Voting is one thing I don't think should ever be fully electronic. Hard to commit actions at scale with smaller paper ballots, in most places at least.
Plus, even if such a "good" e-voting system existed, it would probably be almost impossible to explain to people how it works. With paper ballots, you can have people observe the process and verify that it was fair. With all the wild accusations of fraud that we have already, I don't want to know what the world would look like if people had to do operations on the blockchain or something to verify that votes were counted correctly.
Have we? Do you have a particular state in mind? As far as I know, all states have a post-election canvassing period of at least a week or two (if not longer) before official results are certified. Some states like California and New York are notoriously slow to certify. Election night results are always preliminary and subject to shifts, especially as mail and provisional ballots get processed.
There's no sensible reason to wait weeks for voting results, just put more people to the task, for the sake of transparency and promptness.
I don't know what this means. "Certification" is when a state finalizes the official legally-binding results for elections. Votes aren't certified, election results are. It's when a state says "Coca-Cola got 832,992 votes and Pepsi got 902,311 votes" and enters it into its legal and historical record.
All US states take time to certify results precisely to make sure the process is carried out correctly. They do things like archiving paper ballots, electronic records, and signed affidavits in case of legal challenges, processing provisional ballots and same-day registrations, and cross-checking the number of registered voters who showed up with the number of ballots cast at each precinct.
The INE gives preliminary results when they're statistically certain, usually the same night around 10-11pm. Even if the last percent of urns is delayed, they aren't enough numbers to affect the results, but anyway, the records get certified as they arrive, and the next day 100% of votes are accounted and the election is closed.
The system is pretty amazing, mainly becaue the INE is an independent civil institution. Unfortunately, our current president is making every effort to subvert it and return to the times where the government ran the elections in opacity.
For your consideration, a high-profile paper ballot counting case you may have missed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
A brief summary of the timeline is that the vote counts took weeks (much longer than "1 day"), ultimately resulting in state and national Supreme Courts to get involved.
The initial vote count was reported November 8th (the day after voting, which was November 7th).
Since the margin of victory was less than 0.5%, an automatic recount was triggered, which resulted in an even smaller margin.
That, in turn, resulted in a month-long lawsuit, while both major parties challenged individual ballots during a manual recount. Challenging individual ballots and the legal process are what drew out final certification of the election.
It's not really fair to cite that case an example where either the votes were not counted in 1 day, not counted with little corruption, or not counted fairly accurately (the disputes were over fractions of fractions of a percent of all ballots cast in Florida).
This is immaterial. The State did not consider that number as official, even though it had been widely reported. The official numbers are the only thing that matters.
> It's not really fair to cite that case an example where either the votes were not counted in 1 day, not counted with little corruption, or not counted fairly accurately
When talking about a legal process, it's pointless to ignore the statutes that govern the certification process (including automatic recounts and challenge windows), or the inevitable legal process around voting. These things happen. That's why election certification is not the day after voting in any state. Certified results are the only results that matter.
If it was reasonable to get final results in a day, then certainly there is a state that statutorily requires certification by (say) Thursday or Friday after the Tuesday vote? So which state is it?
Keep in mind that the country was much less polarized in 2000 than it is now, so it's entirely likely that paper ballots used in 2024 would see multiple state outcomes that looked like Florida in 2000.
In particular, close races like FL in 2000 may depend on ballots from e.g. overseas service members. Those are not required to be received by states until days after Election Day. Without changing the dates service members have to mail their ballots, there's no way to count all the votes until days after the election.
> That summary is a bit revisionist, so the snark is a bit misplaced.
The "snark" is warranted because the fiasco with paper ballots highlighted in Bush v Gore is a key reason we abandoned paper ballots.
EDIT: Also Bush v Gore would not have been "current events" for anybody younger than 35-40, so the reminder is important. (YMMV but I definitely was not following politics when I was in elementary school.)
The vast majority of states still use HMPB and the vast majority of states use hand marked paper ballots with optical scan and the vast majority have no problem counting ballots [0].
A lot of people opted to mail in ballots in 2020 when they could because of covid concern. Mail-in and drop off ballots shouldn't take much longer to count, but they do because of dumbassery in some states requiring counting on or after election dat. And also vilifying postmark-by causing a delay of approximately 3 days while absentee/mailin ballots are delivered. Postmarking works for official court documents but for some reason "they're stealing our votes!" when you're a losing and shrinking minority. Everyone should be aware that mail-in ballots are going to have a delay and none of the states vote counts are official the day of. That's how we always did it and it worked fine until some asshat decided to attack our elections before they even started.
Florida was a hole-punch system that was absolutely terrible. They fixed that.
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_stat...
> Then we switched away from paper ballots to e-voting
You are objecting to claims neither I nor the OP made:
> punch ballots are not what people generally mean by hand marked paper ballots
In particular, nobody said anything about how the paper ballots were marked.
Absolutely agree with your points that there is a concerted effort to make our elections look illegitimate by e.g. not allowing early/absentee ballots to be counted before Election Day, underfunding elections processes, designing elections so that some areas have incredibly long lines on Election Day, etc.
Most importantly:
2) There is no problem with hand marked paper ballots optically scanned. And those aren't considered e-voting machines where votes are recorded electronically.
The whole point of whether hand marked paper is a problem depends on how they are marked (eg NOT punched) and to not acknowledge that is disingenuous.
I'm glad we are on the same page with improving efficiencies. Lack of polling places => long lines on election day is particularly egregious.
