TAG | voting
I think I can group decisions into two types:
- Decisions where it’s really important that we make the right decision
- Decisions where it’s really important that we make any decision and everyone gets behind it
For instance, deciding what products to launch for the Christmas season is really important. The choices made will have a profound impact on the bottom line of your company. On the other hand, it didn’t really matter what side of the road we decided to drive on, but it was really important that we, as a group, made a decision, and everyone agreed to it.
Now let’s talk about how organizations make decisions. I think there are typically two approaches:
- Appeal to authority
- Appeal to committee
When appealing to authority, the accounting department has the authority to make cash-flow decisions, and the engineering department has the authority to make technical decisions, and the marketing department gets to decide whether we run Superbowl ads or Craigslist ads. The CEO can override these decisions when a higher level view recognizes a different need.
When we appeal to committee, we gather all the “stakeholders” who then sit around a table, generally as equal representatives of their respective departments, and come to some kind of consensus.
I don’t think anyone’s surprised by the fact that when it comes to making decisions where being right is the most important criteria, authoritative decisions tend to be better than committee decisions. In the same way, when success of the decision is tied to consensus rather than the “correctness” of the decision, then committee decisions probably have an edge.
Now, if you’ve spent any time around government offices, you’ll realize that almost all decisions, including planning the staff Christmas gathering, are done by committee. Very large publicly traded companies don’t seem to be much different. On the other side of the spectrum, small companies don’t need much consensus because they’re small, and they tend towards decisions based on authority. Successful entrepreneurs seem to surround themselves with knowledgeable people and trust those people to make intelligent choices. This makes them well suited to make decisions where it’s important to be right, like how much raw material to buy this month, and where to commit other scarce resources.
It’s interesting to look at the outliers too. Apple is famous for being the exception that proves the rule. Despite being a huge organization, all information seems to indicate that Jobs ruled it with authority, not committee. And since he seemed to make good decisions, they were successful. Apple shareholders beware.
Now let’s go all 7-Habits on this and put it in quadrants, dividing decisions along two axes:
Drive on the
Left or Right?
Chicken or Fish?
I divided it into four quadrants numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4. Quadrants 2 and 3 we’ve already covered. In quadrant 2, committees really shine, and in quadrant 3 authority really shines. I’m not even going to talk about quadrant 4.
Quadrant 1 is the tricky one. The Easter Island society collapsed because they were faced with a decision: do we allow everyone to cut down all the trees, or do we centrally manage it? Obviously they made the wrong decision, but the right decision would have required broad support, which is why it’s so difficult.
Apple beat the quadrant 1 decisions by rolling both authority and consensus into one charismatic (and knowledgeable) leader. People follow leaders who have a track record of delivering on their promises. Success is a positive spiral.
The idea that you can take committees and make them authoritative is misguided. On the other hand, we’ve seen our share of authority figures who’ve succeeded at the long road of building consensus around the right decisions. They are our political and cultural heroes.
All of this brings me to two conclusions:
First, unsurprisingly, is that we shouldn’t put big government bureaucracy in charge of quadrant 1 type decisions (and that’s a bit scary, because they certainly are in charge of those decisions now).
Second is that our system of government tends to promote leaders who are good consensus builders without promoting leaders who are likely to make the right decisions. I’m not saying it promotes leaders who are likely to make bad decisions; I’m just saying it’s neutral on the issue.
I’m not out to change the system of government, but I think a two-pronged offensive could make a dent: on one side our domain experts tend to live in a world where consensus building doesn’t matter because their community has the skill to recognize logical consistent arguments. Scientists simply publish their findings and wait for others to confirm or disprove them. Engineers test various design alternatives and measure their performance. Unfortunately this means our domain experts lack the soft skills necessary to convince us to do the right things. A marketing budget for these experts, perhaps paid for by some rational-minded philanthropists, could go a long way.
On the other side, the general public is hopelessly lacking in critical thinking skills. We live in a world where logic is first introduced as a university-level introductory philosophy class. It belongs in high school (along with some other suspiciously missing life-skills like food/nutrition and childcare).
Unfortunately the high school curriculum is decided on by… a committee.
So Canada wants to implement online voting. In case you didn’t already know why, here’s why you should be against it.
If you can cast your vote online from any computer, then you can do it with someone looking over your shoulder. That means you can sell your vote. That means employers can favour employees who actually voted a certain way. One of the best features of our current paper and pencil method is that you can’t sell your vote.
Realistically you *could* sell your vote right now using mail-in cards, but I’m against mail-in votes too, for this reason. At least in that case, you know most people don’t do it.
