[EM] Handcounts

[Juho Laatu]

Here's my one cent on how votes should be recorded and counted. Two simple procedures that try to outline the basic needs.

Manual approach:
- representatives of multiple interest groups monitor the voting process
- they check that the ballot box is empty and then seal it
- voter fills the paper ballot alone in a booth
- the ballot will be stamped and the voter drops the ballot in the ballot box
- at the end of the day representatives of multiple interest groups open the ballot box and count the votes together on one large table right away
- the summary of the local results will be agreed and published right away
- all the ballots will be packed and sealed and stored for possible later additional verification right away
- the content of the individual votes will not be published if their content is detailed enough to allow identification of some voters
- the summary results will be sent to the central counting authority
- the central counting authority sums up the results and publishes them, including the summaries of all voting locations

Electronic approach:
- voting machines contain a simple open source program
- voting machines are stored by some central authorities
- representatives of multiple interest groups open and test some of the mahines to see that they work as intended
- representatives of multiple interest groups deliver the sealed machines to the voting locations
- representatives of multiple interest groups monitor the voting process
- they reset the voting machine
- voter uses the voting machine alone in a booth
- the voting machine / voting process will allow one voter to cast only one vote
- at the end of the day representatives of the multiple interest groups get the summary of the votes from the voting machine
- the summary of the local results will be published right away
- the content of the individual votes will be erased right away, or alternatively the individual votes are strored within the sealed voting machine or printed and sealed and stored right away for possible later additional verification
- the content of the individual votes will not be published if their content is detailed enough to allow identification of some voters
- the summary results will be sent to the central counting authority
- the central counting authority sums up the results and publishes them, including the summaries of all voting locations
- if the voting machines still contain the secret individual votes they are stored locally for possible recounts for a while, or alternatively they will be delivered back to the central authorities (maybe by representatives of multiple interest groups)

Hybrid approaches are possible too. Voting in the net would require some more additional security measures.


On 1.5.2012, at 4.52, Paul Kislanko wrote:

> As I wrote earlier, the solution to "rigged" vote-counting computers is to
> make the input available to independent vote-counters like you and me, so we
> can run our independently-developed implementations of the same algorithm.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Ketchum [mailto:davek at clarityconnect.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 5:55 PM
> To: Paul Kislanko
> Cc: 'Kristofer Munsterhjelm'; election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Dave Ketchum: Handcounts
> 
> On Apr 30, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
>> On 04/29/2012 04:48 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>> Computers do well at performing the tasks they are properly told to 
>>> perform - better than humans given the same directions. Thus it would 
>>> make sense to direct the computers and expect them to do what is 
>>> needed accurately.
>>> 
>>> Still, we sometimes wonder exactly what the computers have been told 
>>> to
>> do.
>> 
>> In my original suggestion THAT aspect of "verifiability" is covered by 
>> the notion that if all ballots are made a public record, independent 
>> programmers could perform whatever algorithm is the counting-method 
>> against the input.
>> If 1000 members of EM (or one media outlet like CNN) got a different 
>> result than the vote-counting authority published, we'd know there was 
>> a counting error in the "official" computer code. And that would 
>> happen within minutes, not weeks.
>> 
> Automatically trusting CNN, or any other single source, with automatic
> credit for being more dependable than an official authority program is
> stretching it.
> 
> As I wrote earlier, a program can be rigged to give either a correct or a
> biased result, as cued, with existence of the cue being hidden from
> observers.
> 
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info