Also a big reason why Florida is now allowed to count votes (ex. absentee ballots) prior to election day so that on election day they can be much further along on the count.
Second, the US has not switched away from paper ballots. Only a minority of states use DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting today, and a minority of those use DRE without paper trail (the number of these systems is decreasing with time as well). The most common voting system in the US is precinct tabulation, in which paper ballots are cast and counted on site, then retained for audit.
DRE voting was only really introduced to the US as a result of the short-timeline requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which required disability-accessible voting be available in all precincts. At the time, DRE machines without paper trail were the most affordable option that met accessibility requirements, and most states have very little money to spend on their voting equipment. In large part because of controversy around DRE machines, DRE machines with voter verifiable paper audit trail (DRE/VVPAT) and paper ballots with accessible ballot marking devices (BMDs) are now the norm for new systems. States still using DRE without VVPAT are generally only using it because they have not been able to afford to replace equipment.
This is a non sequitur, if we use it for banking (which is much more critical than voting), why is it a problem if we use electronic technology for voting?
Estonia has it and it's working well so far. Brazil has a complete different system and it's much more auditable and less prone to manipulation and vote output alteration from human error.
Edit: conclusion of the article is "lets switch back to paper because this system uses the internet". well, do you know that you can still have a 100% electronic voting system that - brace yourselves - don't use the internet? Take a look at Brazil's electronic ballots for example.
They aren't connected to the internet at all, everything is stored locally on a memory card that is collected by the authorities at the end of the voting period, then sent to Brasilia for counting at a special room where the machines that read the cards don't have access to the internet.
Canada.
If a bank makes a significant mistake, the average person WILL notice and the bank can resolve it through extensive audit logs and other records. This isn't the case with voting where any audit logs are purposefully anonymized.
The average person can't identify electronic voting fraud or even honest mistakes/bugs while anyone can be present during ballot counts, re-counts and add up the numbers as long as they have a calculator. A process as fundamental as voting should be completely transparent, simple to understand for the average person and shouldn't require blind trust in "experts" and institutions.
Banking as a use-case is far more fault-tolerant than elections. Bad transactions can be reversed and redone. You can insure transactions, and all parties involved have visibility into the amounts, senders, and recipients.
Elections are one-off events involving secret ballots. You can't have a do-over without throwing the whole system into question. You can't take out insurance for elections.
But if you stand next to the machine you do not know if it does the job properly. This lack of easy transparency means that people will never trust it. Not matter how much cryptography and security you put in it, people will never ever trust this output because of the endless ways it can go wrong without anyone ever knowing.
You can't commit large scale fraud this way. And the results are available within 12 hours of the closing thanks to massive parallelism.
There is no point in using machines other than enriching their manufacturer and enabling fraud.
This is a shortsighted take. To be clear, "machines" can fall anywhere from direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines where people vote on touchscreens with no paper record, to optical-scan machines that process Scantron-style bubble-in paper ballots. The latter is a really good option because you get all the security and usability benefits of paper with the speed of machine counts. That's especially important in jurisdictions that do ranked-choice voting (like Alaska) or places with very long and complicated ballots (like California). If you don't trust the scanner, then a risk-limiting audit [1] will detect discrepancies between what the machine says and what the paper ballots say.
I'm biased because this is what the company I work for does, but I think it's hard to argue that not counting all ballots is as good as counting all ballots.
I was considering it for a while, calling them Expensive-Pencil machines or something, alluding to the paper they'd print out following your vote.
Voter comes along, name ticked off list of registered voters -- "this person has voted"
Voter given stamped piece of paper with candidates on in front of multiple witnesses.
Voter marks an X next to a name on a paper, folds paper, showing stamp, puts in a box in front of multiple witnesses
Box fills and is then sealed in front of witnesses. Number of votes inside (from the ticking the list) written on.
Box is then transferred to counting place.
Box is unsealed at counting location in front of multiple witnesses
Papers counted to confirm they have a stamp and the number of papers matches the number of votes on the box and accompanying paperwork
Papers transferred to counting table in front of multiple witnesses
Papers counted in front of multiple witnesses
Any confusing ballots set aside to discuss between candidates and the adjudicator
If the vote is close papers are recounted
Winner announced.
This works fine with elections with a turnout measured >30 million people in the UK, which means it works fine for the largest election in the US (California presidential election).
So it's secure, scalable, and cheap
At what point can you commit fraud to a scale where the effort to do it returns more than the effort to campaign for a few more votes?
To avoid this, no markers, but all possible votes are pieces of paper with printed text, grab N>2, go in the booth, put in one in an envelope.
This way your vote and any other vote look identical, and vote is voided in case of any identifying mark (even weirdly bent paper etc). No stamp needed, just number of votes/envelopes.
I've been to several counts in the UK, spotting a specific ballot, even if you know which box it's in, is impossible.
You've then got to be able to enforce that enough to make a difference. You'd have to have a unique mark for every person (at least at every station) you're trying to enforce, one that can be quickly spotted by one of about 5 people you can get at the verification stage.
Even then there's no guarantee you didn't just miss it.
Sure, you can write "WANK" next to everyone you don't like, and that's great, but again the number of votes you could affect in this way would be a tiny number.
Not necessarily. California will literally have dozens of contests on the same ballot. Here's last year's non-presidential ballot in San Francisco. There are about 24 contests on this, and this doesn't appear to list ballot measures, a California favorite. It's impractical to hand-count California ballots under the procedure you describe given how very long they are.
https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/november-8-2022-electi...