Easy to Manipulate
Lets assume for a moment that the servers that Elections Canada sets up don’t have any security flaws (unbelievable). At any rate, you still can’t trust the election results because a lot of peoples’ home computers are compromised by botnets. That means there’s malicious code running on millions of computers, and in most cases those computers are available for “rent” to the highest bidder. Once you’ve rented access on those computers, you can run any program you like.
Now, do you think a secure internet connection (using HTTPS) is really secure? In most cases the connection over the internet is secure (stops eavesdroppers), but if someone has access to your computer at home, they’re past the security. If they can run an arbitrary program on your computer, they can manipulate pretty much anything.
For example, lets say you wanted to make clicks for one candidate actually get counted for another. You can do that. It’s called ClickJacking.
That’s just one example. If you have access to the computer, you can recalibrate the mouse (or touchscreen on newer computers). You can capture, log, and report on the user’s keystrokes.
Analogy to Online Banking
People try to counter this argument with analogies to the security of online banking, but that’s flawed. People’s bank accounts do get hijacked using methods like these all the time. The bank account gets cleaned out, and usually the bank refunds the money to the consumer and the loss comes out of their profits. As long as fraud isn’t too high, they can tolerate this. In online elections, you wouldn’t know if your vote had been highjacked. We would just end up with a fraudulent election.
Don’t support online voting, and make sure to explain to everyone else why they shouldn’t support it either. The fact that “the head of the agency in charge of federal elections” thinks this is a good idea means Marc Mayrand obviously doesn’t understand the serious problems inherent in online voting.
Edit: Further reading.
Talking about voting machines on this blog might seem a little off-topic, but I’m always fascinated by how automation is always interconnected with the people using it. That’s why I think voting machines are fascinating: because people are as much a part of the system as the technology.
I was interested to watch David Bismark’s recent TED talk on “E-voting without fraud”:
The method he’s describing seems to be the same as in this IEEE article.
Now I’m not an expert in the election process, but there are some fundamental things we all understand. One of those fundamental elements is called the “Secret Ballot“. Canada and the US have both had a secret ballot since the late 1800’s. When the concept is introduced in school, we’re shown a picture of how people “used” to cast their votes, which was to stand up in front of everyone at the polling station and call out your choice. Off to the side of the picture, we always saw a gang of people ready to rough up the people who voted for the “wrong” candidate. Therefore, most of us grow up thinking that freedom from retribution is the one and only reason for a secret ballot, so everyone thinks, “as long as nobody can learn who I voted for, then I’m safe.”
That’s really only half the reason for a secret ballot. The other half of the reason is to prevent vote-selling. In order to sell your vote, you have to prove who you voted for. With a secret ballot, you can swear up and down that you voted for Candidate A, but there really is no way for even you to prove who you voted for. That’s a pretty remarkable property of our elections. That’s the reason that lots of places won’t allow you to take a camera or camera-equipped cell phone into the voting booth with you. If the system is working correctly, you shouldn’t be able to prove who you voted for. That means you’re really free to vote for the candidate you really want to win.
I would also like to point out that vote-selling isn’t always straightforward. Spouses (of both genders) sometimes exert extreme pressure over their significant others, and some might insist on seeing proof of who the other voted for. Likewise, while employers could get in hot water, I could easily imagine a situation where proving to your boss that you voted the way he wanted ended up earning you a raise or a promotion over someone who didn’t. All of these pseudo-vote-selling practices always favour the societal group that has a lot of power at the moment, which is why it’s important for our freedoms to limit their influence.
That Means NO Voting Receipts
If you want to design a system that prevents vote-selling, you can’t allow the voter to leave the polling station with any evidence that can be used to prove who they voted for. (The system presented above allows you to leave with a receipt, but they claim it can’t be used to prove who you voted for.)
With this in mind, isn’t it amazing how well our voting system works right now? You mark your ballot in secret, then you fold up the paper, walk out from the booth in plain public view, and you put your single vote into the ballot box with everyone else’s. Once it’s in that box and that box is full of many votes, it’s practically impossible to determine who cast which vote, but if we enforce proper handling of the ballot box, we can all trust that all of the votes were counted.
We Want to Destroy Some Information and Keep Other Information
In order for the system to work correctly, we need to effectively destroy the link between voter and vote, but reliably hang on to the actual vote and make sure it gets counted.
