Re:[OT] Vote!
Re:[OT] Vote!
- Subject: Re:[OT] Vote!
- From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:55:52 -0400
On Aug 18, 2005, at 4:24, Simon Forster wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005, at 00:57, deivy petrescu wrote:
The big difference between the penciled vote and the electronic
vote is that the second gives one the uneasy feeling that there
might have some "monkey business" going on, as opposed to the
first method which makes you feel secure.
The big difference is that the first mechanism is based on open
standards and can be observed by anyone while electronic voting is
based on a closed, proprietary system. And while you maintain
"People can not count!", I think you'll find more people profess to
be able to count than can review complex computer systems - both
software and hardware.
Sorry. Wasn't going to get sucked into this.
Damn.
Simon Forster
On Aug 18, 2005, at 7:00, Martin Orpen wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005, at 00:57, deivy petrescu wrote:
There is one very worrying bit about what you wrote above and
others have shared the same feeling.
The fact that it is counted by hand and written in pencil does
*not*, I repeat, does *not* mean that there is no cheating going
on. I know for the fact that there might be.
The big difference between the penciled vote and the electronic
vote is that the second gives one the uneasy feeling that there
might have some "monkey business" going on, as opposed to the
first method which makes you feel secure.
You have probably seen magic, either live or on tv. Do you believe
that if one of those magicians ( known also as prestidigitator or
fast fingers) were counting votes in front of your nose, he/she
could not cheat to his/hers hart content and you would attest his/
hers honesty in the process? You would probably think you lost
your wallet on your way home too! :)
This is one example. Two people counting 35 votes can be fairly
honest, not foolproof. But counting 3500 votes is a different
thing altogether.
There is no implicit or explicit more accuracy when using pencil.
There is the very very dangerous sentiment that the process is
honest a priori.
That is a ridiculous argument! I'd much rather trust people than a
corporation any day. People are accountable - corporations aren't.
In a UK General Election, the real humans who count the ballot
papers only need to be able to count to 25. Ballots are counted
into batches of 25. The counting and batching is strictly
controlled so that all papers are stored face-up to avoid anybody
being able to associate the number on the reverse of the ballot
paper with the vote on the other side.
The candidates, their spouses, their election agents and other pre-
appointed adjudicators are present during the counting process.
Journalists are also allowed to be present, but they are not
allowed to make close-up photographs or video/film of the ballot
papers just in case the number of a ballot paper should be recorded.
This system isn't broken. It doesn't need fixing (not with
technology anyhow).
For some reason, the US* is driven to commercialise at *every*
opportunity.
The simple process of casting and counting a vote must be turned
into some
kind of profit angle for some corporation. Nobody is happy with
it until
some kind of technology is incorporated.
I don't understand this need to use machines to achieve something
that you
are better off using ordinary people to do.
I beg to disagree, if you are elderly person, the possibility of
voting via internet makes your life simpler doesn't it?
Also, if you can come up with a better way to vote electronically
what do you think is going to happen with the penciled vote?
That is such a bogus argument. Old people are much more likely to
want to go to their local polling station than want to exercise
their vote via the internet. Old people, the unemployed, prisoners
and manual labourers are easy to get votes from - they are very
likely to be where you expect them to be come polling day. Trouble
is, they tend to vote for the wrong people. Technical solutions are
needed to get the votes of the movers and shakers who are busy
jetting around the country or the world and unable or unwilling to
get back home to cast their vote.
Increasing the technology means concentrating the power away from
ordinary people counting bits of paper to whomever owns the
technology - it's a really bad idea.
In the UK we have a problem - every year fewer and fewer people
vote. The primary reason is that voting doesn't actually bring the
kind of changes that they'd like - so why bother? The State wants
to make it look like we're all fully involved and is therefore
looking for ways to increase the number of voters. They're toying
with the idea of letting us vote by phone, digital TV, National
Lottery terminals whatever. They are also considering making voting
compulsory - like they do in Australia.
Technology is being sought to solve an *apparent* problem and also
provides an opportunity for businesses to take more money from our
pockets - a "win win" situation for our betters. But there is *no*
benefit whatsoever for ordinary voters because the risks are simply
too great.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/news.shtml?radio4/fileon4>
Giving them the power to bugger about with postal voting has
already proved to be disastrous. E-voting will give us a system
that is as transparent and democratic as the one used in the
Eurovision Song Contest...
[I'm definitely going back to scripting now as this thread has used
up my OT allowance for this month]
--
Martin Orpen
I have to agree with you guys, an honest penciled vote is much better
than a rigged electronic one!
There, we all agree!
Why is this list in existence in first place? It is not because
computers are sexier, but because as someone posted couple of days
ago "I can do a week's worth of work in few hours". This is a
compelling reason to use computers.
If we are talking about a Scandinavian country with 6 million people,
may be computers are not so important. But the US has about
300.000.000 people, India has around 600.000.000 voters and in the
last election in Brazil there were about 100.000.000 voters. This is
more than the whole population of GB (more than 1.6 times).
Computers are necessary.
Ok now lets talk about the counting process. So, the manual count is
clean because there are witnesses and journalists. The computer vote
is not clean because there are no witnesses and no journalists. Why
don't we bring them in? Why is the electronic ballot box a blackbox
machine? It does not have to be. You could have open source code put
into the machine. You could have machines being certified by all
parties involved. You can do random sample with the machines.
Parties, journalists, etc , etc.
If there are no checks in this process in the US, in the Eurovision
Song Contest or wherever, just use another process. I honestly
believe that computers can be made much much harder to cheat. It is a
matter of will.
If election ballots in Britain were counted by the prime-minister and
his/hers friends, you would not call it honest, would you? It does
not mean that all penciled ballots are rigged does it?
The *real* problem lies elsewhere - but some people would lose both
power, position and cash if the public were given some *real*
democratic choices. Never trust those who seek power - they'll lie
and cheat to maintain their positions as this BBC Radio 4 show
demonstrates:
I agree, so what? Given the above you just don't vote ? You encourage
people not to vote? No you have to encourage participation with the
hopes of changing that.
There is a lot of wrongs in any system, but you have to keep making
it so that at the end the people have its say.
Any candidate can call for a recount - and in most closely fought
elections it is not uncommon for the ballots to be counted three or
four times. If a candidate is still dissatisfied they can challenge
the decision of the returning officer via an election petition. In
1997 this happened in the UK when the Lib Dems beat the Tories in
Winchester by 2 votes. The Tory candidate insisted that 55 spoiled
ballot papers be counted in his favour and was declared the winner.
The result was challenged and the court ruled in favour of the Tory
but called a by-election so that the voters could reconsider the
issue. They did - the Lib Dem candidate won by 21,556 votes second
time around...
This is a good illustration on the reason computers could be better.
I do not believe an election could be won by 2 votes, or 53 votes for
that matter. There should be some statistical significance taken into
account. And when you put computers and statistics together, cheating
becomes harder and harder.
Again, provided the statistics is not done by a "blackbox".
Deivy
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
| References: | |
| | >Re: Vote! (From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Vote! (From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Vote! (From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>) |