Comments on: You know it’s election season when… http://benlog.com/articles/2008/01/05/you-know-its-election-season-when/ security, privacy, transparency. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:03:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Crypto Voter http://benlog.com/articles/2008/01/05/you-know-its-election-season-when/comment-page-1/#comment-191004 Crypto Voter Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:57:16 +0000 http://benlog.com/articles/2008/01/05/you-know-its-election-season-when/#comment-191004 I agree with everything you said except for the last statement. While I think it doesn't really matter whether or not previous elections were rigged (or at least, not as an argument against unauditable voting machines), I think the fact that they <i>could have been rigged</i> (and we'd never know) is extremely relevant. It's a much more convincing argument, to me, than the fact that small mistakes can have large effects. Small mistakes can have large effects even with paper-based, properly audited voting. When the difference between two candidates comes down to 400 votes, the election is basically a coin toss. In this case, I don't think it really matters who "really" got those votes <i>as long as the errors are unbiased</i> The difference between this case and malicious manipulation is that in a close election, instead of the result being decided by a fair coin, it's weighted in the direction of the more corrupt party (or the one with the better hackers). I doubt this makes a good foundation for a democracy... The real problem with unauditable voting machines is that you don't need a "conspiracy" to change the outcome. A single programmer could conceivably do it. A small, well-funded group could do it easily. Considering the stakes, this isn't in "tin foil hat" territory. I agree with everything you said except for the last statement. While I think it doesn’t really matter whether or not previous elections were rigged (or at least, not as an argument against unauditable voting machines), I think the fact that they could have been rigged (and we’d never know) is extremely relevant. It’s a much more convincing argument, to me, than the fact that small mistakes can have large effects.

Small mistakes can have large effects even with paper-based, properly audited voting. When the difference between two candidates comes down to 400 votes, the election is basically a coin toss. In this case, I don’t think it really matters who “really” got those votes as long as the errors are unbiased

The difference between this case and malicious manipulation is that in a close election, instead of the result being decided by a fair coin, it’s weighted in the direction of the more corrupt party (or the one with the better hackers). I doubt this makes a good foundation for a democracy…

The real problem with unauditable voting machines is that you don’t need a “conspiracy” to change the outcome. A single programmer could conceivably do it. A small, well-funded group could do it easily. Considering the stakes, this isn’t in “tin foil hat” territory.

]]>