Anyone who has done a lot of work with managing data in computers probably starts to get nervous at that point. In most computer systems, the only way we can really trust our data is to add things like redundancy and audit logs, all of it in separate systems. That means there’s a lot of copying going on, and it’s very easy to share the information that you’re trying to destroy. Once you’ve shared it, what if the other side mishandles it? Trust me, it’s a difficult problem. It’s even more complicated when you realize that even if the voting software was open source, you really can’t prove that a machine hasn’t been tampered with.
The method describe above offers a different approach:
- With the receipt you get, you can prove that it is included in the “posted votes”
- You can prove that the list of “tally votes” corresponds to the list of “posted votes” (so yours is in there somewhere)
- You can’t determine which tally vote corresponds to which posted vote
ATMs and Voting Machines are Two Different Ballgames
One of the things you often hear from voting machine proponents, or just common people who haven’t thought about it much, is that we’ve been using “similar” machines for years that take care of our money (ATMs) and they can obviously be designed securely enough. Certainly if we have security that’s good enough for banks, it ought to be good enough for voting machines, right?
This is a very big fallacy. The only reason you trust an ATM is because every time there’s a bank transaction, it’s always between at least two parties, and each party keeps their own trail of evidence. When you deposit your paycheque into the ATM, you have a pay stub, plus the receipt that the ATM prints out that you can take home with you. On top of that, your employer has a record that they issued you that cheque, and there will be a corresponding record in their bank account statement showing that the money was deducted. If the ATM doesn’t do its job, there are lots of records elsewhere held by third parties that prove that it’s wrong. An ATM is a “black box”, but it has verifiable inputs and outputs.
The system above attempts to make the inputs and outputs of the voting system verifiable.
Another Workable E-voting System
The unfortunate thing about the proposed system, above, is that it’s rather complicated. If you read the PDF I linked to, you need a couple of Ph.D. dissertations under your belt before you can make it through. I don’t like to criticize without offering a workable alternative, so here goes:
If you want to make a secret ballot voting system that’s resistant to fraud, you absolutely need to record the information on a physical record. If you want to make it trustworthy, the storage medium needs to be human readable. Paper always has been, and continues to be, a great medium for storing human readable information in a trustworthy and secure way. There are ways to store data securely electronically, but at the moment it requires you to understand a lot of advanced mathematical concepts, so it’s better if we stick with a storage medium that everyone understands and trusts. In this system we will stick with paper ballots. They need to go into a box, in public view, and they need to be handled correctly.
Standardized Human and Machine Readable Ballots
Some standards organization needs to come up with an international standard for paper ballots. This standard needs to include both human and machine readable copies of the data. I suggest using some kind of 2D barcode technology to store the machine readable information in the upper right corner. Importantly: the human readable and machine readable portions should contain precisely the same information.
Please realize I’m not talking about standardized ballots that people then fill out with a pencil. I’m talking about paper ballots that are generated by a voting machine after the voter selects their choice using the machine. The voter gets to see their generated paper ballot and can verify the human readable portion of it before they put it into the ballot box.
Voting Machines vs. Vote Tallying Machines
Now that we have a standardized ballot, the election agencies are free to purchase machines from any vendor, as long as they comply with the standard. There will actually be two types of machines: voting machines that actually let the voter generate a ballot, and vote tallying machines that can process printed ballots quickly by using the machine readable information on each ballot.
One of the goals of e-voting is to be able to produce a preliminary result as soon as voting has completed. Nothing says that the Voting Machines can’t keep a tally of votes, and upload those preliminary results to a central station when the election is complete. However, the “real” votes are the ones on paper in the ballot boxes.
Shortly after the election, the ballot boxes need to be properly transported to a vote tallying facility where they can be counted using the vote tallying machines, to verify the result.
Checks and Balances
Part of the verification process should be to take a random sample of ballot boxes and count them manually, using the human readable information, and compare that with the results from the vote tallying machine. This must be a public process. If a discrepancy is found, you can easily determine if it was the voting machine or the vote tallying machine that was wrong. Assuming the ballots were visually inspected by the voters, then we can assume that the human readable portion is correct. If the machine readable information doesn’t match the human readable information, then the voting machine is fraudulent or tampered with. If the machine and human readable information match, then the vote tallying machine is fraudulent or tampered with.
If one company supplied both the voting machines and the vote tallying machines, then it would be a little bit easier to commit fraud, because if they both disagreed in the same way, it might not be caught. That’s why it’s important that the machines are sourced from different independent vendors.
No Silver Bullet
Notice that none of the current or proposed solutions are successfully resistant to someone taking some kind of recording equipment like a camera or a cell phone with camera into the voting booth with them. We still need some way to deal with this.