Clarification needed on electronic voting

[Drake Savory]

I had always thought that electronic voting needed to be authorized by the bylaws but p 419 would seem to imply that electronic voting through voting machines would be allowed without specific reference in the bylaws.  Imagine this:  a member logs in with a one-time use code given when they sign in* and on one of a dozen laptops fills out their ballot.  Would this be allowed if not approved in the bylaws?  Also, I imagine that a space would need to be allowed for a write-in vote since write-ins are not disallowed in the bylaws.

 

 

Assume the method of distributing the code ensures secrecy.

[Shmuel Gerber]

2 hours ago, Drake Savory said:

I had always thought that electronic voting needed to be authorized by the bylaws but p 419 would seem to imply that electronic voting through voting machines would be allowed without specific reference in the bylaws.  Imagine this:  a member logs in with a one-time use code given when they sign in* and on one of a dozen laptops fills out their ballot.  Would this be allowed if not approved in the bylaws?  Also, I imagine that a space would need to be allowed for a write-in vote since write-ins are not disallowed in the bylaws.

 

 

Assume the method of distributing the code ensures secrecy.

I don't see any problem with voting by this method if authorized by a special rule of order or a convention standing rule, but it is not clear that it would fulfill a requirement in the bylaws that a vote be taken by ballot.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Drake Savory said:

I had always thought that electronic voting needed to be authorized by the bylaws but p 419 would seem to imply that electronic voting through voting machines would be allowed without specific reference in the bylaws.  Imagine this:  a member logs in with a one-time use code given when they sign in* and on one of a dozen laptops fills out their ballot.  Would this be allowed if not approved in the bylaws?  Also, I imagine that a space would need to be allowed for a write-in vote since write-ins are not disallowed in the bylaws.

Assume the method of distributing the code ensures secrecy.

RONR does not say that any electronic voting must be authorized in the bylaws. Absentee voting (including forms of absentee voting by electronic means), or electronic meetings, are prohibited unless authorized in the bylaws. A means of voting in which persons who are physically present cast their votes by electronic means is a different matter.

“Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined on pages 81–82, a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 91)

“It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 423)

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't see any problem with voting by this method if authorized by a special rule of order or a convention standing rule, but it is not clear that it would fulfill a requirement in the bylaws that a vote be taken by ballot.

Could you explain why you feel “it is not clear that it would fulfill a requirement in the bylaws that a vote be taken by ballot”? We are told that the system is designed in a manner which ensures the secrecy of each vote, and which permits each voter to vote for the candidate(s) of his choice, including write-in votes. Is this not sufficient?

[Shmuel Gerber]

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Could you explain why you feel “it is not clear that it would fulfill a requirement in the bylaws that a vote be taken by ballot”? We are told that the system is designed in a manner which ensures the secrecy of each vote, and which permits each voter to vote for the candidate(s) of his choice, including write-in votes. Is this not sufficient?

RONR defines ballots as "slips of paper on which the voter marks his vote" (p. 412, ll. 13-14). A machine is not the same as slips of paper in many respects, including things such as verification of the totals and recounts, and even in terms of confidence that a member's vote has been accepted.

Edited May 7, 2019 at 10:11 PM by Shmuel Gerber

[Joshua Katz]

What if they use the blockchain, which gives greater confidence that a vote has been accepted and counted correctly, and simplifies verification of the totals and recounts?

[Shmuel Gerber]

18 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

What if they use the blockchain, which gives greater confidence that a vote has been accepted and counted correctly, and simplifies verification of the totals and recounts?

Are you saying that blockchain voting technology is so advanced, it could be mistaken for slips of paper? 

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Shmuel Gerber said:

Are you saying that blockchain voting technology is so advanced, it could be mistaken for slips of paper? 

In my experience, it won't be mistaken for it anytime soon, given the time delays, but yes.

[Gary Novosielski]

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

We are told that the system is designed in a manner which ensures the secrecy of each vote, and which permits each voter to vote for the candidate(s) of his choice, including write-in votes. Is this not sufficient?

We are similarly told that voting machines used in public elections also ensure secrecy and reliability, yet a number of states are (wisely, in my view) insisting on a paper trail for ballots, to ensure that the results are fully auditable.

[Richard Brown]

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

We are similarly told that voting machines used in public elections also ensure secrecy and reliability, yet a number of states are (wisely, in my view) insisting on a paper trail for ballots, to ensure that the results are fully auditable.

That very paper trail, however, can serve to defeat the secrecy of the ballot.

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Gerber put the kibosh on electronic voting systems that do not require a paper ballot. However, many electronic voting systems that require a paper ballot do exist. In this case, the voter marks his ballot and inserts it into a programmable machine for the purposes of counting, auditing, and secure custody. These kinds of systems meet the paper ballot requirement, so they can be used with the secret ballot method of voting.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/8/2019 at 3:52 AM, Richard Brown said:

That very paper trail, however, can serve to defeat the secrecy of the ballot.

If properly designed, it would not be possible to identify the voter of any given ballot.  But it would be possible to do an actual recount of ballots, not simply reprint the readout of totals from a computerized machine.

[J. J.]

On 5/7/2019 at 6:10 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

RONR defines ballots as "slips of paper on which the voter marks his vote" (p. 412, ll. 13-14). A machine is not the same as slips of paper in many respects, including things such as verification of the totals and recounts, and even in terms of confidence that a member's vote has been accepted.

Voting by white and black ball is permitted, by the footnote on p. 412 .  Those are not slips of paper. 

[Richard Brown]

9 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

If properly designed, it would not be possible to identify the voter of any given ballot.  But it would be possible to do an actual recount of ballots, not simply reprint the readout of totals from a computerized machine.

The key being "if properly designed". Here in Louisiana the state is about to purchase new voting machines for the entire State. One proposal was to give each voter a printout of his votes for verification purposes. That is a terrible idea because it opens the door to voter fraud. It makes it possible for voters to be paid to vote a certain way and they receive payment when they leave the polling place and show the guy with the money sack that they voted the way they were instructed to vote.

Edited May 10, 2019 at 12:56 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Benjamin Geiger]

On 5/8/2019 at 4:45 AM, reelsman said:

In this case, the voter marks his ballot and inserts it into a programmable machine for the purposes of counting, auditing, and secure custody. These kinds of systems meet the paper ballot requirement, so they can be used with the secret ballot method of voting.

My county (in Florida) does this. Our county Supervisor of Elections also performs random hand-recounts in order to ensure the accuracy of the electronic vote. (I'd prefer that the actual result be hand-counted in its entirety, but...)

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

One proposal was to give each voter a printout of his votes for verification purposes.

Another is to have the voting machine print out the actual ballot, which then gets put into the ballot box, but in the words of Tom Scott: "Congratulations, you've just invented the world's most expensive pencil."

Most of his concerns aren't necessarily applicable at the scale of an ordinary society, granted. But they're worth hearing and considering anyway, because some of them are.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

The key being "if properly designed". Here in Louisiana the state is about to purchase new voting machines for the entire State. One proposal was to give each voter a printout of his votes for verification purposes. That is a terrible idea because it opens the door to voter fraud. It makes it possible for voters to be paid to vote a certain way and they receive payment when they leave the polling place and show the guy with the money sack that they voted the way they were instructed to vote.

I strongly agree that no voter should be provided with any durable proof of how he voted, primarily for the reason you mentioned.  He is free to tell people how he voted but should be unable to prove it.