I don't trust humans - machine counts are more accurate than hand counts

So what! We are talking about elections, meaning: adversarial processes with high incentives for cheaters and a very long history of cheating.

If I reject the practice of having machines count the vote, it's because I don't trust humans.

Cheating on hand-counted paper ballots involves large and local conspiracies that always end up revealed, even when they get away with it (and in practice they usually do get away with it, so I'm not pretending there is no problem with it).

Cheating with programmable machines, however, can be done by remote operators -- the corporation that makes the machine, or a hacker -- undetectably.

Please don't pretend not to see the difference.

It is accomplished by weeding the rolls, selective registration, manipulating the supply of equipment to polling places, by campaigns aimed on the one hand at disgusting segments of the population with the entire process so they do not bother, and on the other hand by campaigns aimed at energizing narrowly defined demographic groups to come out in furious droves, and by other means of similar sort. Well before the first votes are cast professionals shape the field to yield a particular harvest.

The potential for manipulation of the counting machines is something of a distraction from the real business of cleaning up the election system.

are you OK with SECRET ELECTRONIC VOTE COUNTING?

It IS a password.

(Didn't you get one in your cereal box?)

...and badly programmed.

:hi:

there's absolutely no way to know what influence the electronic voting machine has had. The only way it's possible at present to know whether or not the machines have been maliciously programmed at the factory or tweaked by a technician during the election or by some insider from a distance or by some elections worker or fill in the blank -- is the exit polls and they indicate a general discrepancy without differentiating between methods of cheating.

But I don't think the manipulation of the counting machines is something of a distraction. It's a very real fact (the potential for fraud) and knowing what we do about human nature and how in every election if it's possible to cheat it is done, especially if it's possible to cheat without being detected, which at present is the case.

Can you imagine somebody saying that concern about the machines and computer programs that keep track of our bank accounts is a distraction? Nobody would even give it a second thought. Of course there should be regular bank statements that are justified to the penny. Of course there should be regular bank audits and inventories and everything else done to insure against embezzlement of all kinds. Our vote is more important in the long run than making my account square to the penny, far more important.

There is absolutely no way to know what influence the electronic voting machine has had. And that statement includes the statement that there is absolutely no way to know if the electronic voting machine has had any effect at all, because if you cannot know what effect has been had you cannot know if an effect has been had. You can surmise the machine has had an effect, and you can demonstrate it is possible for the machine to have an effect, but that is well short establishing that it has in fact had an effect.

The old fashioned means referenced above have effects that can be measured to some degree. Striking X number of persons off the voting rolls in a postal zone which typically delivers seventy percent of its votes to one party will reduce the vote that party receives in that area by seven tenths of X divided by the average turn out of registered voters there. If the voters in a precinct that tends to cast seventy percent of its votes for one party has machines provided at a rate that averages to one machine available to ten voters in an hour, and the voters in a precinct that casts seventy percent of its votes for the other party has machines provided at a rate that averages to one machine available to thirty voters in an hour, the number of people who will turn away from the latter can be calculated with reasonable exactness, though the method is beyond me.

Not only can these things be calculated, but they can be readily perceived, and in many instances are violations of the law, were the law properly enforced. They can be demonstrated, and remedies are available when they are demonstrated. This makes them things it is feasible, immediately, to attack, without being sidetracked into arguments over what can be known to have happened, and extravagant claims that can be made to seem ridiculous by any one able to keep a calm demeanor and level voice and give a mild shake of the head from time to time in front of an audience.

My personal inclination is to distrust electronic gadgetry, and allowing any part of public elections to come under control of any private company is wrong on more levels than even my dyed in the wool insomnia would allow me to properly pursue. It is simply not something that is a proper field for a private, profit seeking enterprise. That alone is sufficient, in my view, to rule the things out of bounds. But to base agitation against them on claims they have done things that it cannot be proved they have done, as you yourself acknowledged is the case, will always be dismissible as a species of crankery. To make that case, someone is going to actually have to be caught tampering one way or another with the internal workings.

It's possible in principle to statistically infer an impact from electronic voting machines much as one might statistically infer an impact of machine misallocation. Both these things have been done. We can estimate (somewhat crudely) the impact of touchscreen voting on Christine Jennings in FL-13, although we don't understand the causal mechanisms.

