At 01:14 PM 4/17/2007, James Gilmour wrote: >You may be interested to know that in our elections on 3 May, electors >will complete conventional ballot papers (real paper) with an old >fashioned stubby pencil (chained to the polling booth) or vote by post. >The ballot papers for the Local Government STV elections (and for the >Scottish Parliament elections that are being held on the same day - >MMP voting system!!) will be scanned and data files created by >intelligent optical character recognition software. The ballot data >will then be counted electronically.
Yes. The insanity of using "voting machines" here, given that equipment for scanning paper ballots has existed since I was a child, is ... manifest. I remember using a number two pencil to fill in ovals on paper, and these were machine-counted, for standardized tests. Before 1960. Now, any fax machine could be used as the scanner, and any computer could analyze that data. >So the full ballot data will be readily available in an electronic >format and COULD be published in a suitably anonymised form, i.e. >removing all references to the ballot paper number from the file of >ballot data. Actually, the ballot paper number does not identify the voter, or it shouldn't. However, if there is some way that it *would* identify the voter, some other means of serializing the ballots should be used, so that people can independently count them and compare results ballot-by-ballot. (Actually, of course, they would produce lists of ballots with the votes counted for each identified ballot, and these lists can then be compared for discrepancies. It's an old technique used for keypunched data, to have two people keypunch it and then compare the results, which should match precisely. If they don't, then one looks at the discrepancies. When Florida 2000 was on the TV here, I was screaming at the box, because it was allegedly difficult to count ballots, every ballot had to be examined carefully, etc. Not. The care is only necessary where independent counters don't come up with the same totals for a batch, and the batch size is kept small enough that the majority of batches are in agreement. And if a counter is biased, it will show up quickly!) > With thousands of voters in every one of the 353 elections >and only small numbers of candidates in each of the 353 wards (local >government electoral district), the chances of identifying any voter >from a "unique" sequence of preferences are probably so small that they >can be safely set aside in the greater public interest of making the >full ballot data available at ward level. This was done with the full >STV-PR ballot data for three constituencies in Ireland in 2002. I agree. On the Range Voting list, where we consider all kinds of election reforms besides Range Voting, I've written extensively about the publication of ballot scans. It is indeed interesting to know that it is being done, and I'd consider the data extremely valuable for more than one reason. Understanding voting patterns can reveal far more about the preferences of the public than simple aggregated totals. And where election fraud is suspected, allowing the public to validate the counts is actually crucial. It's devastating here that we have, too often, a lack of confidence in our election processes. >Unfortunately, our government (= "Scottish Executive") has followed the >conventional approach to paper records relating to elections and so the >Election Rules specifically prohibit the release or publication of any >of the electronic information although all the electronic information >has to be retained for four years (until the next election). However, >following some agitation on this issue, the government has agreed to >carry out a consultation on this after the elections are over. So we >may yet see the full STV ballot data from all our 2007 local government >elections. Then we might have independent validation of the results and >lots of interesting (and amusing) political and sociological analysis of >the preference patterns. It also becomes possible, then, to study the effects of reforming election methods. There really are many possible benefits to the data being made public, and the down side is very small. It does not add costs; indeed, it might reduce them. (It's expensive to challenge an election! If the ballot images could be seen, any challenger would know whether or not they have a basis, and a full formal recount isn't necessary at all. A court would require a challenger to present *specific* evidence of error. Now, necessity is the mother of invention, and stubborn desire is the mother of necessity, so there might still be improper challenges, but it would become easier to resolve them if they involve the actual counting.) There were very good reasons to sequester paper records, the original ballots, and those reasons remain. But images of the ballots are not subject to the same risks. Indeed, they become safer if released, because they no longer exist in only one or a few places, under unified control. I've argued that if ballots are properly imaged, it would normally be the case that, even for manual counting (i.e, not OCR assisted) ballots, it would be the images which are counted, not the original ballots. One of the avenues for election fraud is ballot alteration during the counting process. Imaging would be much faster and could be more closely supervised, with the actual ballots then being placed under seal. (It's also true that imaging improves ballot security from the other direction as well: if the original ballots are lost, the images generally would not be. Obviously, a loss of original ballots would be a serious matter, but accidents do happen, armored cars crash and burn, and so do buildings.) ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
