Barbara Simons is a hero. I have huge respect for Verified Voting as well as the Election Verification Network. They played the long game, engaged all parties. Whereas me and mine flamed out early, treating this as a sprint instead of a marathon.
She relates how hard is to convey to policy makers that we computer people are the most skeptical of electronic voting. I've been there too. Testifying in opposition to vendors, administrators, disability advocates, veterans, etc. I was called a sweaty, paranoid kook (in the press) for trying to explain how our elections actually work (per the regulations). I was depicted as the bad guy trying to take away other people's right to vote.
Maybe now we've grown up a bit, shedding some of the rampant technophilia of the last few decades.
Knowing what I know now, the bigger threats to election integrity are change and profit motive.
The worst part of HAVA and its undoing has been the disruptive change. No one really let any thing settle long enough to know what's going on. Provisional ballots, new identification requirements, new gear, new voter intent standards, etc. Maybe some of it was progress. But all of it was rushed, causing disruption and confusion.
The big driver for all this change is profit motive. The vendors have outsized influence on our election administration. Now the big push is towards postal balloting, requiring a complete retooling, with even more services to be bought.
I have just one criticism of election integrity activists: We don't advocate for the stupid simple things which would actually improve matters. In order:
1 - Replace winner takes all elections, where 1 vote difference can change the outcome, with approval voting and proportional representation, which are far more robust in the face of errors.
2 - Universal voter registration. No more fighting over who's eligible to vote. Like every other mature democracy.
3 - Citizen owned software and processes. Demote vendors back to being just service companies, instead of being in charge.
2 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 11.3 ms ] threadShe relates how hard is to convey to policy makers that we computer people are the most skeptical of electronic voting. I've been there too. Testifying in opposition to vendors, administrators, disability advocates, veterans, etc. I was called a sweaty, paranoid kook (in the press) for trying to explain how our elections actually work (per the regulations). I was depicted as the bad guy trying to take away other people's right to vote.
Maybe now we've grown up a bit, shedding some of the rampant technophilia of the last few decades.
Knowing what I know now, the bigger threats to election integrity are change and profit motive.
The worst part of HAVA and its undoing has been the disruptive change. No one really let any thing settle long enough to know what's going on. Provisional ballots, new identification requirements, new gear, new voter intent standards, etc. Maybe some of it was progress. But all of it was rushed, causing disruption and confusion.
The big driver for all this change is profit motive. The vendors have outsized influence on our election administration. Now the big push is towards postal balloting, requiring a complete retooling, with even more services to be bought.
I have just one criticism of election integrity activists: We don't advocate for the stupid simple things which would actually improve matters. In order:
1 - Replace winner takes all elections, where 1 vote difference can change the outcome, with approval voting and proportional representation, which are far more robust in the face of errors.
2 - Universal voter registration. No more fighting over who's eligible to vote. Like every other mature democracy.
3 - Citizen owned software and processes. Demote vendors back to being just service companies, instead of being in charge.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15676452
Barbara Simons: The Computer Scientist Who Prefers Paper Voting (theatlantic.com)