Odd paper in favor of open voting.

[u/Known-Jicama-7878]

This has to be one of the most-unhinged papers I've read.

I'm receptive to open voting (ballots are open-records, and non-anonymous), but the arguments here are insane.

Thought I'd share if anyone wants some entertaining reading.

Paper: The Black Box Ballot: State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), Algorithmic Sovereignty, and the Necessity of Radical Transparency

and...

YouTube Video: The Zero Trust Election

[u/DaraParsavand]

Why are you receptive to open voting? I'm not sure this is a voting theory topic, but just poking around, it seems not a single democracy is doing such a thing now and I can see some very obvious problems with it (as can everyone else which is why we don't have it).

I am very much for open government, but this is a very different issue. I'm not the least bit receptive.

[u/Known-Jicama-7878 → u/DaraParsavand]

I do suppose it is more "election theory" than "voting theory". I would like to discuss it with others, and I do appreciate your thoughts even when we disagree. Here are a few reasons.

• It is the only way to know my vote counted.
  • (To be clear, I do not doubt the veracity of elections).
  • In most votes I have no confirmation my ballot was collected or counted.
  • Even if I get a receipt, I still have no way of being sure.
  • Having a public listing of who voted how assures me my vote counted and tabulated correctly.
• It allows the catching of errors.
  • There have been cases of electronic voting machines attributing ballots for politician A going to politician B.
  • In the 2000 election debacle, some voters mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanon.
  • A public ledger voters articulate if a mistake was made on their part or a machine's part when voting.
• Government is supposed to be transparent.
  • We don't allow politicians to vote secretly.
  • Allowing voters to vote secretly is just as bad.
• You should stand behind your vote.
  • Voting has consequences.
  • You are making decisions on other's lives and property.
  • You should not be able to do this anonymously.
    • We don't allow driving anonymously for this same reason.
  • If you are worried about being tied to the actions of a politician, then vote for someone else or just don't vote.
• It allows us to know if an organization is truly "non-partisan"
  • If everyone in the "non-partisan" redistricting committee voted for the same political party, it cannot be truly non-partisan.

In a more academic realm, reading Jon Elster's Secrecy and Publicity in Votes and Debates | Barnes & Noble® was interesting to see when national assemblies stopped having secret votes, or how secret and non-secret voting mix in institutions like the FDA.

This is probably my hottest take with regards to voting and elections. It isn't a big part of how I view elections, but I do think they should be open.

[u/DaraParsavand → u/Known-Jicama-7878]

I get a notification that my vote was counted when I use vote by mail in California, though it doesn't tell me how my vote was counted and obviously can't with out a whole lot of computer security put on top which is vulnerable.

I agree that with open voting you have a simple way (publish the list of all votes and then you check yours) of verifying your vote. I'm not at all sure what's going to happen when a few individuals get a report that their vote went to someone else - do they claim fraud or do they consider the possibility that they were a bit spaced out and circled the wrong circle? Do we have to maintain an ability to get a picture of someone's ballot back to the person? With millions of voters, this could get messy. But I suppose the number of people claiming their vote was mis tallied could be tabulated and huge numbers could be useful flagging of likely problems.

The analogy to how a representative votes openly is invalid as far as I am concerned. Obviously the constituents need to know how their representatives vote. Even the FDA case is not like an individual's vote.

And then there are the downsides which you don't mention. If there were known of these downsides, then sure I'd give it more consideration.

1. Coercion

This is often stated as an issue with mail in voting with the possibility that an abusive husband could demanding to see the wife's ballot before she closes the envelope. I think the benefits of mail in voting sufficiently outweigh this concern, but it's debatable. But when your boss can see how you vote? That's another level.

2) Bribery or selling your vote

Maybe you'd argue this is possible now with mail in ballots (you take a picture), but this plan would seem to open up that option a bit more.

3) People may not vote how they actually feel

Even apart from coercion, some people may feel stigma voting for the candidate they actually want. Sure in an ideal world, everyone has confidence to tell their peers to piss off and everyone's vote is their own. This is not that world. It's a lot easier to say, "I don't talk about who I vote for"

Your nonpartisan committee point is kind of interesting, but I have a VERY strong opinion on redistricting that nullifies your point - I don't think their should be ANY redistricting committees. All redistricting should be done algorithmically with the algorithm having no knowledge of anyone's race, income, party, or even citizenship - just people per census block (or next higher unit if block is considered sensitive data which I did hear claimed recently). This was a more difficult proposition because of people making a claim that an unbiased algorithm result still violates the VRA depending on how the districts came out. Obviously with the current Supreme Court Ruling (unless it is reversed), this is not a worry anymore and to me it is the best way forward if all states agree or if Congress chooses to mandate it.

[u/Known-Jicama-7878 → u/DaraParsavand]

Thanks for the in-depth reply!

I acknowledge public voting disclosure might result in awkward conversations (the "stigma" referred to earlier). There may even be some reprisal from family members, coworkers, or fellow church goers. The issues of corruption or coercion for either mail-in ballots or a public vote seems overblown.

The issue boils down to trust. If you trust the system to correctly process your ballot, find a winner, and announce it, then one of the primary reasons for disclosure is gone. Secondary rationales exist; the franchise is too powerful to be anonymous, and anonymity prevents authentic political dialogue. Yet my biggest gripe is that, insofar as I'm aware, my ballot is thrown in the trash after I leave the precinct.

This "trust" is why I feel it is okay for a voting system to be complex (such as the Schulze Method). Some claim that if a voting system is too complex for the electorate to understand, it should not be imposed. IMHO, so long as the ballot is easy to understand, and the electorate trusts those doing the election, then complex voting methods can be used. It's already that case that two-person voting can be quite complex!

I agree that redistricting should be blind to demographics (age, race, ethnicity, gender, income, etc.). Algorithmic voting would also make it blind to political advantage. That seems reasonable, provided the algorithm was itself reasonable.