So much for 'Vote by Mail'
Dan Robinson
On 2000-11-30 hiaw...@efn.org said to dan...@efn.org
>Obviously so, if you want to *mail* it. If I don't get to *mail* it
>on election day, then I should be provided with a polling place in
>my district where I can cast my vote in person.
Well I "cast" my vote in person, right down the slot at the drop
box. What's wrong with that? Sure, someone might have misdirected
a whole bundle, but how do they know if that will help or hurt
their side?
>BTW, how do the homeless vote by mail?
How do they get a ballot, or even register, under any system?
Once you do that, it only takes $.33. And yes, I object to that
also. It should be a postage paid envelope, which would eliminate
one of your scenarios.
>}I doubt that. We sign the outer envelope, and my understanding is
>}it's opened and the anonymous inner envelope with the ballot is
>}passed on to be opened later.
>Is your understanding correct? I am not confident that someone
>removing a ballot from an envelope with my name on it can't connect
>that ballot with me if they want to.
I think it would take a significant conspiracy just to connect
you, and for what, to pressure you to vote different next time?
How is another system any more secure? I assume there are poll
watchers from both (all?) sides
>At public polling places, assistance was available for those who
>had trouble understanding the ballot -- there is no equivalent for
>those voting at home.
They should still be able to get it at the election office, or
elsewhere from authorized officials.
>}That might mean going back to all hand counting.
>}I doubt it's worth it.
>I think maintaining constitutional guarantees of a fair and secret
>ballot are worth it.
And how do you think hand-counting would do it? There are better
ways.
>}Instead, maybe we could have ballots that used a
>}standard paper punch, or a cheaper substitute, that wouldn't
>}leave chad.
>Might be a tiny improvement. Who supplies the paper punches?
They could be pretty cheap, more like a pair of tweezers,
hopefully supplied by the system. I have mine. You can use one at
the election office, or elsewhere, or "test" one at a store. :)
>Noting that some
>groups are *obviously* disenfranchized, makes me wonder how many
>people have been disenfranchized without realising it.
>One of the reasons I oppose universal vot-by-mail is that back when
>we only did this in off-November elections, I was three times
>effectively denied my right to vote: twice by the Post Office, and
>once by the County Board of Elections.
>One ballot was returned to me -- after election day -- for
>"insufficient postage", because the USPS apparently considered it
>an "oversize" letter, and was charging additional postage for such
>at the time. A year later I had a ballot returned -- also after
>election day -- for postage because the stamp had follen off in
>transit through the postal processing equipment. The square
>glue-mark where the stamp had been was clearly visible, and the
>envelope was clearly marked "ballot".
Understood. Did you report these? The first one must have been
common.
>In the third case, my ballot was returned by the Board of Elections
>-- this time a day before election day -- with a letter informing me
>that I sould need to re-register, and obtain a new ballot, because
>they didn't think my signature on the envelope matched the signature
>on my registration card. I happened to be out of town on the day
>the ballot was returned, and wasn't able to obtain a new one in
>time to vote in that election.
I'm surprised that hasn't happen to me. I think it's arbitrary
nonsense to expect it to match.
>}and of course we know you'll vote "correctly".
>What exactly do you mean by that?
I don't remember at this point. Nothing too serious.
>Geez, Dan, proportional ballots are nice to *think* about; how're
>you gonna get them to happen?
More elections like this one might help.
>}I hope we have the option of computer voting before that.
>Why not just turn the government over to the hackers directly?
That might not be a bad idea.
With my system, described in detail on my web site as
"eConsensus", people could vote days before "election day" (if
such was still necessary). Anyone (with access to a computer, and
maybe otherwise) could later look at how their votes were
recorded, and maybe change them. Assuming votes were private (a
personal option on my system), they would have a codename,
anonymous to others, that their vote would be recorded under.
They could see others' votes, but not know who they represented.
Software would of course be "open-source" so anyone knowing a
little about computer programs could examine and challenge it
(but not change it). But I'd leave the detail of such mainly up
to experts.
Since you brought it up, :) let me try out a few arguments for
eVoting in preparation for further discussion with a friend,
though he may be lurking here in the shadows.
Communications have advanced manyfold, from voice only to stone
tablets, to paper, to computers. Big money is taking full
advantage of, and abusing, modern forms. Voting is one form of
that communication. Private votes have been "cast" in the form of
everything from different colored stones to information bytes. We
can't stop eVoting from developing any more than we can stop the
Internet.
Those who get in on something at the beginning get to have more
power in deciding how it will look for all in the future. You may
choose not take part, but that's a choice you are able to make
when others can't. You can't abdicate the power.
Voting will always be harder, less secure and less accurate for
some people than for others. Some don't have computers, or computer
skills, or eyes, or hands, or minds to understand the issues.
There's no way we can change all of that, except maybe to make it
very difficult for everyone. Some say it should be difficult to
filter out those not very committed, but that goes against our
ideals of democracy. You can't talk about a truly private system
if some people need "assistance" to vote.
So we have to assume that those for whom voting is too difficult
are approximately proportionately represented by those who do
vote, a bad assumption, but that's the best we can do. I don't
feel that computer users are any less representative, or make any
worse choices, than any other group. But this factor could be
moderated by a system which allowed several means of voting to
interface together, and everyone should be able to choose which
is best for them.
My ideal is that my (or others') proposed system would allow
decisions to evolve, rather than be voted in all at once. Anyone
could cast a poll; "anyone" could vote (including on the
importance and quality of the poll presentation). It would be
basically an Internet discussion with the chance to cast a
computer-countable vote instead of writing or quoting paragraphs
just to agree. Social engineers would "see the writing on the
wall" as the vote developed.
See my web site, on eConsensus, for more.
Dan Robinson dan...@efn.org
Eugene OR 97401 www.efn.org/~danrob/
"We are awake so the cosmos can know itself."
Carl Sagan, (The Best of) Cosmos