Unfortunately, some otherwise intelligent people are making utterly untenable arguments about statistical evidence for massive miscount in various elections. Many of these arguments indeed amount to crankery. (Never mind that the evidence doesn't rise to the level of 'proof' -- it's debatable whether it even rises to the level of 'evidence.') Because the advocates are otherwise intelligent, many regard them as credible, just as many find Michael Behe credible when he makes his pitch for Intelligent Design. However, knowledgeable experts generally do not. I've never been a big fan of Expert Opinion, but I do think a price is paid for pretending that it doesn't exist.

ETA: My observations here aren't in response to the OP. I already responded to the OP (in its previous form) in another thread.

"There is absolutely no way to know what influence the electronic voting machine has had." - Exactly. And so this door to full and undetectable and unprovable election fraud must be closed.

"The old fashioned means referenced above have effects that can be measured to some degree... Not only can these things be calculated, but they can be readily perceived, and in many instances are violations of the law, were the law properly enforced. They can be demonstrated..." Yes. Doing so, finally enforcing the law and ending the abuses is crucial.

But you prove that you see the difference! Excellent.

(Now add public campaign finance and free media time to candidates as part of FCC licensing and you might qualify as a democracy.)

K anD R. Thanks JackRiddler :toast:

Are machine and human counts mutually exclusive for some reason?

Also, why do you ignore the possibility of an adversarial machine count process, ie a standardized piece of paper counted by many vendors?

Have the paper ballots be counted by two different machines made by different manufacturers? Now that is an interesting proposal.

I don't say human count and machine count are mutually exclusive - only that machine can be fixed remotely and therefore needs to always be given an automatic, full audit by hand under secure conditions - in the same way a company does the full inventory. No partial audits, no random sampling can really confirm.

But here's your idea of a second machine. Interesting, as I said.

How long are we talking? If it's only the past 8 years...that's not a long time.

Jim Crow? The fights and charges raised in the presidentials of 1824, 1876, 1960? The Chicago machine?

Abroad: Kenya yesterday? Soviet elections? The Nazi referendum of 1934? Ancient Rome? Etc. etc.

And see #12 below for a great story...

Weren't we talking about secretly rigged elections?

Tammany Hall - As far as I can tell this isn't around anymore (officially)
Jim Crow - Yes, those were abolished.
1824 - They used the 12th amendment to settle the election as neither candidate met the criteria for victory. That doesn't seem strange to me considering there was a provision for just such an occasion already put in place.
1876 - Tilden had the popular vote. I don't see where the problem is as the electoral college is what is used to elect the president. The compromise may seem fishy, but it's what they decided. Rigged? I don't know.
1960 - Didn't have time to look up information on this one.
Chicago Machine - I just looked up some information on it. I couldn't find out whether the same tactics are still being employed today.

Abroad - I thought we were talking about America?

We're talking about the difference between

a) detectably rigged elections, of which there is a looooong and well-known history, here and everywhere else there ever were elections of any kind (and let's face it, it makes sense that rigging is always detectable, even if detecting it rarely overturns it)

as opposed to

b) secretly rigged elections, of which there is no history actually (since if it's happened in the past it was secret, see?) and which electronic programmable counting machines now allow for perhaps the first time.

Both of which are very bad. One of which definitely exists. The other of which may exist, but we couldn't know if we didn't have an automatic hand-count of a paper trail. See?

Humans make the deals with the vendors.

Humans are in the tabulation room.

There's no getting around humans, JackRiddler.

Humans can make laws and regulations that keep these procedures (more) honest.

Humans of the different adversarial groups ("parties") can be given representation in these procedures.

The way things stand, we might get to that point because of all the election fraud which has taken place since 2000...

Fraudulently elected humans are serving in the White House, in Congress and state and local levels.

Fraudulently elected humans are appointing humans to serve in the judiciary and the US Attorney's office.

I posted the same idea in another thread a week or so ago. Please note, the "nostalgia" is ironic!

Yes! Since the dawn of time elections have been fixed, ballot boxes have been stuffed, and usurpers have been installed. But a city or statewide election counted by hand cannot be fixed without hundreds of conspirators involved. What happened becomes common knowledge, even if the bad guys win anyway (which they usually did). The difference between the political machines of old and machine-counted voting in the electronic age is that results can be faked in secret, so that only a handful of conspirators need know what happened. Even the candidates who benefit can be kept in the dark.

Tammany to stay in power had to serve its constituency; it was a local oligarchy, as opposed to a roving skybound predator with no need of allegiances, like Diebold.