1) Paper, optical scan ballots (bubble filling)

2) A machine in the booth to do the reading and counting with a step that shows the voter how it read their ballot and a big "confirm" button they press to count the vote and drop the ballot into the secured bin.

3) Pick X percent of the machines and manually verify their results. Any machine that votes significantly outside the bell curve should also be manually verified.

This gives "instant" counting to support the unwritten requirement that our elections return results on the night of voting so we can treat them like big sporting events, but also leaves the canonical vote outside of the machines where it can be used to verify the machine vote.

FYI: Of the 1600 residents, 720 had voted by 10am.

Using a computer system is not very compatible with the basic principles of voting:

* Each person gets one vote, and only one vote * It must be impossible to figure out what some specific person voted for

Computers are good for the first part, given infrastructure to support it (provide each person with a way to identify themselves to the computer - smart card and biometrics maybe). They suck at the second part, though.

In Sweden we have a simple system: paper slips with party names printed (or written) on them. You select someone to vote for, put your paper slip in an envelope and drop that in a box after someone checks your identity and ticks you off in a list of voters.

After everyone has voted, the box is emptied, the envelopes are opened (checking that each one contains a single vote) and the slips are counted manually. Results are reported to the voting comission (or whatever they're called) who sum the votes and then it's all done. We have the results a few hours after voting is finished.

In the US the same system should work well, I don't really understand what the whole voting machine thing is good for. It's not like there's an election every two weeks, computerized voting machines will probably be used maybe two times in their lifetime. A waste of resources!

I believe one of the aspects that makes it different in the US is that on election day, there isn't only one thing to vote for. There's the President, a Senator, a Congressman, a Judge, local public transports directors, etc. and a bunch of propositions. And that's different from one county to the next, from one state to the other.

I suppose that's part of what made it interesting to look into computerized voting machines.

To make sure nobody takes puts e.g. national slips in all three envelopes there's a small cutout at the edge of the envelope that shows the color of the slip inside without revealing the vote.

Or you could look at land size. Sweden's size: 449,964 km2 or 173,732sq mi. United States size: 9,826,630 km² or 3,794,066 sq mi. Have to transmit the data somehow - its not like you can drive the ballots across the US to one central point in under a few hours. So why not do it one at a time as they're cast electronically? Assuming it's done properly at least.

"Why not do it electronically, assuming it's done properly": that's just the problem - it can't be done properly.

Edit: there are systems that can provably work, tally votes in encrypted form, and provide a reasonable audit trail all while maintaining privacy. Unfortunately the contracts for voting machines don't seem to be awarded based on technical merit -- which, ironically, is entirely a function of who we voted for in the past.

There is no perfect 'voting machine'. Quite often bins of votes mailed in are found after the election.

We should stick with the old school machines. (except in florida) At least there is a paper trail and it would have to involve more 'old fashioned' corruption, which is something we are at least a little more capable of protecting against. Every election we have had this same old problem, not touch screen calibration issues (seriously!?!).

We might need more if the country is actually going to start voting again! (super good problem to have!)

But if we must go hi-tech, let's just send everyone a magic ATM card and use those machines. At least it's moderately old technology and infrastructure.

The voter receives a ballot from those managing their place of voting (after showing identification or a registration card of some sort), has their name physically crossed off a printed list and then, after moving behind a screen or other mechanism to allow for privacy, places an 'x' in the box beside the name of the individual they are voting for. The voter then folds the ballot and places it anonymously into a box used to collect the votes for their district. A ‘ballot box’, if you will.

Once the polls close, volunteers for the place of voting manually count the paper ballots for the individuals running for office and report the count to a central election office. This manual count rarely takes more than an hour or so to complete.

Simple enough? Votes remain anonymous, the paper ballots create a permanent audit trail and, as long as the ballot boxes are supervised by reliable third-parties minimally affiliated with those running for office, the voter will be assured their vote is counted towards their intended result.

