Open-source and mandatory voting.

[The Bear's Key]

(The first question is more for JohnB, to hopefully provide us enough insight to stir good discussion)

 

In Australia, voting software is open-sourced* and it's mandatory to vote. So....

 

 

To JohnB (or lurking Australians): how is (each) that working out for you and citizens generally?

 

To others: what's your opinion of doing both those in your respective nations?

 

As for me: open-source voting yes, and mandatory voting only for any citizens whose state makes it a law.

 

 

*(or maybe not)

[The Bear's Key]

Wow. No opinion, or everyone agreed with my two choices?

 

Here's an interesting piece from Wired, although it's six years old and things have likely changed.

 

Aussies Do It Right: E-Voting

 

In addition to the public review, the commission hired an independent verification and validation company to audit the code, "specifically to prevent us, as a developer, from having any election-subverting code in there," Quinn said.

........

The machine does not include a voter-verifiable receipt, something critics of U.S. systems want added to machines and voting machine makers have resisted.

.....

Green said the commission rejected the printout feature to keep expenses down. The system cost $125,000 to develop and implement. The printouts would have increased that cost significantly, primarily to pay for personnel to manage and secure the receipts and make sure voters didn't walk off with them.

The *prohibitive* expense of handling receipts is nonsense, if you ask me. Or even if you don't.

 

All they'd need to do is keep the printout attached on the machine, behind a protective glass cover, from where the voter can easily read it.

 

 

 

Quinn, however, thinks all e-voting systems should offer a receipt. "There's no reason voters should trust a system that doesn't have it, and they shouldn't be asked to," he said.

 

"Why on earth should (voters) have to trust me -- someone with a vested interest in the project's success?" he said. "A voter-verified audit trail is the only way to 'prove' the system's integrity to the vast majority of electors, who after all, own the democracy."

 

As for the costs of securing and storing such receipts, Quinn said, "Did anyone ever say that democracy was meant to be cheap?"

I second that. Ensuring the integrity of democracy is money well spent.

 

 

 

Quinn also believes that voting systems must use open-source software.

 

"The keystone of democracy is information," he said.

.....

"Any transparency you can add to that process is going to enhance the democracy and, conversely, any information you remove from that process is going to undermine your democracy."

Open government and processes are the enemy of tyranny and/or corruption. For any of us who likes smart budgets, reasonable taxes, more honest leaders, and pork-free government, I don't see how those are possible (or can last) without a fully open and transparent government/process.

 

 

 

The issues of voter-verifiable receipts and secret voting systems could be resolved in the United States by a bill introduced to the House of Representatives last May by Rep. Rush Holt (D-New Jersey). The bill would force voting-machine makers nationwide to provide receipts and make the source code for voting machines open to the public. The bill has 50 co-sponsors so far, all of them Democrats.

 

"If a voting system precludes any notion of a meaningful recount, is cloaked in secrecy and controlled by individuals with conflicts of interest, why would anyone buy it?,"

Seems like an easy question to me. Depends on the buyer.

 

 

 

Quinn, who was working in Chicago for Motorola during the 2000 presidential election, says he is "gob smacked" by what he sees happening among U.S. electronic voting machine makers, whom he says have too much control over the democratic process.

.....

"The only possible motive I can see for disabling some of the security mechanisms and features in their system is to be able to rig elections," Quinn said. "It is, at best, bad programming; at worst, the system has been designed to rig an election."

With all the smart programmers out there in the world, it's gotta be easy to illustrate how a machine can decieve a person. It's not an intuitive thing, as shown with all the malicious code people routinely allow into their home computers, unsuspectingly but quite easily avoidable.

 

 

 

"I can't imagine what it must be like to be an American in the midst of this and watching what's going on," Quinn added. "Democracy is for the voters, not for the companies making the machines....

Exactly. But if the voting machine industries can't handle the job, only able to turn a profit by hurting democracy's integrity, they must return election-counting duties back to our government -- who can definitely open the voting process/software without risk of profit-loss.

Edited June 22, 2009 by The Bear's Key
clarification and minor grammar

[JohnB]

Sorry Bear's Key, I didn't see the thread.

 

Australia doesn't use voting machines in any way, shape or form.

 

After an election is called, The Australian Electoral Commission looks after things. They take applications for candidacy and finalise and print the ballot papers. They also organise the venue for the "Tally Room".

 

On election day AEC officials (many only do elections) check each voters name against the Electoral Roll. The voters name is crossed off the list and they are handed their ballot paper. Each ballot is initialed by the AEC official in the voters presence. We take the paper to the stall and number the candidates in order of preference. We use the "Preferential" or "Run off" system. After numbering the ballot paper we place it in the ballot box on the way out.

