Defining the perfect voting machine

[Beowulf]

Because Voter fraud doesn't exist - even when the NYC Department of investigation is able to vote fraudulently with near-trivial effort. I'd also like to point out that the fraudulent test voting was not caught by any of the systems that exist to catch such. If the system can't catch cases where we know fraud is happening, we can't trust it to catch cases where we don't know if there is fraud. This is why I think the systems need to be addressed. Sticking one's head in the sand and saying "The problem doesn't exist" is a good way to frustrate and get ignored by those who can point to such things as the above linked report and say "Here is a problem."

It's almost like you didn't actually read what I said.

This looks alot like "LALALA I can't hear you."

[Purple]

May I ask why is this not so in the U.S.? I have no less than three valid IDs in my person at all times, and one more at home. (Those being the National ID, Driver's Liscence, my Lawyer ID and a Passport).

That is a riddle I my self have asked many times over. And have newer gotten a satisfactory reply.

The biggest problem with social security numbers is that right now there's millions of numbers being used by more than one person.

So just ignore them and make a list of all the citizens and issue each one a new ID and be done.

There's also the question of how competently a government would actually manage such a database, and whether or not it could easily be used toward malicious ends.

Other nations with a fraction of the budget manage just fine.

(Or at least really fuck over a lot of people without malicious intent.)

No offense or anything. But god dam is this paranoid thinking.

[Simon_Jester]

May I ask why is this not so in the U.S.? I have no less than three valid IDs in my person at all times, and one more at home. (Those being the National ID, Driver's Liscence, my Lawyer ID and a Passport).

For voting I have my Voter's ID that I need to carry alongside one of the aforementioned IDs above.

By tradition the ID requirements are mostly handled at the state level, and as a result we have fifty different 'legacy' systems with different requirements for how hard it is to get ID.

However, it is not legally required that you own ID in the United States, and people who don't own any ID should, in theory, still get to vote. If you do change the rules so that ID is required to vote, then you should make that ID freely available to all, so as to avoid violating the 24th Amendment. The 24th Amendment prohibits 'poll taxes' that make it cost money to exercise the right to vote.

Also, couldn't you tie this to your social security number somehow?

The social security number is not universal. Not everyone has one; there are religious minorities that don't. Since, for example, Amish people are still American citizens and still get to vote if they want to, we can't tie the voter rolls directly to social security numbers.

We could issue an entirely new national ID system that includes the people not currently covered by social security, but we haven't done so yet.

The biggest problem with social security numbers is that right now there's millions of numbers being used by more than one person. There's also the question of how competently a government would actually manage such a database, and whether or not it could easily be used toward malicious ends. (Or at least really fuck over a lot of people without malicious intent.)

I think the biggest theoretical problem is that there are people who have no number- it's worse to disenfranchise people for 'failing' to get a thing they're not required to have. But that's a personal opinion.

The biggest practical problem is exactly what you describe, SSNs assigned to multiple persons, followed closely by the risk of the database being abused, since it would have to be accessible to local poll workers.

Anyway, yeah, I mostly agree except for having a bug in my ear about one hypothetical case.

That is a riddle I my self have asked many times over. And have newer gotten a satisfactory reply.

To expand on what I said to Spekio, for historical reasons the push to provide near-universal ID in America came from two sources: driver's licenses and Social Security.

Social Security was not established in its current form until the mid-20th century. Quite a few American citizens never got a social security number, mostly older ones, people working in specific industries, and members of certain religious minorities. However, the vast majority of Americans got one, and as a result many groups (state, local, federal governments, and even private companies nowadays) have taken to using the social security number for identification.

But because the SSN is not strictly universal, it is not proper to make it a requirement for voting. There are people with a right to vote who do not have, and are not required to have, a social security number.

Driver's licenses are the other form of de facto primary identification used in the US, because it's a convenient form of photo ID, one all citizens who drive must have, and would be reasonably expected to carry on their persons at all times because you can be pulled over and asked to show your license. Since the vast majority of Americans drive, it's a fair bet that the typical American owns and carries a driver's license.

This means that the US has fifty separate forms of de facto valid photo ID (not counting passports and so on), with different standards for how hard they are to get. Which is a problem.

Plus, obviously, being licensed to drive is not a legal requirement in America. It cannot be required in order to vote. Some (as far as I know all) states also issue ID cards that can be used to replace the driver's license for identification purposes, but again, the states cannot legally require you to get ID, and the federal government doesn't even issue universal ID. You can, in theory, be entitled to vote and registered to vote, but not own any ID.

The real problem with the current order is that there are states which want to impose an ID requirement on voters (which I don't actually have a problem with per se)... but who are not willing to spend the time and effort to ensure that all citizens are properly identified. Instead, they expect the citizens themselves to spend time and money getting the ID. Which brings us back to the 24th Amendment's prohibition on poll taxes.
_________________________

[By the way, like Spekio, I own multiple forms of identification, driver's license, social security card, birth certificate, and a passport if I ever manage to find the damn thing again. It's not that Americans don't own ID. It's that there is no specific legal requirement for them to own it. It's not against the law to have no means of identifying yourself. And the government does not, at present, go out of its way to supply ID to people who don't have it]

The biggest problem with social security numbers is that right now there's millions of numbers being used by more than one person.

