Difference between revisions of "Voting"

From Electowiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>TheTrucker
(How to load the databases)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Voting Mechanics''' is concerned with the polling system itself as opposed to the methodology used in selecting between various choices. There is a certain irrelvancy as to the method of selection (IRV, Ranked Choice, Condorset, or whatever) when one focuses instead on the integrity of the actual system employed to gather and count the ballots. And these "mechanisms" are the subject of this article. Stalin said "It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes." And that is the best introduction we can have concerning the subject of this article and, perhaps further articles concerned with specifying an incorruptible mechanism for ascertaining the will of the people.
 
'''Voting Mechanics''' is concerned with the polling system itself as opposed to the methodology used in selecting between various choices. There is a certain irrelvancy as to the method of selection (IRV, Ranked Choice, Condorset, or whatever) when one focuses instead on the integrity of the actual system employed to gather and count the ballots. And these "mechanisms" are the subject of this article. Stalin said "It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes." And that is the best introduction we can have concerning the subject of this article and, perhaps further articles concerned with specifying an incorruptible mechanism for ascertaining the will of the people.
   
  +
==Counting the votes==
iting time for now. Ah be tired. More tomorrow.
 
  +
  +
Computer "touch screen" voting has soured every rational and reasonable person to the idea od computerized voting. And that is a justifiable response to a system that registers the voter's choice and count all the choices in a single authoritative black box. That will not ever be acceptable. Such a mschanism is "Stalanist" because it is authoritarian and all authority can be and ofetn is corrupted. An incorrupible mechanism for polling is therefore as free from centralized authority as possible. The "votes" are housed in many "ballot" databases and all persons have internet access to these databases such that any person can "count the votes". There is no reason to lock the ballots away in a safe where only the "authorities" can see them. Assuming paper ballots, these are scanned and an electronic representation is entered into the ballot data base(s). Counting the ballots (votes) is a trivial matter and is done by anyone who cares to do so. A lot of people will "roll their own" software to do this and several versions from "trusted" sources will also be available. Perhaps you would trust the local Boy Scouts or the local church, or the Young Republicans or some other organization to provide you with vote counting software. Such software (even in the case of multiple selection balloting) is trivial. There is no reason to believe that browser "plugins" would not be prolific. Assuming for this one moment that it can be certified that the paper ballots and the database ballots are identical then when all persons are satisfied as to their counting (try several different plugins if you want) then the results of the poll are absoultely known by all persons who care to know.
  +
  +
==Certifying the ballot box==
  +
  +
For the nonce we will assume that there are paper ballots because that is what most people are comfortable with. So the immediate problems with the "everyone counts the votes" meachanism are: "How do we know that the ballot database is a true represntation of the paper ballots?" and "What is to prevent hackers and private interests from manipulating the data?". Sucinctly: There must be multiple scanners and multiple databases controlled by totally different administrators. And every official ballot (after it is cast and separated from the voter(anonimity)) must be serialized. That is correct. There must be (at this point) an authority that stamps each cast ballot with a unique identity. Each scanner also has a serial number unique to the particular scanner. Any given ballot must be read by no less than 3 different scanners administered by 3 different scanner administrators. If paper ballots are used then I see a big yellow bus that runs between no less than 3 precints where people who would have counted the votes will ride the bus delivering the ballots fom one polling place to another, around and around we go. If by mail the same scenario occurs: The receiving authority at each mail drop (just like the receiving authority in any precinct) assigns a serial number to any and all ballots that are to be placed in the ballot box/database. The serial number cannot be traced back to the individual voter just as the ballots cannot be traced back to an individual voter. The document is then embosed with a scanner serial number to identify the scanner which will be putting the data into the database(s). The ballots are then sacnned/sent and then pysically taken to the next mail drop or pricinct by a big yellow bus full of the people that would ordinarily count the votes (if you would have trusted them to count the votes you can surely trust them to gaurd the ballots). The people insure that the ballots do not get lost and that extra ballots are not put into this "official" batch of ballots as the batch is hand delivered to the next pricinct/scanner. A second scanner serial number is embossed and the document is scanned again and the data sent to the database(s). At least 3 scaners must be used and the database systems must insure that the document has been received at least 3 times from at least 3 different scanning authorities and then the ballot data is placed in the database(s).
  +
  +
There must be multiple types of scanners and multiple databases in any event such that no central authority/vendor can be courupted. As a matter of fact, when you look at the ballot box over the internet you will be looking at one of many different ballot databases all of which contain all the ballots and all of which are identical with regard to the ballots themselves. The voting "authorities" (who have no more authority than you or I) insure that the contents of all the databases is identical. Most likely the database you aree looking at will be the one nearest you. It doesn't matter becase thay all contain the same data. Each database system is administered by a completely different database administrator organization. The different organizations will use one of several different types of computer hardware (e.g.Apple, McKintosh, Amd, Intel, and others) these systems will run various operating systems (Linux, MS Dos, Windows Xp, Sun OS, Free BSD, etc.), and various types of database software (Oracle, Sybase, PostgresSQL, MySQL, mSQL, dbm, Informix, and of course ye ole "roll your own"). They will present the information using the various types of "web" servers (Apache, Sun Java Web Server, Abyss, Xserve, etc) with applications coded in python, php, perl, apt, or whatever. It is virtually impossible to "break in" to the database and "mess with" the ballots or the deleivery system bhecase there are many of them and they are all different. The attacking party would need to compromise many different databases all being administered by different organizations/people. The cost of a complete system to perform the database function is less than $500. It is not a major investment and anyone with a decent desktop computer system (and that is a lot of people) has sufficient computer hardware to do this task.
  +
  +
  +
I gotta go finish some yard work. More tomorrow.--[[User:24.113.104.199|24.113.104.199]] 11:19, 14 July 2007 (PDT)

