Hacker News Reader

Comment by sidlls | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I'll ever accept the results of an election that doesn't have a full and public counting of all the ballots cast.

View on HN

Good thing every election in the USA has a full and public counting of all ballots cast.

The US excessive use of automated vote counting machines does not inspire confidence.

Australia has a total hand count with machine verification (if they disagree the hand count is redone) and party observers.

Combined with mandatory voting I have total confidence in our system as one of the best in the world.

Mandatory voting is common in many places outside of the US, but I feel like it's something that can lead down a dangerous path. You shouldn't be compelled to choose a leader if you disapprove of the choices, I think that's a freedom I think everyone deserves.

In mandatory voting systems do you have to actually vote? Or just turn up and submit a ballot paper, whether filled in, empty or spoiled?

A ballot paper that doesn't clearly indicate preference order or identifies the voter is counted as "informal" and removed from the pool [0].

I don't believe it is an offence to vote informally but even if it was the anonyminity of the ballot woult make it impossible to enforce.

In the last Federal Election the overall informal vote share was about 5.92%. In some electorates it was above 10% [1].

The AEC doesn't distinguish between votes that were intentionally invalid and votes that were unintentionally invalid. I used to work as an electoral officer and in my experience the latter usually far outweighed the former. I saw very few if any ballots that were totally blank, about 10-15 where the person tried to make a statement of some sort and the rest were people who did not understand the instructions and number every box.

As far as I can tell, elections in Australia are seen as something you don't really ignore despite your individual disdain for politics.

[0] http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/informal_voting/

[1] http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/informal_voting/division.htm

You're not compelled to choose. You're compelled to cast a ballot. Which can express disapproval for all choices.

Then what's the point? What value does that add besides wasting the voter and the vote counter's time?

That everyone's time get wasted. You don't have a disadvantage when you decide to actually vote.

I should also add you aren't liable to be punished by your government for not voting.

Every ballot for selecting representatives that I'm aware of has a write-in option, which renders the philosophical concern moot.

Not defending the USA's crazy elections, but our ballots are often a great deal more complicated. My jurisdiction regularly has 30 items (races, referendum, initiatives, etc) spanning federal, state, county, and local stuff.

TLDR: Greater direct democracy, we vote on everything.

You can volunteer to help if you're eligible to vote!

Sadly, not necessarily in any meaningful way. I am working my local precinct. We verify that the count on the machines matches the count in the book at the end of the day, but we have no way to know if the machine flipped votes at all. The machines have a paper receipt, but it is sealed without ever being looked at. Presumably in a contested election they would look at the paper, but there is absolutely no way for an interested party to audit the paper record after the fact to check the machine counts. The legislature declared the paper is to remain sealed and then incinerated after the election is certified.

Good thing every election in the USA has a full and public counting of all ballots cast.

Not any more.

Back when we all used actual real paper ballots, sure, but the new electronic voting machines don't allow for that.

The electronic voting machines we use in Cook County generate a paper ballot you can inspect under glass before you cast the ballot.

Cook County is wasting a lot of money on expensive pencils.

P. sure we don't want to cast ballots in pencil.

Polling stations in the UK always provide pencils, and this caused a panic during the EU referendum amongst some Leave supporters, who were worried about their votes being changed. Those people brought their own pens, but that kind of paranoia was widely mocked.

cf. Black Mirror writer Charlie Brooker: https://twitter.com/charltonbrooker/status/74592155647647334...

I can sort of see how one can rationally object to electronic voting machines, but not to pencil-marked ballots. But it's a bit of a stretch.

Cook County is spending a lot of money on accessible pencils.

The UX studies show must voters can't or don't actually verify their votes.

What guarantees the vote cast matches the vote printed?

I've attended my jurisdiction's VAT (verification and accuracy tests). When the card or paper strip was unreadable, they just swapped parts until it worked. So the only thing verified was the printer was still working.

Wouldn't some form of a blockchain be a great way to run an election? (I know, I can dream, right??)

How many years do you think it'll be before somewhere like Estonia does something like this to ensure transparency in an election? Put me down for $100 on "Fifteen Years".

So have you been rejecting the results of all American elections over the past couple decades, or is this a new development?

Trust has nothing to do with acceptance.

I accept the fact that someone has been elected, I don't trust that they were elected fairly.

Please answer the question.

You didn't ask me a question.

I don't see the relevance of your question. Any election that doesn't have a full, public counting of votes is at best suspect. That's my view of elections today, in the past and in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com