Franchise

“Franchise” is a short story by Isaac Asimov. This is an appropriate short story for this year, even though it was published in 1955.

From the Wiki site: The story centers around Norman Muller, the man chosen as “Voter of the Year” in 2008. At first he is not sure he wants the responsibility of representing the entire electorate, worrying that the result will be unfavorable and he will be blamed. However, after voting he is very proud that the citizens of the United States had, through him, “exercised once again their free, untrammeled franchise” - a statement that is somewhat ironic as the citizens didn’t actually get to vote.

Since the story takes place in 2008, and computers are involved in today’s election process in many ways (polls, voting, fund raising, [dis]information dissemination, mailing lists, web sites, and so on), and that we have an important presidential election on the horizon, I thought that this would be a good story to re-read, or read for the first time if you’ve never seen it.

How would you like to be Norman Muller? How would you look at your responsibility in such a situation? Do you think we would ever move toward such a system? You might imagine Fidel Castro saying, “Story? Fiction? This is almost how we do it in my country!”

Elections and Mathematics

If you’re interested in elections and mathematics, you need to read this book. If you wonder about the practical applications of math to “real life”, you need to read this book. If you’re a politician who ignores math in solving social problems, you need to read this book. If you’re just curious about some things, you should read this book.

“What is the book?”, you ask. The book is For all practical purposes : mathematical literacy in today’s world found in my local library.

There are several chapters related to voting and apportionment. (There are many chapters unrelated to voting, but all relating to mathematics and the “real world”, such as management, statistics, computers, size and shape, etc. The subtitle for the book is “Mathematical Literacy in Today’s World.)

This particular edition is an update of the 1987 edition. A new chapter on “Electing the President” has been added. Other chapters have been revised. There is a lot of online material available through the publisher, consisting of exercises, answers, and various Java applets, video clips, and probably more. There was a video series based on the original book which was shown on TV. My library does not have the videos, but clips are supposed to be available online. The ones about voting and apportionment are easy to follow, and show mathematical difficulties with various systems.

If you were going to develop a system of voting, what would you require? You might want fair and equitable. You might want one that isn’t easily manipulable mathematically. What properties would you want in a voting system? And what systems satisfy those properties?

All voting systems have difficulties, especially those in which there are more than two candidates, or in which more than one person/idea will be chosen in a given category.

Read about the Condorcet Winner Criterion, Plurality Voting, manipulability, Borda Count, the Hare System and Monotonicity, Approval Voting (voting for several in order to choose one), Arrow’s impossibility theorem (any voting system can give undesirable outcomes, even if you’re not Al Gore), May’s theorem, Pareto conditions, Sincere voting, Weighted Voting systems, Banzhaf Power Index, other indexes of a voter’s power, and so on.

Voting is more complicated than an “X” in a box or a purple finger.

What about choosing the number of representatives that a group (say a state) gets? Not so easy there, either. Fair division (say cutting a cake) and apportionment are difficult areas. Various apportionments systems have pros and cons. Some elections have been swayed because of this. Is it fair how many representatives a state gets? What do you do with a fractional representative? What does “fair” mean? Read how Hamilton, Jefferson, Webster, and others have approached apportionment. During the primary season, is it “fair” that the winner of a state gets all the delegates? Should they be divided according to how well a candidate does?

Caution: I was disappointed with the chapter on “Electing the President”. Not the math part, but the bias. If this weren’t a new chapter, I’d recommend the previous edition of the book. The chapter “Social Choice: The Impossible Dream” starts with a picture of Al Gore, not George W. Bush. Gore’s picture on the next page is bigger than Bush’s. Not a big deal, but a bias, I think. The 2000 election did have difficulties, but mostly not mathematical. The section “Is There a Better Way to Elect a President?” asks a legitimate question. No voting system is perfect, but maybe there is a method that would satisfy more people (but would still have to be “easy” to implement in a nation of 300 million people.) A comment in that section says that mathematics may show possible reforms “that may ameliorate some of the problems that plague our current system.” I thought “plague” is too strong. There are lots of things that could be done before changing the current system of voting.

In short, this is an informative book with sections on voting and apportionment. Something like this should be required reading in Civics classes, and should be known in a general way to more voters. Being an informed voter may mean more than knowing the candidates’ positions.

Electronic Voting Machines: Iowa says “No!”

Earlier I wrote against electronic voting machines.

Then this past Saturday, I read that Chet Culver, Iowa’s governor, has agreed to go with paper ballots and have the state stop using electronic voting machines. The heading says that Mr. Culver is “willing” to do this, but it isn’t his first choice.

Part of this has to do with Iowa law which requires a voter-verified paper trail . Paper ballots clearly satisfy that requirement.

Now the discussion will be how to furnish every Iowa voting location with the same voting equipment. These would no doubt be fill-in-the-oval optical scanning machines. And money will be an issue, too.

Touch-screen machines are “not the best options, and I’d like to try to avoid it if we can,” Culver said.

Electronic Voting Machines: Just say “No!”

Electronic voting machines have been introduced into various communities over the past few years. They are not without trouble or controversy. As the 2008 U.S. Presidential election draws closer, the use of these machines will receive closer scrutiny. Many people, justifiably, are concerned about vote fraud and otherwise troubled elections. Among the top concerns is the availability of an audit trail and voting records that can be used in a contested election.

Elections have been rigged and tampered with for decades. Electronic voting machines can make this less obvious, and can complicate the process they were designed to simplify.

My experience with software leads me to be highly suspicious of voting machines and the effects they can have on an election. Yes, we depend on computers for a lot of vital and safety-critical applications, such as airplanes, medical instrumentation, military operations, and railroad transportation. But voting machines have not been developed as a safety-critical system, and have not been testing to same the level of criticality as many of these other applications.

There are things that can be done with paper ballots to reduce election rigging. A big “X” on a ballot (with a verifiable receipt) and a purple finger are some low-tech things that can be used to enhance our confidence in elections.

Among article to read are “Electronic Voting” by Rebecca Mercuri, “A Paper Trail for Voting Machines” by William Poundstone, and the RISKS Digest which can be searched for related information. Some of the top names in cryptography and electronic commerce have been involved since some of the same concepts and concerns overlap with electronic voting.

There isn’t enough room here to discuss all the issues, but I’d urge you to investigate and become more familiar with this topic. My advice is to say “No!”, at least until these applications receive the scrutiny and high level of safety-critical development that they require. Our representative democracy deserves it.

UPDATE: It appears that electronic voting machines aren’t even as easy to use as they should be. Possible electronic “chads”? Read the posting “Voting Machine Usability Testing” for some insight into problems just using the machines for voting, not even considering security, etc.