So What Is the Problem with Vote-by-mail and Vote-by-Internet?

I've been reflex-sharing some BassHook posts calling for opposition to the spread of vote-by-mail. Several people whose opinions I respect have called me on it. So I'm going to resort to the first solution of the pedant and try to explain.

(But I'm going to listen to myself, and see how much of the explanation makes sense.)

[JMR202005171402: I have now written a bit more succinctly on this topic in another place: https://free-is-not-free.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-inconvenience-of-voting-and.html. You might want to read that before, or instead of, this.]

Good explanations need backgrounds, so I'll give links to as much of the background in my thinking as I can. )These blogposts are about current problems in balloting systems and some suggestions I have considered for solutions to those problems):

• Some of what I think voting means:
  https://free-is-not-free.blogspot.com/2016/10/why-vote-what-does-vote-mean.html
• More of the same from a different point of view:
  https://joel-for-president.blogspot.com/2016/09/why-vote-what-does-vote-mean.html
• Still more, from yet another point of view:
  https://free-is-not-free.blogspot.com/2016/09/make-your-vote-meaningful-vote-for.html
• A different way of looking at the electoral college:
  https://joel-for-president.blogspot.com/2016/12/elector.html
• A kind of a different point of view on what constitutes vote fraud:
  https://joel-for-president.blogspot.com/2020/01/revisiting-vote-voter-fraud.html 
• Some brainstorming on possible ways to fix the electoral processes in the US:
  https://joel-for-president.blogspot.com/2016/11/an-awkward-proposal-for-amendment-to.html

For more background on my thinking, I offer this: I divide political systems called democratic into three rough classes, which nowhere near completely cover them all, but I think it is an instructive partition:

• Mob rule
• Popularity contest
• Free society

Under mob rule democracy, you generally have a small number of small groups of people who manipulate the will and actions of the people, getting them to choose and behave in ways in which they would not when they are of a sober state of mind.

Under popularity contest democracy, you generally have a small number of small, partially hidden groups of people who put figureheads out and use them to manipulate the opinions and dialogue of the people, getting them to think and talk in ways in which they would not when they are in a sober state of mind.

By contrast, a truely free society is one in which the people in general deliberately refrain from both manipulating and being manipulated.

And if I describe them as being of a sober state of mind, I do not mean that they do not know how to enjoy life or enjoy themselves. Nor do I mean that they have no compassion.

Separating oneself from any state of happiness is not a sober state of mind. Free people understand that a part of the responsibility of freedom is to find thei principle source of joy from within -- otherwise, they leave themselves too open to manipulation.

And the compassion that free people are moved by is all the more real because the compassion is not forced.

But that borders on mysticism.

In an ideal society, from our point of view, it's questionable whether voting systems are even necessary. But if they are, it would seem that any voting system at all should work. In such a society, we think that there are none who want to take people's freedoms away from them -- for whatever reason people decide to try to do that.

In this world, in the various social divisions of the various countries, there are movements to undermine the freedoms of the people. Why? Who knows why some people are dissatisfied when others behave in ways that vary from their own? But it is common self-delusion, to accept a glorious misery as a substitute for internal happiness, because the internal happiness is blocked by controvertion of conscience. And then to work to help others to enjoy the same glorious misery, by getting them to deny their own consciences, as well.

If that feels like I'm poisoning the well, no. That well is already full of poison, I'm just pointing it out.

You cannot be free if you deny your own conscience, any more than you can be free as long as you let society impose the social norm as a substitute for your conscience. Or, rather, letting society dictate what you believe your conscience should be telling you is one very common (and very destructive) way to deny your conscience.

Social norms and standards are no decent substitute for conscience.

Anyway, it is a fact that there are and shall always be, in any group larger than two, some faction that works to undermine freedom.

How do we define a free country, and a free government?

The government of a free country is not a government that is free in some sense, nor is it a government that attempts to force its people to be free.

It  is a government that operates to support the people in their freedom. In order to do so, it must be responsible to the voice of the people.

There is a certain class of political persuasion that insists the voice of the people will always go wrong. There must, in this way of thinking, be a leader to lead the people in the right direction.

History gives us plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary. In every case, when some small faction gains control, if it insists on keeping control, everything quickly goes south.

(This is in addition to the theoretical demonstration I have given above.)

I mentioned it in one of the blogposts linked above, but there is a verse in the Book of Mormon that is one of my favorites:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; (from Mosiah 29: 26.)

It does not say that the voice of the people will or even should always choose the perfect or best option. It only says that the voice of the people usually chooses good options over bad.

I can demonstrate theoretical basis for this proposition, by setting up an integral over the functions of conscience, but I'll leave it to you to work out for yourself whether a group of people who are free can follow their consciences and still come to a useful, positive, good consensus.

