Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arx]

The question is specifically referring to why it should be a touch screen, not a normal screen and a mouse, though.

[Bohandas]

One of the possible answers to the question of why touch screens should be used in electronic voting booths is, according to the memo, that it "bridges the digital divide". That seems to me to be about as meaningful as writing that it would pacify the quantum metastasis, but I'll assume that the guy with a doctorate in this stuff knows what he's talking about.

The digital divide between modern technology and its possibilities, and the archaic process of voting and having to manually count all the votes?

Any electronic system would be sufficient for electronic counting, touchscreens are an unnecessary gimmick

[Radio Controlled]

Because old people are more comfortable with touching something to vote, as opposed to using a mouse to click? I've had several old people trying to computer who just couldn't remember what mouse button did what ("No, the right one is for options, the left one is for selecting!").

[Frumple]

Probably talking about getting folks on the other side of the "digital divide" (i.e., people who are tech illiterate and pretty much never use anything more advanced than a basic cellphone, if that) introduced to fancier stuff that's been normalized, and done so in a way that's notably more convenient than the non-digital equivalent (i.e. pencil and paper, usually). Gets people with no interaction with higher tech involved with higher tech in a relatively painless and fairly ubiquitous way, helping to bridge the metaphorical gap between the people who aren't familiar with today's amazing goddamn magic and the people who are.

Critter wants to make better wizards of everyone, instead of there being middling wizards and better ones. Has my support, it does.

As for the posts that came up while I was typing, a touchscreen is honestly more intuitive to folks that have zero interaction with a computer. I've seen plenty of people struggle with mouse use, but jabbing a button on a screen they catch on to pretty quick.

E: I would never recommend touchscreens for general purpose computing, as per your average library computer or something, though. The word "jab" was not used lightly, and normal computer monitors really aren't sufficiently reinforced to deal with that regularly

[Aklyon]

Gotta be a big enough screen though. You can get more issues with too-small touchscreens than with mice.

[Frumple]

Oh, at least the ones I've seen in use definitely are. Usually about as large or larger than your regular old CRT monitor, with ruddy huge (like, normal name-tag size, or close to it) buttons and whatnot. They're managing that aspect well enough already, for now. Voting booth touch screen things are not even remotely handheld, from what I've ran in to. More like arcade machine. Maybe half to 3/4ths (2/3rds?) the size of your average one. They're pretty hefty.

[Arx]

If it's in an electronic voting booth, I assume it would be a reasonable size. I think it's a good idea myself, that particular answer was just kinda' broad. The sooner the better for electronic voting, honestly. My ID already has an RFID chip in it, the voting process could be carved down to twenty seconds really easily, and with no more spoiled ballots.

[wierd]

The problem with voting as a digital process is that there is no way to guarantee that the data is genuine and not tampered with.  With a paper ballot, there is a physical thing that can be verified after the fact.

Sure, there are statistical models that can be used to detect voter fraud, but a complete understanding of those statistical models can allow clever voter fraud that evades detection, just by controlling the variables within the allowable limits of the model.

Until you have such a 1:1 unique correllation to a specific vote cast that can be verified after the fact that is also digital, digital voting is going to be rife with abuse-- it is too tempting for the moneyed elite to NOT try this.

Computers make some things easier. They also make other things much harder. Preventing voter fraud is one of the latter.

[Sergarr]

For "genuine data" problem, why not use data storages that aren't rewritable, like CD-R? Can't tamper much with something like that, I'd imagine.

[Radio Controlled]

And it's not like a paper ballot can't be tampered with. Someone has to count and handle those.

[wierd]

WORM (Write once, read many) memory does not solve the problem of underhanded programming in the voting booth itself. It accepts the ballot as presented by the voter, then changes the ballot data in memory before committing to the fixed storage.

I direct you to "The underhanded C contest"

I also direct you to an alarming story about past electronic voting machines, and their lacklustre security.

[wierd]

And it's not like a paper ballot can't be tampered with. Someone has to count and handle those.

Loose lips sink ships, and humans are notoriously bad at keeping secrets. Computers, on the other hand, keep them VERY VERY well.
Paper ballot manipulation would require hiring many humans, some significant fraction thereof would talk about the ballot manipulation to other humans, and cause a scandal. This naturally limits the scope of ballot manipulations when dealing with paper ballots.

Not so much digital ballots.

[Bohandas]

The problem with voting as a digital process is that there is no way to guarantee that the data is genuine and not tampered with.  With a paper ballot, there is a physical thing that can be verified after the fact.

Remind me again, are hanging chads counted or not? What about dimpled chads?

[EnigmaticHat]

And it's not like a paper ballot can't be tampered with. Someone has to count and handle those.

Yeah, lots of separate people.

Just because paper ballets aren't perfect doesn't mean they aren't better than the alternatives.

[Radio Controlled]

And is the software for the voting all written by a single dude with no quality control?