I see what you mean. In both situations fraud can occur, and does. If we assume that fraud is going to occur on a massive scale in the future, then it doesn't matter if it is perpetrated by an army of partisans or by a lone geek.
However if we want to stop or decrease fraud in elections, we can make the choice between oversight by some or all of the voters themselves, or by the geek who knows the magic.
It may seem hare-brained to suggest that all voters should oversee the election, but it isn't. Voting scales very well because everyone does it. For example, you could have small voting precincts, say a village or neighbourhood, maybe 2 or 3 hundred voters. Make voting day a holiday. Make the polling station part of a street party. When everyone is there, conduct the voting, then the count, and call in the result. Polling could be synchronised accross the country, and the result announced soon after.
That's just one possibility. I don't think the question is "Is electronic inherently more or less fraud-proof than paper?" but instead "Is it easier to stop fraud with electronic or paper?". Another relevant question is "Do we want our voting controlled by the voters, or by electronic wizards?". Remember there are geeks in the world who will do anything for money. The voters at least have a stake in the result being correct.
Perhaps that the real reason is that electronic voter fraud changes who has the advantage in election fraud?
Yes, that's true. But there is an important difference between paper voting and electronic voting: paper voting is more amenable to oversight. Impartial or bipartisan observers can oversee the process from vote to counting to result. With electronic voting machines used today, you have a black box. Who knows what happens to a particular vote, and whether it is counted correctly?
Of course many voters do not seem to care enough about their votes to ensure proper oversight, even with paper voting, but at least the option is there.
Ring of Gyges: nice reference. The story about a ring of invisibility, used by a shepherd to kill a king and take his place. Plato used it to show that a person's morality depends on having a reputation to uphold within society.
I would agree that anonymity causes some people to abandon their morality. That is why we should promote pseudonymity instead. A pseudonym can have a reputation.
Slashdot Mirror
This one http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00. html?
I see what you mean. In both situations fraud can occur, and does. If we assume that fraud is going to occur on a massive scale in the future, then it doesn't matter if it is perpetrated by an army of partisans or by a lone geek.
However if we want to stop or decrease fraud in elections, we can make the choice between oversight by some or all of the voters themselves, or by the geek who knows the magic.
It may seem hare-brained to suggest that all voters should oversee the election, but it isn't. Voting scales very well because everyone does it. For example, you could have small voting precincts, say a village or neighbourhood, maybe 2 or 3 hundred voters. Make voting day a holiday. Make the polling station part of a street party. When everyone is there, conduct the voting, then the count, and call in the result. Polling could be synchronised accross the country, and the result announced soon after.
That's just one possibility. I don't think the question is "Is electronic inherently more or less fraud-proof than paper?" but instead "Is it easier to stop fraud with electronic or paper?". Another relevant question is "Do we want our voting controlled by the voters, or by electronic wizards?". Remember there are geeks in the world who will do anything for money. The voters at least have a stake in the result being correct.
Yes, that's true. But there is an important difference between paper voting and electronic voting: paper voting is more amenable to oversight. Impartial or bipartisan observers can oversee the process from vote to counting to result. With electronic voting machines used today, you have a black box. Who knows what happens to a particular vote, and whether it is counted correctly?
Of course many voters do not seem to care enough about their votes to ensure proper oversight, even with paper voting, but at least the option is there.
Ring of Gyges: nice reference. The story about a ring of invisibility, used by a shepherd to kill a king and take his place. Plato used it to show that a person's morality depends on having a reputation to uphold within society.
I would agree that anonymity causes some people to abandon their morality. That is why we should promote pseudonymity instead. A pseudonym can have a reputation.