sevfiv Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Out of Rice University: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 the process has always assumed a high level of integrity by those who are working the actual election. if we can't do this, then we do have issues. whether the ballot is electronic or paper, ensuring the voting process is done accurately is fundamental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 the process has always assumed a high level of integrity by those who are working the actual election. if we can't do this, then we do have issues. whether the ballot is electronic or paper, ensuring the voting process is done accurately is fundamental.But paper is much easier to secure. It's physical. Moving it, destroying it and modifying it are visible actions. People can watch it. Electronic votes can only be monitored by electronic means, which are as susceptible to alteration as the votes themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 But paper is much easier to secure. It's physical. Moving it, destroying it and modifying it are visible actions. People can watch it. Electronic votes can only be monitored by electronic means, which are as susceptible to alteration as the votes themselves.assuming the people watching it do have integrity yes otherwise we are in the same boat. there is a defined process how everything should be done. from how the ballots should be handed out to how to report downtown to turn in your locked ballot box. i remember one election i worked in the late 90's where we were going up the elevator at the county admin building and the people (a precinct judge and coworker) had ballots coming out of an obviously unlocked ballot box they were turning in. protocol must be followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 assuming the people watching it do have integrity yes otherwise we are in the same boat.You don't have to assume that. You let representatives from each party observe the handling of ballots. This is a solved problem. Technology can only muck it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 You don't have to assume that. You let representatives from each party observe the handling of ballots. This is a solved problem.that's not how the process works currently. if this was the case then you could have a programmer representative from each party to observe the development of the software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 You don't have to assume that. You let representatives from each party observe the handling of ballots. This is a solved problem. Technology can only muck it up.In most of the nation there aren't enough representatives from each parties to bring parity. Of all the elections I've been involved in I don't think I've ever seen more than a few dozen precincts with representatives from both parties.Whether the method is paper or electronic, the problem remains the same -- people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 In most of the nation there aren't enough representatives from each parties to bring parity. Of all the elections I've been involved in I don't think I've ever seen more than a few dozen precincts with representatives from both parties.Whether the method is paper or electronic, the problem remains the same -- people.yep the precinct judges are usually the ones that find the workers. we always tried to find a wide variety of people however most people won't take a day off of work to do this so you're limited from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 that's not how the process works currently. if this was the case then you could have a programmer representative from each party to observe the development of the software.Observing the software development isn't any guarantee of what happens in the field. That software can be modified, and predicting the behavior can be nondeterministic polynomial-time hard.I thought all the polling places had at least one representative from each party on the ballot. I know the recounts do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Observing the software development isn't any guarantee of what happens in the field. That software can be modified, and predicting the behavior can be nondeterministic polynomial-time hard.of course it's not that's why i said if this is the case. it comes down to integrity of the people working the election. the precinct workers don't load the software, they just use the equipment provided by election officials that is certified.I thought all the polling places had at least one representative from each party on the ballot.that's not how the process works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.