[EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines

[Juho]

On Aug 17, 2008, at 3:49 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:

> On Aug 16, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:27:10 -0700 Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>>>>>    I am for a record on disk of each ballot, but done in a  
>>>>> maner  to not destroy secrecy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have to be very careful when doing so, because there are  
>>>> many  channels to secure. A vote-buyer might tell you to vote  
>>>> exactly at  noon so that the disk record timestamp identifies  
>>>> you, or he might,  in the case of Approval and ranked ballots,  
>>>> tell you to vote for not  just his preferred candidate, but both  
>>>> the low-support communist and  the low-support right extremist  
>>>> as well, so that he can tell which  ballot was yours and that  
>>>> you voted correctly.
>>> In the US, at least, voting by mail has become so prevalent that  
>>> I  wonder whether it's worthwhile making voting machinery  
>>> absolutely  impregnable to vote-buying. All else being equal,  
>>> sure, why not, but  if we trade off other desirable properties to  
>>> preserve secrecy, and  leave the vote-by-mail door unlocked....
>> There are two topics here:
>>     I LIKE the secret ballot, have had it most of my life, and  
>> know many others have similar desires for good reason.  That  
>> thought inspired my words at the top.
>>     Vote buying needs discouraging, but I concede perfection is  
>> less essential here.
>>
>> Voting by mail requires humans obeying rules.  I believe the rules  
>> in NY still require placing the ballots in an anonymous stack  
>> without humans reading their content while having the voter's  
>> identity associated.
>
> California, too, or a method to that effect. It's vote-buying (or  
> coercion) that vote-by-mail enables.

I wonder what kind of a vote-by-mail system is in use there. If it is  
just based on ordinary mail that one can send from one's home or  
anywhere (and doesn't offer any way to cancel and replace the vote)  
then that seems to offer opportunities for coercion and vote buying.

The early voting system that I'm used to (and that is very popular)  
is however one where you vote under the observation of an election  
official (that can be e.g. a post office worker that takes care of  
early voting) that then puts your secret vote that you have put in  
one envelope into another envelope (under your eyes) that he will  
send to your local election authorities.

This method offers the election officials some more chances to  
violate your privacy if they so wish (since your name will appear in  
the papers inside the outer envelope) (not probable though) but  
coercion and vote buying (without the involvement of the election  
officials) is about as difficult as with traditional voting at the  
official voting site on the election day.

Juho


>
> The Civitas system has something to say about that, but it requires  
> quite a few other conditions to make it work.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html