So just ignore them and make a list of all the citizens and issue each one a new ID and be done.

This will become an appealing solution as soon as the federal government is willing to plunk down the... I don't know, roughly ten billion dollars (probably more, I'm not sure) that it would cost to produce the IDs in the first place.

Remember, we're talking photo ID for each citizen in a nation of three hundred million. It's not cheap, and I think the cost is a big factor in why it hasn't already happened.

(Or at least really fuck over a lot of people without malicious intent.)

No offense or anything. But god dam is this paranoid thinking.

We've had countless examples of people's private information being accidentally lost by both private agencies and governments, resulting in security breaches where thousands or millions of people become vulnerable to identity theft.

How is it paranoid to consider this an issue?

[General Zod]

Because Voter fraud doesn't exist - even when the NYC Department of investigation is able to vote fraudulently with near-trivial effort. I'd also like to point out that the fraudulent test voting was not caught by any of the systems that exist to catch such. If the system can't catch cases where we know fraud is happening, we can't trust it to catch cases where we don't know if there is fraud. This is why I think the systems need to be addressed. Sticking one's head in the sand and saying "The problem doesn't exist" is a good way to frustrate and get ignored by those who can point to such things as the above linked report and say "Here is a problem."

It's almost like you didn't actually read what I said.

This looks alot like "LALALA I can't hear you."

I explicitly said "Voting Twice is practically non existent". How the fuck does someone read that and interpret it to mean "Voter Fraud is Non Existent?" Voting Twice is not the only form or even the most prevalent form of voting fraud out there and I think it's a red herring.

[General Zod]

No offense or anything. But god dam is this paranoid thinking.

It's not paranoid when it occurs right now without a universal database at all. You've got illegal immigrants by the bucketloads all sharing the same social security number.

Better yet, you've got people getting denied employment just because their name happens to coincide with the name of a felon from another states when they run their initial background check. Just imagine what's going to happen when you try to create a centralized database (especially when people go by more than one name sometimes), and clerical errors attach the number to multiple people? Three or four people getting denied employment because their social security number is attached to a pedophile with the same name is a pretty shitty situation, don't you think?

[Gandalf]

I was summoned?

I want to stop people from voting twice, people from "losing" huge numbers of ballots from districts they don't like, ballot stuffing, elections decided by hanging chads, election machines designed by people who have a clear and publicly stated interest in a specific outcome...

Two Man Rule, combined with the fact that if you can't provide a two-man chain of custody for the ballots they are considered invalid.

Doesn't that make it really easy for less scrupulous poll workers to get rid of votes?

[Purple]

It's not paranoid when it occurs right now without a universal database at all. You've got illegal immigrants by the bucketloads all sharing the same social security number.

It occurs BECAUSE you do not have a central database.

Better yet, you've got people getting denied employment just because their name happens to coincide with the name of a felon from another states when they run their initial background check.

Which is what a central database with a unique ID number for every citizen would avoid. Don't search by name but by ID.

Just imagine what's going to happen when you try to create a centralized database

A lot of money spent. A lot of very unhappy SQL technicians doing overtime. A lot less headache for the average citizen.

(especially when people go by more than one name sometimes)

They can go by how many names they want as long as they use their ID number.

and clerical errors attach the number to multiple people?

With modern database software this is physically impossible. Literally physically impossible.

Three or four people getting denied employment because their social security number is attached to a pedophile with the same name is a pretty shitty situation, don't you think?

Which is why you forget about the stupid social security number and issue each citizen with a new number for the new database. Start with 1 and work your way up.

[General Zod]

It occurs BECAUSE you do not have a central database.

How would a central database prevent fraudulent use?

Which is what a central database with a unique ID number for every citizen would avoid. Don't search by name but by ID.

Until a clerk makes a typo somewhere. Good luck getting it fixed.

They can go by how many names they want as long as they use their ID number.

How is that supposed to help prevent fraud? If I know someone's number I can put down as many names as I want anywhere?

With modern database software this is physically impossible. Literally physically impossible.

Unless somebody else tries using your number.

Which is why you forget about the stupid social security number and issue each citizen with a new number for the new database. Start with 1 and work your way up.

In some of the cases I've mentioned they were singled out because of their names being similar. The social didn't really even enter into it. Even assuming you've managed to get a competent group to take care of the issue and somehow you get the general populace to go along, there's security vulnerabilities to worry about, valid concerns about who can access the database and how easy it is to correct any mistakes that might exist in your record. And somehow they've got to reconcile this new number with your old number and history so you can't just go about erasing your past, which means that it might not even solve any of the issues you've mentioned.

[xerex]

^So you're going to need thousands of observers per election, even for a middle-sized city. They have a hard enough time getting basic poll workers.