 

If there are multiple elections on the same day, the ballots are differently coloured and there are the requisite number of ballot boxes to drop them into.

 

Voting places are normally schools or community halls. (Which also allows the Scouts, Girl Guides and School Organisations to sell cakes, biscuits and the like as a fund raiser.)

 

After close of voting each ballot box is emptied onto a table and the "Primary" votes are counted. Primary in this case simply means who got number "1" beside their name. Ballot papers are literally sorted into piles on the table and counted. "Scrutineers" appointed by their respective political parties watch the count to ensure honesty. It is illegal for a scrutineer to touch any ballot paper for any reason. Their hand must never pass above the tabletop, this prevents someone dumping some extra votes in.

 

Once the primary votes are tallied at that polling station the AEC "Returning Officer" phones the Tally Room with the results. While there a number of phone lines into the Tally Room, each Electoral Officer has only one number he is allowed to call. The Tally Room officers have a list of phone numbers that results are allowed to be called in from.

 

Quite often it is obvious who hasn't got a hope in hell of getting in and so their votes are distributed to their second preference at the Polling Station.

 

All votes are kept under tight security until final votes are counted (in case there is a recount needed) and they are then destroyed.

 

Ballot papers are printed, kept and destroyed under the same sort of security used for currency. Colours and patterns change every election.

 

Because there is a constant paper trail and each political party scrutineers, the system is open and honest at all times.

 

Doing the whole thing manually might seem to take a lot of time. However polls close at 6 PM local time, and a result is usually known by 10PM.

 

We have "Absentee" and "Postal" votes for those not in their normal electorate on election day. (Just because we're going to choose the government of the nation is no reason to upset your holiday.) These vote are recorded and kept but the percentage is usually so low as to make no difference to the outcome.

 

We do have compulsory voting and there are fines for not voting. Although the fine is small (about $25 IIRC) and is more intended as a slap on the wrist more than anything else.

 

I must admit, I grew up under compulsory voting and don't see anything strange about it. Checking the Electoral Rolls is something the AEC does constantly.

 

For example they will do mail outs to all voters with a small card to take with you when you vote. Any of these letters that are returned to the AEC might indicate a "phantom" voter and give them a name to watch for. There are apparently other safeguards, but they don't get talked about much.

 

Open government and processes are the enemy of tyranny and/or corruption.

I totally agree and believe our paper trail system is extremely hard to mess with because it's a physical thing. I suppose, theoretically, it would be possible to stuff a ballot box, but I'm buggered if I can see how. Each polling station knows exactly how many ballots they hand out and the number counted at the end of voting must match.

 

Note that this means that investigations would start at the Polling Station where the irregularity was noticed, and immediately, rather than trying to piece things together later. The scrutineers are told how many votes were issued as well, so they can cry foul instantly if there is a problem.

 

I kind of like making the political parties provide volunteers to watch each other. Why should the electorate pay?

 

If the US decided to abandon the machines, I don't think it would be that hard. As the voting is organised on a local level, each Polling Station only handles about 3,000 people, so local results start coming in rather quickly. After that it's just a matter of adding up the totals.

 

If you keep first past the post, there isn't the need to distribute preferences so the answer again comes quickly.

 

Frankly though. For all the money you spend on them, I just don't see that the machines are giving good value. "Hanging chads" and the invisibility of the system make it ripe for abuse or problems.

[Pangloss]

What is the rationale behind requiring people to vote? Is it something along the lines of producing a more engaged and invested population?

[Mokele]

And what about those who cannot be expected to cast an informed vote, such as those with severe Alzheimer's disease?

[iNow]

I like the idea of compulsory voting, as it tends to be a much better representation of what the populace wants. Also, I absolutely DO think it ensures the populace is more engaged/involved/knowledgeable. I'm also curious about "what happens if they're handicapped" and simply can't vote type questions, though.

[JohnB]

What is the rationale behind requiring people to vote? Is it something along the lines of producing a more engaged and invested population?

I think so. The idea being that since you have to vote, you are more likely to look at the policies and issues. This is possibly true as most people do have conversations about policies. The voting populace is certainly better informed since we left the "My side right, your side wrong" mentality behind. Only the diehards still have this attitude.

 

There is evidence for the opposite though. We have a thing called the "Donkey Vote". This is where the voter simply starts at the top and numbers the boxes 1, 2, 3, etc straight down the page.

Not the greatest pic, but you should get the idea.

 

I have scrutineered at elections and can honestly say that in my experience, the Donkey Vote is quite rare. However, in the past it's existence has caused concern due to the possible importance of being the first name on the ballot paper. Candidates with the name "Aaron Aaardvark" would be well placed.

 

The system used is a double random draw.

 

From the AEC.

 

HOW IS THE DRAW DONE?

A list of the names of the candidates in the order of receipt of nominations is used for the draw.

