Feb 15, 2003
This is an article to support David Dill's petition - Go sign it now, or read on for more explanation
Computers do the job of people, albeit much faster and more accurately. Any job which can be done by a computer can equally be done by a human with sufficient time and patience. The first spreadsheets were calculated using paper and a pencil. The 'Life' game was originally simulated with cardboard tiles. Planetary simulation was done manually by mathematicians for many centuries, and the value of PI was accurately known long before electronic computers were invented.
Now, suppose we can represent electoral machines in this way. Computers used in electronic voting, mobile-telephone voting, and many other such systems are doing a job which could equally be done by humans with sufficient interest and time.
We start by producing a supply of these voting machines. Your favourite country pays a businessman lots of money, and in return he provides thousands of employees to act as vote-counters. These people are briefed in private by the businessman, telling them how to record votes, how to check that someone is eligible to vote, and how to accurately keep count. These briefings are done in private, because such instructions ('source-code in computer terminology) are considered a trade secret.
These vote-counters are then sent all over the country, and one of them sets up office in each polling station. Perhaps some officials give them counting tests to see how they fare, but who knows if these people have been told to handle tests in the same way as they handle the real thing?
Eventually, election-day comes. People throughout the town line up to talk to the vote-counter. They whisper their vote to the nominated vote-counter, who nods and promises to record that vote accurately.
At the end of the day, each of these vote-counters telephones one central person and tells them how many votes they counted for each candidate. The central person (operating in a private office somewhere) memorises all these figures, and adds up the totals for each candidate.
At nightfall, the privately-employed vote-counter announces the new president, prime-minister, mayor, or referendum result, and everyone rejoices that the new system counts votes so quickly.
Did it work?
Such voting systems are already being used worldwide, allbeit with computers instead of people. The software is proprietry, closed-source, and unauditable. In many cases, courts have ruled that the voting public should not be allowed to review the software used to count votes. The voting machines are supplied and operated by private companies. In many cases, there is no possibility of recount. You trust the machines.
I'd like to suggest that some readers might consider signing a petition to let their governments know that voting systems would be more reliable if the results of a vote were open to public scrutiny.
Perhaps some people reading this are even considering implementing electronic votes, or advising those who do. To put it as bluntly as possible, you need an awful lot more expertise than you think. Read essays. Read books. And if you MUST do voting over electronic networks, use something decent that works, not an untrusted p.o.s. from someone who won't let the voters see his source-code.
