
The Way America Votes Is Broken. One Rural County Showed a Way Forward - danso
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-way-america-votes-is-broken-in-one-rural-county-a-nonprofit-showed-a-way-forward
======
hirundo
I think that a secret ballot is fundamentally incompatible with an
incorruptible voting system. As long as an individual cannot check that their
vote has been properly recorded, which ballot secrecy renders impossible,
there will be room for shenanigans.

Such secrecy clearly has benefits, like preventing much in the way of paying,
or intimidating, for votes. But it also has a clear cost, namely in reducing
the trustworthiness of the results. I'd choose trustworthiness, but I
understand why many choose secrecy instead.

I'd sure like to be convinced that this isn't such a dilemma and that there's
a way to have both. But a marginally better voting machine isn't it.

~~~
ScottFree
I don't see how a secret ballet couldn't still be checked later by the voter.
If we're talking paper ballots, then each ballot could have a unique id
printed on it. The voter could either write the number down or the ballot
could have a "receipt" section you tear off and keep. The numbers could be
recorded as they're being counted and published later. The voter could then
check to make sure his or her vote was counted appropriately.

This would be even easier digitally.

~~~
hirundo
If you can't prove that the unique id is associated with a particular voter,
it isn't good enough because it can't prove that their vote was altered. If it
can be associated with a particular voter, it can be used as proof to satisfy
a vote buyer or intimidator.

However it does have the advantage of not being entirely public, making the
voter less open to influence or retribution by family, employers, etc.

~~~
ScottFree
> If you can't prove that the unique id is associated with a particular voter,
> it isn't good enough because it can't prove that their vote was altered.

It's up to the voter to confirm their vote was counted correctly.

~~~
pintxo
And then what? It will be your word of “I voted A” against the factual “B” on
the paper.

~~~
ScottFree
The whole point is to ensure your vote gets counted correctly, yes? If you
wanted to vote Democrat and discover your id in the Republican column, you let
somebody know. Then they re-check the ballot and can say "no, you marked
Republican. That was your mistake and we didn't count it wrong." Or they'll
say "gee golly, yes, we counted your vote wrong. Our mistake. We'll correct
the counts."

If your id isn't in either column, you also let somebody know so you can re-
vote. This makes sure your vote doesn't get "misplaced", either by malice or
incompetence.

------
sparrish
There's no information in this article to explain why these new uncertified
machines are better. Why should we trust a non-profit that didn't get any
federal certification with our voting accuracy?

~~~
danso
What information are you looking for? The article describes the performance
and results of these new machines for an admittedly small election:

\- _" The machines, VotingWorks said, were inexpensive to make, easy to fix
and no problem to set up and take down. The hope, the organization said, was
to produce shorter lines and more reliable results, a wish that seemed
realized on Nov. 5."_

\- _" After the initial trial and a second user test at a retirees potluck
lunch, the county election commissioners enthusiastically allowed the company
to test the machines countywide during the general election on Tuesday."_

\- " _The machines took poll workers less than two minutes to fully construct,
shortening lines and keeping voters calm. Poll workers uniformly said they
loved this feature, as it made the machines easier to maneuver and take down._
"

\- _" “Everything went just fine,” said Amy Burdine, Choctaw County circuit
clerk. “Just as expected.”"_

You realize that voting accuracy can be determined on the day of the election
with these machines? By the way the operation is described, voters use the
machine to mark choices digitally, and a paper printout is produced, allowing
each voter to look at and confirm the result. According to the article, there
were few, if any mistakes or complaints.

What other metric are you interested in?

------
MuffinFlavored
I believe I read the way America does "early candidate polling" (like what is
going on now for Democrats) is having an approved sanction randomly call
landlines.

That's very archaic and made me lose interest in the whole process.

~~~
danso
This is incorrect. Modern polling calls cell phones, and also uses online
surveys. However, the fact that people get so many robocalls from unknown
numbers is attributed to the decrease in overall polling response:

[https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/phone-polling-
cris...](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/phone-polling-
crisis-1191637)