 

Wooden balls consecutively numbered up to the number of candidates are placed in a container large enough for all the balls to move freely when it is rotated.

 

The container is rotated by an AEC officer (usually the Divisional Returning Officer) who then invites any other person present to rotate the container.

 

A person who has been blindfolded prior to the container being rotated then selects the balls one by one and passes them to another person who reads out each number. As the numbers are called, they are allocated to the candidates. That is, the first number called is written against the first candidate on the list . The order of numbers on the list is the order in which they are called out.

 

The balls are then replaced in the container.

Again, the container is rotated and any person present may rotate it.

 

The blindfolded person once again selects the balls one by one and passes them to another person who reads out the numbers. The numbers are placed in the second column on the list the order in which they are read out. Against each number is placed the name of the candidate who was allocated that number in the first draw.

 

The order of candidates in this second draw determines the order of names on the ballot paper.

 

We also get a number of "spoiled" votes, people voting for Mickey Mouse, that sort of thing but again the numbers are low.

 

"Informal" votes are a bigger problem. An informal vote occurs when the voter makes a mistake without realising it, perhaps putting by two people at number 8. It mainly occurs when there are a large number of candidates. In the 2003 election for the New South Wales Upper House there were 284 candidates, leading to a record informal vote.

 

Sh*t happens. No system is perfect.

 

And what about those who cannot be expected to cast an informed vote, such as those with severe Alzheimer's disease?

 

It's taken a fair bit of looking but I can answer the question.

 

Firstly for Federal Elections;

8) A person who:

 

(a) by reason of being of unsound mind, is incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting; or

 

© has been convicted of treason or treachery and has not been pardoned;

 

is not entitled to have his or her name placed on or retained on any Roll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election.

I wonder what happened to (b)? Anyway a person of "unsound" mind is not entitled to vote. So that covers those who were of unsound mind before their 18th birthday. (The age we have to enrol to vote.)

 

The Electoral Act also provides that a person with "valid and sufficient reason" is not required to vote. One such reason is mental impairment. Should a person become mentally impaired to such an extent that they no longer understand their "duty" (and a Doctors Certificate is supplied) that person is no longer required to vote.

 

People have tried a number of "valid and sufficient reasons" over the years but I like this one;

I do not consider that any of the candidates standing for the seat of Rockhampton are worthy of my vote. This also applies to the parties they represent. The main problems of the day, such as the environmental crisis, the population explosion and the economic problems associated with these are nonissues. Instead we have been treated to mudslinging, noise pollution, tree desecration and polemical discussions of trivia.

He was still fined $20, but a good effort all the same.

 

In the case of physical impairment, the elector is entitled to a postal vote or a visit by an AEC official. In the case of an "Aged Care" facility, an electoral officer will go to that place with ballot papers, etc and take the votes.

 

This means that;

At any time when an electoral visitor is visiting a special hospital for the purposes of this section, the special hospital shall, for purposes of, and in connection with, the taking of votes under this section, be deemed to be a polling booth at a polling place and the electoral visitor shall, for those purposes, be deemed to be the presiding officer at that booth.

 

And all voting laws and penalties for attempting to subvert the system apply. This is to prevent political parties going to nursing homes to "help" people fill out their ballot papers.

 

A side note, proxy votes are not allowed under any circumstances in an Australian election.

 

In the case of impairment, but still able to turn up at the Polling Station;

Assistance to certain voters

(1) If any voter satisfies the presiding officer that his or her sight is so impaired or that the voter is so physically incapacitated or illiterate that he or she is unable to vote without assistance, the presiding officer shall permit a person appointed by the voter to enter an unoccupied compartment of the booth with the voter, and mark, fold, and deposit the voter's ballot‑paper.

 

(1A) A presiding officer who is visiting a patient under section 224 or 225 for the purpose of taking the patient's vote must explain to the patient the effect of subsection (1) of this section.

 

(2) If any such voter fails to appoint a person in pursuance of subsection (1) the presiding officer, in the presence of such scrutineers as are present, or, if there be no scrutineers present, then in the presence of:

 

(a) a polling official; or

 

(b) if the voter so desires, in the presence of a person appointed by such voter, instead of a polling official;

 

shall mark, fold, and deposit his or her ballot‑paper.

 

(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), a voter to whom that subsection applies may indicate to the presiding officer the manner in which the voter wishes the presiding officer to mark his or her ballot‑paper by presenting to the presiding officer a statement in writing (which may be, or include, a how‑to‑vote card) that specifies the manner in which the ballot‑paper is to be marked.

So it is compulsory, but we go to great lengths to make sure that people are able to vote. There is even a section of the Act that covers voting by persons in the Australian Antarctic Territory.