Revision as of 18:19, 14 July 2007

Voting Mechanics is concerned with the polling system itself as opposed to the methodology used in selecting between various choices. There is a certain irrelvancy as to the method of selection (IRV, Ranked Choice, Condorset, or whatever) when one focuses instead on the integrity of the actual system employed to gather and count the ballots. And these "mechanisms" are the subject of this article. Stalin said "It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes." And that is the best introduction we can have concerning the subject of this article and, perhaps further articles concerned with specifying an incorruptible mechanism for ascertaining the will of the people.

Counting the votes

Computer "touch screen" voting has soured every rational and reasonable person to the idea od computerized voting. And that is a justifiable response to a system that registers the voter's choice and count all the choices in a single authoritative black box. That will not ever be acceptable. Such a mschanism is "Stalanist" because it is authoritarian and all authority can be and ofetn is corrupted. An incorrupible mechanism for polling is therefore as free from centralized authority as possible. The "votes" are housed in many "ballot" databases and all persons have internet access to these databases such that any person can "count the votes". There is no reason to lock the ballots away in a safe where only the "authorities" can see them. Assuming paper ballots, these are scanned and an electronic representation is entered into the ballot data base(s). Counting the ballots (votes) is a trivial matter and is done by anyone who cares to do so. A lot of people will "roll their own" software to do this and several versions from "trusted" sources will also be available. Perhaps you would trust the local Boy Scouts or the local church, or the Young Republicans or some other organization to provide you with vote counting software. Such software (even in the case of multiple selection balloting) is trivial. There is no reason to believe that browser "plugins" would not be prolific. Assuming for this one moment that it can be certified that the paper ballots and the database ballots are identical then when all persons are satisfied as to their counting (try several different plugins if you want) then the results of the poll are absoultely known by all persons who care to know.

Certifying the ballot box

For the nonce we will assume that there are paper ballots because that is what most people are comfortable with. So the immediate problems with the "everyone counts the votes" meachanism are: "How do we know that the ballot database is a true represntation of the paper ballots?" and "What is to prevent hackers and private interests from manipulating the data?". Sucinctly: There must be multiple scanners and multiple databases controlled by totally different administrators. And every official ballot (after it is cast and separated from the voter(anonimity)) must be serialized. That is correct. There must be (at this point) an authority that stamps each cast ballot with a unique identity. Each scanner also has a serial number unique to the particular scanner. Any given ballot must be read by no less than 3 different scanners administered by 3 different scanner administrators. If paper ballots are used then I see a big yellow bus that runs between no less than 3 precints where people who would have counted the votes will ride the bus delivering the ballots fom one polling place to another, around and around we go. If by mail the same scenario occurs: The receiving authority at each mail drop (just like the receiving authority in any precinct) assigns a serial number to any and all ballots that are to be placed in the ballot box/database. The serial number cannot be traced back to the individual voter just as the ballots cannot be traced back to an individual voter. The document is then embosed with a scanner serial number to identify the scanner which will be putting the data into the database(s). The ballots are then sacnned/sent and then pysically taken to the next mail drop or pricinct by a big yellow bus full of the people that would ordinarily count the votes (if you would have trusted them to count the votes you can surely trust them to gaurd the ballots). The people insure that the ballots do not get lost and that extra ballots are not put into this "official" batch of ballots as the batch is hand delivered to the next pricinct/scanner. A second scanner serial number is embossed and the document is scanned again and the data sent to the database(s). At least 3 scaners must be used and the database systems must insure that the document has been received at least 3 times from at least 3 different scanning authorities and then the ballot data is placed in the database(s).

There must be multiple types of scanners and multiple databases in any event such that no central authority/vendor can be courupted. As a matter of fact, when you look at the ballot box over the internet you will be looking at one of many different ballot databases all of which contain all the ballots and all of which are identical with regard to the ballots themselves. The voting "authorities" (who have no more authority than you or I) insure that the contents of all the databases is identical. Most likely the database you aree looking at will be the one nearest you. It doesn't matter becase thay all contain the same data. Each database system is administered by a completely different database administrator organization. The different organizations will use one of several different types of computer hardware (e.g.Apple, McKintosh, Amd, Intel, and others) these systems will run various operating systems (Linux, MS Dos, Windows Xp, Sun OS, Free BSD, etc.), and various types of database software (Oracle, Sybase, PostgresSQL, MySQL, mSQL, dbm, Informix, and of course ye ole "roll your own"). They will present the information using the various types of "web" servers (Apache, Sun Java Web Server, Abyss, Xserve, etc) with applications coded in python, php, perl, apt, or whatever. It is virtually impossible to "break in" to the database and "mess with" the ballots or the deleivery system bhecase there are many of them and they are all different. The attacking party would need to compromise many different databases all being administered by different organizations/people. The cost of a complete system to perform the database function is less than $500. It is not a major investment and anyone with a decent desktop computer system (and that is a lot of people) has sufficient computer hardware to do this task.


I gotta go finish some yard work. More tomorrow.--24.113.104.199 11:19, 14 July 2007 (PDT)