San Francisco prepares to open source its voting system software

Re: This...

Yes indeed, with tens of billions or more at stake, the value of a rigged election cannot be underestimated. The incentive is absolutely there.

Open source code, excellent, so then what do you compile it with? Ok GCC. A signed version of GCC, even better. Who signed it? Etc Cetera, the problem just gets kicked and kicked but never truly perfectly guaranteed. And that's just the software.

Off-the-shelf hardware is great - which vendor? One that is based solely in (home country) with all parts sourced from (home country)? Can you find one? And those that are still 100% within (home country) are just as succeptible to national agency interference. There's a chance of a teensy bit of extra code in the touchscreen driver to prefer one point on the screen, so that, too, has to be open sourced and verified and so does every other controller chip...

So, as lovely as the vision is, the prize is too great to discount the risks. The prize, colouring this trajectory, is the lives, taxes and liberties of 300M people, and a huge nuclear fleet, and frankly the most attractive job for a greedy bully, should one want the gig (and see the GOP candidature and you won't have to hunt hard for a rich greedy bully crazed for power with absolutely no political or governance skills and a completely void of diplomatic ones).

The more I think about the realities, the more I favour the pencils and paper model.

Re: This...

Indeed.

Seen to be Done Properly

One of the most important things about a public vote is that every single member of the public can reassure themselves that it is being run properly.

That's easy with voting booths, marking an X on a voting slip, placing it in a ballot box, seeing how it's carried seals intact to the counting centre, seeing how it's counted. There's nothing about such a system that is opaque, complex, or disputable. It's very easy for people to be very sure it's been done properly. It's also very easy for people to know when it has been cheated.

But with any kind of e-voting system, 99.99% of the population simply cannot know for sure that it's been done properly, open source or not. That's a very unhealthy situation, and will lead to problems if there are contentious results. If the hanging chad scandal wasn't a warning I don't know what is.

Worse, imagine if a flaw (exploited or not, it doesn't matter) is found in an e-voting system after a contentious result. What is supposed to happen then? Void the result? Let the result stand? Make it up if and when it happens?! There's no good outcome in that scenario.

Impossible Voting

In America in particular the complex system of votes put in place by some counties and states are barmy. Any group of politicians who introduce a series of interrelated votes for this, that and the next thing all at once have done their populations a massive disservice.

Who was it said (of the finance industry), "Complexity is fraud."?

Voting and the link between leaders and people

There's plenty of upsetting articles about how the US 'establishment' is becoming increasingly disliked by the population.

Speaking from a political science point of view, the establishment better get real, quickly. If a dissatisfied population starts thinking (knowing doesn't come into it) that the national voting system is twisted then, alas, you're only a short time away from outright pandemonium.

This is something that politicians as a herd are very poor at spotting in advance. They tend to think "Surely we can't have got it wrong?". Hence the trouble in the EU, etc.

Persuading a dissatisfied population that an e-vote system is clean will be very difficult. In contrast, it's far easier to be convincing when say "you got what you voted for" with a purely paper based system.

The difference is immense. Ultimately it is up to the population to choose a governmental system. A paper vote is a way for the politicians to say "Your responsibility. You want changes, you elect different politicians". With an e-vote system such a statement can never be irrefutable, but for continued good order it kind of has to be irrefutable.

Is it any better in the UK?

There is some worry about the integrity of the voting system in the UK, specifically surrounding postal votes. And that's still a paper based system. There's significant pressure to do away with postal votes; there's a general deep distrust of things that cannot be seen in the voting system.

E-votes would get nowhere.

Moribund Political Systems

I don't know what it is with politicians; they generally seem to think that a system for running a country that has been in place for decades or centuries cannot (and should not) be changed. It's a crazy point of view.

For instance, what politician in the US would dare stand up and say "Ditch the constitution, lets have a Westminster style democracy" (at least that would break political deadlock)? None I'd guess, probably because it is not achievable. The US constitution practically guarantees executive and legislative inaction when difficult decisions are necessary.

Speaking generally, if politicians find that they as a group are powerless to change their constitutional system, then they and the country have the wrong constitutional system. If they can't even make changes to how they run their own business (which is partly what a constitution is about, ultimately) then how can they make decisions on behalf of the people who elected them? What's the use of a political system that prevents decisions being taken?

In contrast if they do have the theoretical power to make constitutional changes then they also have the power to run the country, and might then actually be able to deliver the results they promised to their electorate. It's amazing they don't recognise that more clearly...

Re: This...

FYI, the system being proposed is a paper ballot system -- not electronic voting.

In other words, things like the paper ballot scanners and accessible voting devices would be commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware running open source software.

if( rand() <= 1.0) {

print "The people lose";

} else {

print "The people win";

}

FTFY