 

I like the idea of compulsory voting, as it tends to be a much better representation of what the populace wants. Also, I absolutely DO think it ensures the populace is more engaged/involved/knowledgeable.

 

Maybe. The biggest obstacle to an informed populace is partisanship, IMO. I can't speak for other nations, but the irrational hatred shown during the Bush years is astounding to most Aussies I know. The whole concept of "My side is always right" is bogus. The fact is that no matter what Bush said or did, there was a large part of the US public who would automatically think it was wrong. (And another part that automatically thought it was right too;))

 

This black/white view does not allow problems to be looked at objectively, because point scoring becomes more important.

 

Our two systems depart in a major way WRT voter registration. I realise that being a "Registered (insert party here) Voter" is integral to your system as it (I think) sorts out the voters for Presidential candidacies, but the whole concept of having to tell someone what party I vote for is strange to me.

 

Who I vote for is my business and nobody can demand that information from me. I can join a political party if I wish to and I am not required (and cannot be required) to tell anyone about it.

 

A major improvement over the last few decades has been the increase in the number of "swinging voters". These people (I'm one of them) will change their vote depending on the performance of the government and the issues. This means that a seat is more likely to change hands if the gov stuffs up.

 

It also means that the same electorate may vote differently depending on whether it is a Local, State or Federal election. My own went right at the local and federal level and left at the state level. (Big mistake, the State gov couldn't run a cake stall at a School fete. Mind you, Kevin is no great shakes as a PM either.)

 

Sometimes it takes both sides having a go to make a system work. When we first got our Universal Healthcare system it was brought in by the left. It was a great idea but the execution was abyssmal. The thing was a gigantic black hole sucking in vast amounts of money and not delivering the goods. The left in Australia is generally long on Ideology but very short on business acumen.

 

After the gov changed, the right (not as strong on ideology but far better business managers) reworked the system so it was no longer a black hole and turned it into something that works.

 

So if it had been exclusively the right, we probably wouldn't have a UHC at all, but if only the left had had a hand in it, we would probably have gone broke by now.

 

I've left out the names of our parties simply because for us a "Liberal" is from the right but a "liberal" is from the left. Ain't politics fun?

 

I hope I've answered your questions completely enough for you to get an idea of how we work our compulsory system.

[bascule]

I hate the idea of compulsory voting. The last thing we need is people casting a vote with dubious reasoning: "I voted for the guy who the polls said was ahead!"

 

As for open source voting, it's the only way I'd cast an e-vote. That said I vote on paper.

[CDarwin]

 

The Electoral Act also provides that a person with "valid and sufficient reason" is not required to vote. One such reason is mental impairment. Should a person become mentally impaired to such an extent that they no longer understand their "duty" (and a Doctors Certificate is supplied) that person is no longer required to vote.

 

People have tried a number of "valid and sufficient reasons" over the years but I like this one;

 

He was still fined $20, but a good effort all the same.

 

See, that might be a good objection to compulsory voting. Elections validate systems of government (arguably, it's that validation that is the biggest single contribution any citizen makes to his own government with his vote). Compulsory voting mandates everyone to participate in giving the system its legitimacy, even if they object to that system or to a particular election.

[JohnB]

I hate the idea of compulsory voting. The last thing we need is people casting a vote with dubious reasoning: "I voted for the guy who the polls said was ahead!"

Oddly enough that is heard very rarely. (I've never heard it)

 

I think that if anything people are more likely to vote against the guy who is ahead. They look and think "Nope, I don't really want him to win" and so vote the other way. This of course leads to both sides trying to claim "underdog" status.

 

"We're the underdog because we're in opposition and people haven't voted us in in years!"

 

"No, we're the underdog because we've been in government for years and people traditionally vote against the government!"

 

See, that might be a good objection to compulsory voting. Elections validate systems of government (arguably, it's that validation that is the biggest single contribution any citizen makes to his own government with his vote). Compulsory voting mandates everyone to participate in giving the system its legitimacy, even if they object to that system or to a particular election.

I don't really think so. If someone wants to not vote, the $20 fine is not excessive and it's only once every three years or so.

 

The thing is that people who don't vote and tell people about it are generally told to bugger off during political discussions. The reasoning is that they had their chance to voice their opinion and didn't, so they now have no right to bitch about which way the election went.

 

Besides, if they are so strongly against the current parties and the system they should put their money where their mouth is and stand as a candidate. They may stand as an independent in their electorate for a $500 deposit. (Which is refunded if they get more than 4% of the primary vote.)

 

So if they won't vote to change things, or won't join a party to change things, or won't get off their arse and stand to change things, then they are just a "Whinging Bastard" and not worth listening to. Simple really.

[Pangloss]

JohnB, thanks for the interesting (and entertaining!) posts on this.