This is how most of the developed world handles elections. It saves us a ton of trouble in close races.

"Premature optimization is the root of all evil -- Donald Knuth"

There are some things which should not be optimized. An extremely important, easily manipulated event prone to corruption which occurs once every few years (and only takes two hours to complete manually) might be considered one of them.

I think an optical scan paper ballet works for most people. You should be able to scan it at the booth to verify it's valid then validate it when it goes into the box to be counted. You can use a computer system for people with disability's that would make using a paper system difficult.

Add in video monitoring of each polling place and an on the spot tally per thousand voters and I think it would be hard to significantly alter the election.

Plus a fine for any area who's average wait time is over 15 minutes. (We had 12 machines and it took over an hour and a half to get their this morning, bump the machine count to to 25 and I doubt a line would have formed.) The economic cost of 40 million people waiting an hour easily covers the cost of buying a few machines.

PS: I think the goal should be ~99.98% accuracy if an election is close enough that 1 person in 10,000 is going to change the election then it's close enough that a random coin flip would be a reasonable way to decide things.

1. Everyone votes online. (Computers could be set up in voting centers for folks without computer.) Codes are sent via snail mail. That one-time code allows a person to log in and vote. (An issue would be protecting the voter from anyone knowing his choices.)

2. Because everyone votes online, the focus will be the fleet of back-end servers processing the requests. The hardware and software will be open sourced. On hand at the data center will be neutral parties monitoring the software and equipment and could include representatives from both parties and some independent verification teams.

3. As data enters the system, it will be available for everyone to observe. APIs will be available for programmers to create real-time information on the election. It might be used to detect fraud.

I'm not attempting to influence your vote nor encouraging discussion on this specific candidate's merits -- just wanted to throw out there that in many cases today is also your day to vote your position on issues of this type as well.

Scantegrity is an open source election verification technology for optical scan voting systems. It uses privacy preserving confirmation numbers to allow each voter to verify her vote is counted. The confirmation numbers also allow anyone to verify that all the votes were counted correcly.

I have been paying attention to the 'off the hook' radio show (download the mp3's from 2600.com) where voting machines are something frequently discussed along with their various failings. In one of the very recent shows (last week or the week before, I'm not sure) they had a discussion where everyone present was asked which system they thought was best - the general consensus was that eyeball scanning (or whatever the proper name for it is) was the best technical means of authenticating a voter and their vote. Sticking to paper ballots on the basis that technology can't be trusted was also popular.

  President/VP: vote for 1 of 6 listed choices
  US Rep: 1 of 4
  State Senator: 1 of 2
  State Assembly: 1 of 2
  County Superior Court Judge: 1 of 2
  City Board of Education: 4 of 15
  Local Community College Board: 4 of 9
  BART (commuter trains) Director: 1 of 2
  12 yes/no State Propositions
  22 yes/no City Propositions
  City Supervisor (Councilman): preference rank 3 of 3
 

(If my math is correct, and not even counting the option to abstain/undervote, that's asking me to express almost 63 bits of preferences -- and more bits are allocated to the less-important issues.)

I would propose a 'complexity budget' on any election's ballot, limiting it to one page or no more than some small number N of decisions.

What to do with all the overflow items? Kick them to an 'electoral jury'. a few hundred people randomly selected from all voters, who would know weeks in advance of their status, and get to meet and discuss all issues in detail. (Perhaps, as another way to improve the attentiveness/quality of this pool, compensate service or let those selected without the time/interest to participate nominate their own proxy on the jury.)

Then, instead of a system that almost seems designed to confuse and discourage attentive voters, you'd have broad voting on the few major issues, and statistically representative but highly focused voting on the minutiae.

i think by far the best thing you can do is pay smart people lots of money as a bounty on finding exploits. or publicly recognize their achievement (because sometimes it's not about the money)

you will eventually have a product that is hard enough to hack that it's not worth the effort (but never completely unhackable)