"Fair Elections" are Ancient History in the USA; standard elsewhere
Posted Aug 20, 2004 9:41 UTC (Fri) by
xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
In reply to:
With the e-Vote "Fair Elections" are History by huffd
Parent article:
Will 'controlled open source' software take over election work? (NewsForge)
Without a mechanical voting procedure the vote cannot be
trusted.
This is a very peculiar claim.
I've voted dozens of times on paper with a pencil, and always the
paper ballots have been counted by hand. (I have voted in New South
Wales, Australia and in Scotland and England, UK). I have always trusted
that the count will be fair.
I do not expect the count to be completely accurate on the first
attempt, as people counting sheets of paper can make mistakes, but I
trust that if the result is very close the counters *will* take the time
to recount the papers more carefully, several times if necessary. This
is *standard procedure*. The idea of a court case being necessary to
invoke a recount of miscounted ballot papers is rather strange to someone
who grew up in this environment.
The reason I trust the counters to count fairly and responsibly is
that they are observed by representatives of the political parties, who
would not hesitate to shout if there were any irregularities.
The potential advantages which might be claimed for 'mechanical' or
electronic vote counting over paper ballots are speed, accuracy and
cost.
(a) speed.
Since the early 80's we've watched exciting election-night TV specials
with lots of computerised statistics, and live TV crosses to the counting
rooms where we can see crucial recounts happening. We usually get a
conclusive result by about 10pm local time (ie. it's midnight in the
eastern states by the time we know how WA voted), though official results
aren't released until all "absentee and postal votes" are added to the
election-day ballots.
(b) accuracy
In a country with reasonably high literacy (and a reasonably sensible
ballot design), the kinds of problems with
paper ballot errors are much less relevant today than in 1910.
Indeed the proportion of spoiled or blank ballots ('informal' votes) in
Australian elections is rarely
above 5%, and many of those are deliberate protest votes by people
writing such things as "none of the bastards". This is fair enough, as
turning up at the polling place is compulsory, but submitting a formal
vote is not -- the base rate seems to be about 2% in close elections
where it looks like government might actually change hands, with
deliberate lazy or informal votes increasing the total to around 5% when
the outcome seems foregone.
I can't find stats on the number of votes lost due to 'confused
voters' vs. deliberate spoiled or blank informal ballots. It does seem
that recent immigrants and other non-English-speakers in an electorate
tend to increase
its informal vote count, but this may be because the candidates
aren't reaching out to these voters.
The potential for error by *voters* in card-punching and lever-pulling
is much greater than that for writing on a piece of paper, and likewise
much greater than for trusted, monitored counters of paper ballots, and
much less susceptible of correction by recounting. A recount of a paper
ballot means extra hours put in by officials and scrutineers who are
already present and practised at the task.
(c) cost.
I very much doubt that the long-term costs to the electoral authority
of voting machines developed by private capital have ever been less than
the cost of counting paper ballots by hand. The possible exception is
perhaps India where a single, very simple, electronic vote-counting
system is used throughout a very large country. It was not developed by
entrepreneurs but by the Electoral Commission itself. It is not
networked, does not supply voter-verified ballots, nor does it report
votes remotely -- indeed it functions purely as a (permanently locked)
self-counting ballot box.
The only thing which can guarantee a fair election is that all parties
concerned with the election are trusted parties.
The fact that America has such things as "private vote-counting firms"
convinces me that the USA sold its democracy down the river a long time
ago.
(
Log in to post comments)