The observers are provided by the parties. its how its done in my country. Every party sends an observer to every polling station. The two major parties even have enough observers for shift changes.

I was summoned?

I want to stop people from voting twice, people from "losing" huge numbers of ballots from districts they don't like, ballot stuffing, elections decided by hanging chads, election machines designed by people who have a clear and publicly stated interest in a specific outcome...

Two Man Rule, combined with the fact that if you can't provide a two-man chain of custody for the ballots they are considered invalid.

Doesn't that make it really easy for less scrupulous poll workers to get rid of votes?

you'd need all the poll workers and all the party observers to be in on it.

[xerex]

I dont know how it works in the USa but here how it works in my country.


1. People have ID cards. ID cards are the only form of identification that can be used. Not drivers licences not passports. Each Party has one observer present.

2. There are two lines green line for people with id cards. red line for people without. Each line has one poll clerk

3. Red line poll clerk checks name against big binder that has copies of all id cards to see if this person was issued one.

4. Both poll clerks check to see if persons name in on voting list. Name is called out for the Party observers and Presiding Officer to hear. Name is crossed off voting list. The Party observers have their own voting lists as well.

5. Once verified person goes to Deputy Presiding Officer to get ballot paper which is signed by either the DPO or the PO

6. Person votes by using an X stamp on the ballot and folds ballot

7. Person goes to Ballot Clerk who verfies that PO or DPO signature is on the folded ballot. Person then places ballot in the box and leaves.

8 The whole operation is overseen by Presding Officer.

[xerex]

Edit time closed on me.


1b. There are five Poll Clerks. Presiding Officer, Deputy Presiding Officer, ballot Clerk and Green line and Red line clerks.

1c Each Party has one observer present.

1d each Polling Station handles 500 voters

[Grumman]

The observers are provided by the parties. its how its done in my country. Every party sends an observer to every polling station. The two major parties even have enough observers for shift changes.

Given how the debates are handled, I would expect "every party" to mean "the Democrats and the Republicans".

[xerex]

The observers are provided by the parties. its how its done in my country. Every party sends an observer to every polling station. The two major parties even have enough observers for shift changes.

Given how the debates are handled, I would expect "every party" to mean "the Democrats and the Republicans".

In my country every party with a candidate on the ballot has legal right to an observer. They dont always have the manpower but its not something decided by a private organization like the US debates.

[Purple]

How would a central database prevent fraudulent use?

Because of the way database software works. Basically, there are only a very small amount of people with actual editing power. The only thing most users can do is input data. So it's much easier to detect and screen the few people for misuse.

Until a clerk makes a typo somewhere. Good luck getting it fixed.

The only place where a typo could happen is in the actual voting place during the act of checking if you can vote. And any issues coming from that can be remedied by simply checking again to make sure.

How is that supposed to help prevent fraud? If I know someone's number I can put down as many names as I want anywhere?

I wonder if you have even a passing knowledge of IT at all? Because the questions you keep asking scream NO.
One vote per number. How you chose to call your self whilst using that number is irrelevant.

Unless somebody else tries using your number.

That's why you issue an ID as well. In order to vote, the potential voter presents his ID to the clerk who runs the number through the system. If the database returns you have not yet voted you can vote.

Hell, you can even automate it by making it like a credit card and link it to a ballot dispenser. Swipe your ID through the machine and get a ballot. No clerks, human error or even having the number visible to the end user required.

In some of the cases I've mentioned they were singled out because of their names being similar. The social didn't really even enter into it. Even assuming you've managed to get a competent group to take care of the issue and somehow you get the general populace to go along, there's security vulnerabilities to worry about, valid concerns about who can access the database and how easy it is to correct any mistakes that might exist in your record.

All of which can be solved relatively easily within a competent system. Seriously the entire problem is no more complex than what they did when they made Gmail.

And somehow they've got to reconcile this new number with your old number and history so you can't just go about erasing your past, which means that it might not even solve any of the issues you've mentioned.

Why do they have to do any of this? It's not like this ID system would somehow replace your other numbers for any use other than voting. And you can afford to lose records about if a person voted or not from 50 years ago.

[General Zod]

Why do they have to do any of this? It's not like this ID system would somehow replace your other numbers for any use other than voting. And you can afford to lose records about if a person voted or not from 50 years ago.

Wait, so are you talking about creating separate ID just for voting in a centralized system, or replacing our existing IDs altogether? Because I'm not sure which one you're talking about now. Usually when people talk about national IDs they intend to replace everything, not just create something to vote with.

[Purple]

Why do they have to do any of this? It's not like this ID system would somehow replace your other numbers for any use other than voting. And you can afford to lose records about if a person voted or not from 50 years ago.

Wait, so are you talking about creating separate ID just for voting in a centralized system, or replacing our existing IDs altogether? Because I'm not sure which one you're talking about now. Usually when people talk about national IDs they intend to replace everything, not just create something to vote with.

Just a voting system for now. I do not think your public would find it politically acceptable to go further. What with states rights and all that.