Electronic elections carried out over longer periods would increase turnout and decrease costs, they say. Fun thought experiment or the future of voting?
By Rebecca Boyle Posted 11.08.2012 at 11:00 am 4 Comments

Polling Place Wikimedia Commons

There's something so indescribably American about what millions of us did yesterday--standing in line at a polling place, exchanging hellos with neighbors, peacefully filling in circles or tapping touchscreens to record our future hopes. But man, does it feel great to be done!

Now comes some computational science experts who say we should draw it out even more: maybe vote on one thing at a time--president one day, the U.S. House the next, local library tax districts later that week, and so on. Theory suggests this would be effective at not only lowering costs, but increasing voter turnout.

“You can’t say, ‘Today you’ll come in and vote on the first issue, and then we’ll announce the result, and tomorrow you’ll come back again and vote on the second issue.’ That’s too costly,” says Lirong Xia, a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. “But if you can build an online voting system and make it secure enough, then people can stay at home and just log in at the right time. It would reach a better solution and reduce the cost of holding elections.”

Xia spends some of his time studying computational election theory, wherein computational techniques can be used to change the way we vote, and even how we think about our election choices. These techniques could improve security, for example, so there would be less concern about electronic voting machines or casting votes via email. They could also expand the reach of third parties, allowing weighted ballots that allow voters to mark first and second choices. Algorithms could even help voters answer questions that may be more complex than an up-or-down decision. All of this would happen online, allowing people to rank their choices not just on candidates, but on issues, like whether to spend funds on a school, park or some other infrastructure.

Assuming you could work out all the kinks--access to the Internet, for instance, and security--voting online from home over the span of a few days might be a better reflection of what we all want. It takes time to get all the way through a ballot, especially one chockablock with referenda and initiatives. Maybe if voters could do it at their leisure, they’d be happier with the results. Read more about Xia’s work here.

[via PhysOrg]

4 Comments

Link to this comment
marcoreid
11/08/12 at 11:52 am

Work out the kinks? You are kidding me, right? These aren't kinks, they are fundamental problems with computer security that many actually bright computer scientists say we may never actually be able to solve realistically. Especially for every single computer or device that would then need to access the election.

What's more, then allowing people to vote on their devices and also proving it is them who is voting is a nightmare as well.

Today's voting machines, particularly the ones with a paper trail that the voter examines on the spot, are far more secure than we can hope to get with online elections anytime in the foreseeable future, as well as less easy to manipulate than the old paper ballots.

I've managed polling locations, have volunteered at election centers, etc, for years. If I wanted to manipulate the election, I'd rather either have paper or an online solution. The one we have now is far harder to manipulate than either of them.

And all the "fun" algorithms and everything else could be done now. But let's be completely honest... for most of the voters, any choices more complicated than they have now would be a detriment, not a benefit.

Link to this comment
AlBme
11/08/12 at 3:03 pm

I reject the notion that electronic voting machines are safe unless those machines immediately print out a human readable backup paper ballot that can confirm the digital results. As far as using the Internet for voting -- if it wasn't such a serious issue, I would laugh. Any politician that dares to support voting by Internet should be chased out of Congress with pitch forks and torches!

However, I support the idea of a multi-day election process. Personally, I like the Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday sequence. But, I wouldn't separate the ballot for candidates. That would make the House of Representatives even *less* representative of their constituency since only the most die-hard, radical partisans would bother to make a second trip. We should be allowed to select all the candidates on one trip.

On the other hand, one could separate issues and propositions to a separate voting process. (One of the reasons behind some of the long lines this past Tuesday was that some places had twelve page ballots!) So, for issues and propositions, we could make that a mail-in only option. (With delivery receipt confirmation.) But, just as we do for Tax Day, the postmark deadline should still be 11:59 PM Election Day.

Link to this comment
Oakspar77777
11/08/12 at 4:14 pm

The real advantage of spread voting is less relational bias.

In other words, a popular presidental candidate will bring out a voter base that will "life all boats" for his party as well as flavour issues on the ballot. In the same way, an issue vote can be used to draw out voters who otherwise would ignore a race.

Thus, was the MJ laws of Washington and Colorado a side effect of the presidential election, or was the President's results in Colorado a side effect of Cannibas on the ballot (or would the results have been the same on two different days).

If they had put a complete firarm ban on any ballot, would a single conservative have stayed at home that day?

Link to this comment
Aldrons Last Hope
11/09/12 at 3:01 pm

Electronic voting machines without paper trail cannot be trusted. For instance Prop. 37 in California, calling for labeling of all GMO food was voted down 3 to 1. Despite exit polls showing that the measure passed 3 to 1. Monsanto as well as other corporations threw 10’s of millions of dollars and bought the results.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/proposition-37-gmo-labeling_n_2090112.html

So in the future the corporations will buy all elections. Legally.

In this case low tech is infinitely better. Paper and pencil is the only way to go.



June 2013: American Energy Independence

Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email

Contributing Writers:

Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif
bmxmag-ps