| Author |
Message |
    
Saul Iversen
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Malachite
Post Number: 48
Registered: 07-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 2:16 pm: | 
|
Too often in legislative language and even in debates about voting I see efforts hinge on defining the specific system first and then subsequently debating how well that system satisfies various requirements. I understand why this occurs, but I firmly believe that such effort is tantamount to the tail wagging the dog. I would submit that we should endeavor to define the requirements for our election system, legislate those requirements, and then debate and ultimately choose a system as appropriate. If the requirements are inadequate to meet our cause, change them. But let's avoid the pitfall of arbitrarily legislating a particular voting technology in lieu of developing a basis for what we want to ultimately achieve.
I do think we all have an intuitive sense of what a good voting system would look like. And I don't think that we can ever get away from finally evaluating whatever system we choose in the end. But to launch a discussion in this way too often results in ineffectual debate and unnecessary controversy. So if we haven't already done so, let's commence a series of discussions and offers of ideas. It may seem so obvious and simple at first, but as we proceed, I bet it will become more interesting.
And I'll play devil's advocate to your ideas. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3448
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Actually those discussions have occurred here. I remember the Sept. 2005 workshop that took place here at BBV over about 10 days.
Some basic system requirements (my opinion):
--Nothing to connect a vote to a particular voter
--Official ballot is on a tangible physical form (e.g. paper) that was marked in person by the voter and is also used in any recount
--Any member of the general public is capable of observing the entire counting process
--Full accounting of every ballot printed, with complete chain of custody of all ballots
I'm not dealing here with the big issues of voter registration, voter eligibility and authentification, or specifics of what makes up a good chain of custody. All these topics have been discussed at length here already, however. If you try out the Advanced Search option you'll find some of these older threads. |
Saul Iversen
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Malachite
Post Number: 50
Registered: 07-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Ok thanks. I have some serious homework to do.  |
Pat Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 389
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 11:55 pm: |
|
Saul, just a couple of facts you might want to consider as you do your cost / benefit analysis for your system.
There are over 80,000 voting precincts in over 3000 counties in the United States.
The largest number of voters actually using any given precinct is around 3000. The average number of voters per precinct is between 500 and 600.
Can you meet all the security concerns associated with securing computerized voting and tabulation in 80,000 locations at a cost that justifies it's use?
Please keep in mind that the National Hand Count Registry has been quietly signing up thousands of citizens willing to volunteer their time to count the ballots across the nation. 
Have you signed up yet?
Pat A. Vesely ;-)
Paper ballots are the 'Currency of Democracy'. They've been helping to curb election fraud since 139 BCE!
|
Ami Silberman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jol
Post Number: 185
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 6:01 am: |
|
I would put as a requirement that the voter be able to physically verify his or her official ballot which is in a human readable, physical form which is used both for any recount and as input into any computerized scanning/tabulation system. This differs slightly from Catherine's requirement in that it allows for machine marking of the ballot. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3454
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
I'm less in favor of machine-marked ballots than I used to be, because
1) Too easy for people to not check that a marking device did what they wanted/thought; we already know this is a common problem. (Asking people to verify is an undesirable additional step.)
2) The above, combined with the possibility for "mistakes" in output compared to requested input. (E.g., a marking device could be set up to mark every 10th vote for XXX for a different candidate, on the assumption that some people won't notice or won't have the guts to say anything.) |
