a mixture.
For example, were I live it's mostly paper ballots. I fill out little ovals. However they will provide voting machines for disabled people.. since with electronic voting you can do things that you can't do, such as audio ballots.
Some counties in my area do hand counts. Others use central count scanners. It's all over the map, and will vary quite a bit from county to county.
------------------------------------
Remember that USA elections have strict privacy guidelines. It's required by law that no ballot can ever be traced back to it's voter.
This makes it exceptionally difficult to properly audit a election.
-----------------------------------
Oh, and the machines that caused the problems in Florida were paper punch-outs. You were given a stylus and a sheet of paper and you punched little holes in it to cast your vote.
Then you could read your votes back in through a machine that felt for the holes. Very old fashioned.
Even after several HAND recounts people were still flipping out over them and calling for more and more recounts.
---------------------------------------------
Nobody has used machines like that for ages.
Nowadays in the USA elections are generally done through paper ballots. Even with electronic machines.
You have one machine with a printer and a touch screen. You touch the votes in on the touch screen and print out the results as if you filled in the ovals.
Then you take that piece of paper, walk over to were the ballots are stored and put them into a slotted container for later counting by central count scanners, or you feed them into a machine that scans in the ballots right there. Which you use depends on the county.
Then your ballot falls into a locked box and is stored there until next election in case there is any recount called. If there is a recount then you will probably will have a hand recount.
(paper ballots, when left sitting, are prone to swelling and twisting in storage since paper absorbs moisture. This makes it very difficult to read paper ballots into a machine)
And like I said most places to a mixture. You fill it out by hand and read it into a electronic scanner or if your disabled or whatever then you use the electronic machine to print ballots.
This is the style of electronic voting machines that are now popular in the USA and most places are trying to migrate to.
--------------------
The other type, the DRE, is the touch screen only. The ballots results are stored in flash media and whatnot. Then you have a attached reel printer that keeps audit information on each vote cast. The results of each vote are electronically stored in no less then 3 different devices.
These are still reasonably common, but are falling out of favor, due to the average American's paranoia about the 2000 election fiasco. They are still the preferred machines in most other countries, however.
Posted Oct 15, 2008 8:39 UTC (Wed) by kragil (guest, #34373)
[Link]
Germany 82 million.
609 people per square mile. SO??
Our last national election was very very close too.
_NOBODY_ asked for recounts. Everybody knows the system works and has worked for over 50 years.
Hand-counting.
Posted Oct 15, 2008 15:51 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
[Link]
Well.. holy shit.
but.. You know what? *gasp* Germany has electronic voting machines in several areas. Imagine that. .
Oh. And one more thing... Elections are run by people. People are stupid and flawed and make mistakes. I can garrantee you that the vast majority of times anybody screams voter fraud it's because somebody goofed up in some way.
Do you think that the lack of questions is a problem in itself? That perhaps the fact nobody is questioning a election is a issue in all by itself?
Hand-counting.
Posted Oct 15, 2008 16:28 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
Oh. And one more thing... Elections are run by people. People are stupid and flawed and make mistakes.
Absolutely! In a paper-ballot, hand-counted system, there are many checks in place to detect mistakes or malice. The system has many people involved and most of them have an interest in assuring a fair outcome.
With electronic voting machines, fraud can be perpetrated on a massive scale, by a very few people, in an undetectable way.
People are stupid and flawed and make mistakes.. Including those people who write software. Maybe especially those people who write software.
If a system cannot be understood by the vast majority of voters, or relies on technology most people don't understand, or can theoretically be subject to massive fraud, it is anti-democratic even if there are no actual flaws in a particular instance.
Hand-counting.
Posted Oct 15, 2008 21:19 UTC (Wed) by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link]
> Oh. And one more thing... Elections are run by people. People are stupid and flawed and make mistakes.
It is _not_ about mistakes.
Mistakes in the manual counting don't matter for the outcome. One more or less vote for one party. Who cares. And well, even in case, you can recount.
What _does_ matter is the possibility to setup a _giant_ fraud based on a modified voting machine hardware/software. That fraud is _extremely_ difficult to detect, because in practice no voting machine operator does understand these machines. They blindly trust them. The CCC proved that several times here in Germany.
So the real difference between traditional voting and electronic voting is:
Traditional voting is extremely difficult to manipulate (so that it changes the outcome in practice).
But voting machines are (compared to traditional voting) extremely easy to manipulate. Even if you have checksums and seals. They often are simply not checked in practice by the operators.
And even a checksum can be manipulated.
So let's see, what does a checksum do? Basically nothing. It's printed on the screen or maybe on a sheet of paper. So well, if you have control over the whole machine (and you often do, as they are not stored securely. CCC showed that), you can print whatever you like on the screen or the printer.
The problem is not that you can make machines secure by doing cryptographic stuff and so on. The problem is that the human operators do not understand the system and do not operate it in a secure way.
And in my opinion you can _not_ change that. No way.
Or well, let's take another example. Here in DE you can request recounts. How does that look like traditionally? Well, the sheets of paper have to be recounted. You can _watch_ the people doing that. You can _check_ them for correctness.
How does it work with a voting machine? The operator presses the "recount" button and another sheet of paper is printed out. That is _not_ transparent and I have _no_ chance to check the result. I'm forced to _trust_ the machine. But I don't. I mean, I don't even trust my own code... :)
Hand-counting.
Posted Oct 16, 2008 12:24 UTC (Thu) by kragil (guest, #34373)
[Link]
You know what?? I already mentioned that Germany has had voting machines in a few _very_ limited insignificant (test) cases. And they are in steep decline.
Anyways more of the same from you .. go back to your imagination land where government issued voting machines solve all of your problems.
Hand-counting.
Posted Oct 16, 2008 15:48 UTC (Thu) by Hanno (guest, #41730)
[Link]
> You know what? *gasp* Germany has electronic voting machines
> in several areas. Imagine that. .
You know what? In Germany, there is major opposition against their use by *gasp* computer scientists and IT security experts.
The most vocal opponents of voting machines are people who design and use information technology for a living, not some backwardly haters of glorious progress.
Hand-counting.
Posted Oct 15, 2008 9:33 UTC (Wed) by Felix.Braun (subscriber, #3032)
[Link]
These are still reasonably common, but are falling out of favor, due to the average American's paranoia about the 2000 election fiasco. They are still the preferred machines in most other countries, however.
As far as I know, "most other countries" do proper hand counts. Could you please provide me with some data that you base your assertion on?
Hand-counting.
Posted Oct 15, 2008 15:53 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
[Link]
Hrm.
Did I say that 'Most countries use DREs to run elections' or could of I meant that 'Most countries that use e-voting use DREs'?
I know this because the sort of machines that foreign governments purchase are almost exclusively paperless machines. I did not say that DRE is more popular then pure paper.