A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22382
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by gnome » Fri Jul 30, 2004 5:37 pm

I am all for using new technology to make things better. But the fact is that touch-screen voting systems that are becoming popular have a record of errors, and no method of verifying the count manually.

When I read articles that tell me that even the Republicans in Florida distributed (to Governor Jeb Bush's annoyance) a message to its constituents reccomending they request absentee ballots, that shows me it is not a hysterical partisan concern.

I think this could be a good method, both of safeguarding your vote this year, and nudging election officials into using a voting machine that creates a verifiable record.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33788
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by Grammatron » Fri Jul 30, 2004 5:57 pm

gnome wrote:I am all for using new technology to make things better. But the fact is that touch-screen voting systems that are becoming popular have a record of errors, and no method of verifying the count manually.

When I read articles that tell me that even the Republicans in Florida distributed (to Governor Jeb Bush's annoyance) a message to its constituents reccomending they request absentee ballots, that shows me it is not a hysterical partisan concern.

I think this could be a good method, both of safeguarding your vote this year, and nudging election officials into using a voting machine that creates a verifiable record.
I think a paper print out in case of a manual recount is a good idea and the only problem I have with the system. The errors don't appear to be more than the current system.

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22382
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by gnome » Fri Jul 30, 2004 6:43 pm

Grammatron wrote: I think a paper print out in case of a manual recount is a good idea and the only problem I have with the system. The errors don't appear to be more than the current system.
My understanding is that optical-scan voting (like filling out an SAT) has the best record for accuracy, provides a verifiably physical receipt, and is relatively cheap. I'm not sure why we didn't go with this.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33788
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by Grammatron » Fri Jul 30, 2004 6:46 pm

gnome wrote:
Grammatron wrote: I think a paper print out in case of a manual recount is a good idea and the only problem I have with the system. The errors don't appear to be more than the current system.
My understanding is that optical-scan voting (like filling out an SAT) has the best record for accuracy, provides a verifiably physical receipt, and is relatively cheap. I'm not sure why we didn't go with this.
I hope I'm making a funny guess here, but it might have made people think they were taking a test and not voting thus making it a negative experience. I hope I'm wrong.

User avatar
Hexxenhammer
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by Hexxenhammer » Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:11 pm

gnome wrote:
Grammatron wrote: I think a paper print out in case of a manual recount is a good idea and the only problem I have with the system. The errors don't appear to be more than the current system.
My understanding is that optical-scan voting (like filling out an SAT) has the best record for accuracy, provides a verifiably physical receipt, and is relatively cheap. I'm not sure why we didn't go with this.
We use the optical scan here, and it's pretty hard to screw up. Unless you have trouble tying your shoes, you shouldn't have a problem.
"I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa."

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by shanek » Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:42 pm

gnome wrote:My understanding is that optical-scan voting (like filling out an SAT) has the best record for accuracy, provides a verifiably physical receipt, and is relatively cheap. I'm not sure why we didn't go with this.
That's the exact system we have here! They give you a special pen and you complete the arrow next to your choice. Works great! And the ballots can be read by machines or by people. Unless we go to something like IRV or Condorcet voting, I don't see the need for voting machines. And even then, we may not--just rate your choices one to (whatever), like, as you said, an SAT test.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22382
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by gnome » Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:14 am

shanek wrote:
gnome wrote:My understanding is that optical-scan voting (like filling out an SAT) has the best record for accuracy, provides a verifiably physical receipt, and is relatively cheap. I'm not sure why we didn't go with this.
That's the exact system we have here! They give you a special pen and you complete the arrow next to your choice. Works great! And the ballots can be read by machines or by people. Unless we go to something like IRV or Condorcet voting, I don't see the need for voting machines. And even then, we may not--just rate your choices one to (whatever), like, as you said, an SAT test.
To tell the truth, I think a touch-screen might be a good assist for IRV--filling names into slots 1, 2, 3, etc... just so voters can't pick the same name multiple times because they don't get it.

BTW... some people will refuse to drag the name of someone they don't want for ranking purposes... would it make the results fair if they only ranked people that interested them, and automatically considered the rest equally, or as 0, or whatever? What would be the most fair... we don't want people randomly dragging every name in when they have no idea who half the people are.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by shanek » Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:14 pm

gnome wrote:To tell the truth, I think a touch-screen might be a good assist for IRV--filling names into slots 1, 2, 3, etc... just so voters can't pick the same name multiple times because they don't get it.
Okay, with IRV, sure, but Condorcet actually allows that! One of the cool things about it--it allows ties.
BTW... some people will refuse to drag the name of someone they don't want for ranking purposes...
And that's fine under both IRV and Condorcet voting. With IRV, if they exhaust their cast votes, there's just nothing else that gets counted. With Condorcet, they lose all the contests with the cast-vote candidates, and tie with each other.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 14259
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by WildCat » Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:51 pm

shanek wrote:That's the exact system we have here! They give you a special pen and you complete the arrow next to your choice. Works great! And the ballots can be read by machines or by people. Unless we go to something like IRV or Condorcet voting, I don't see the need for voting machines. And even then, we may not--just rate your choices one to (whatever), like, as you said, an SAT test.
Because machines don't have an interest in who wins the election. Too much potential for hanky-panky if you had only people counting the ballots, IMHO.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Posts: 26180
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by Pyrrho » Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:53 pm

Grammatron wrote:
gnome wrote:
Grammatron wrote: I think a paper print out in case of a manual recount is a good idea and the only problem I have with the system. The errors don't appear to be more than the current system.
My understanding is that optical-scan voting (like filling out an SAT) has the best record for accuracy, provides a verifiably physical receipt, and is relatively cheap. I'm not sure why we didn't go with this.
I hope I'm making a funny guess here, but it might have made people think they were taking a test and not voting thus making it a negative experience. I hope I'm wrong.
Just make the voting card look like a lottery ticket.
The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Re: A way to act against unreliable touch-screen voting.

Post by shanek » Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:41 pm

WildCat wrote:Because machines don't have an interest in who wins the election. Too much potential for hanky-panky if you had only people counting the ballots, IMHO.
Note that the system I described is how votes are cast, not counted. They are still counted by machine while being able to have a hand-audit for verification if necessary.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?