Polling systems in every country have problems.

Mechanically assisted polling systems are plagued by failure in the mechanism. One very prominent such failure is known as "hanging chads". But all mechanical systems suffer from the potential to fail.

Electronic (including digital and even internet) polling has several additional weaknesses in addition to the potential of simple failure. Failures in electronic polling systems tend to be silent and invisible. Hanging chads tend to be visible. Failed levers and pulleys tend to be noticed. Failed or breached network interfaces are often entirely unnoticed.

Unnoticed failures in systems are the ones which poison the system, and this is the danger in both internet balloting and mail-in balloting, that failures can go unnoticed long enough to undermine the system beyond repair.

These are actually specific examples of an axiom which has no known counterexample in (mortal) human society:

Every system has vulnerabilities and failure modes.

Those who study systems science are fully aware of this, even though it is often viewed as unprofitable to admit. (Microsoft and now Google are prominent among those large companies which attempt to practice systems science without recognizing the inherent vulnerability of systems, although Microsoft once was quite happy to use the exact same inherent vulnerability as its excuse for following the "80/20 rule".)

This brings us to an axiom in polling, that the must dependable polling system can be nothing but the simplest.

These are the essential characteristics of the most dependable polling systems known:

1. Written ballot -- leaves a physical, visible record, readable by the unaided eye, that can be recounted.
2. Separable ballot -- serial numbers for counting unused ballots on one half, no identifying characteristic on the other. Both halves are kept in separate boxes after use. Matching counts helps assure that ballots have not been lost or added.
3. Voting judges from at least the leading contending parties present on voting site -- in theory, at least, competition between parties will keep them from colluding to pervert the balloting processes. 

In addition to the above characteristics of the system itself, the following features of the system context are also required, to support the system:

1. Visibility of the process is necessary, to give the voter confidence in both the ballot and the results, leading to a greater willingness to vote according to conscience and a greater motivation to vote again the next time.
2. Rules for the cases of no clear winner are necessary -- both for breaking ties and for determining when the consensus is none of the provided candidates (partially explained below).
3. Exceptional voting methods must be provided for exceptional cases (also partially explained below.

Internet voting removes all three of the system characteristics and the first of the context characteristics, although, if-and-only-if there is no failure, cryptographic techniques and cryptology can be used to create electronic equivalents.

The problem with any electronic voting method is that it requires some aid to the eye to read the ballot, and the aid can be deliberately broken in such a way that it shows a false image. Yes, there have been such incidences in real-world electronic voting machines, not just as proof-of-concept, but as actual attacks on the system.

Remember, the worst cases are those in which the attacks succeed without notice.

The problem with mail-in ballots is that it keeps only the first system characteristic above, when-and-only-when the mail system itself is properly functioning.

No, the mail does not always go through. You know that as well as I do.

The ballot travels through the mails, which are known to be vulnerable. There is no way to provide voting judges when the ballot is used, although voting judges can be provided when the ballot is officially opened.

How many times the ballot is unofficially opened is a problem. Certain printing and sealing techniques exist to partially ameliorate the problem of unofficial opening, but resealing is possible. And resealing failures can simply be discarded by the attackers in the middle, the same as ballots from an area known to the middleman to be part of the competing party's stronghold.

So, what are we to do for those who are disenfranchised by the simplest system?

There are many people who, for various reasons beyond their control, are unable to make it to the polls when they are open on election/polling day.

First, employers really should be willing to support the infrastructure of the market their business exists in by releasing their employees, both to vote and to act as voting judges. This should be a no-brainer, but, in fact, it is not common -- and you end up with disenfranchising rush-hour jams just before the polls close.

Second, polls really should be open more than from 8:00 AM to 6/7/8/9:00 PM. I know it's hard to get judges for the early and late hours.

But I suspect that fines levied against employers who fail to release their employees to vote or to be voting judges would do a lot to alleviate both these problems.

I hear about mandatory voting, but I suspect that mandating votes will eventually mandate two extreme reactions -- rebellion against the system and blind conformance, neither of which lead to sober choices at the polls. Participation ultimately must be at the individual's choice, but there may be good reason to use various means to induce employers to release their employees to vote.

Third, although this is where things get a little wonky, especially for people with bipolar personalities, extraordinary voting methods should be provided for those who can't make it to the polls (as I mentioned above).

Ergo, absentee ballots and electronic voting machines for those who really need them, but only for those who really need them.

And they both should be used in the presence of voting judges from at least the leading parties.

Ergo, polls should be set up for members of the military to vote on location, and the times should be extended long enough in advance of and after the voting/polling day to allow all who have to be away on assignment to vote.

Similar polling arrangements should be made for emergency workers and others for whom the question of the employer is not sufficient.

For those for whom showing up in person is too much of a hardship, such as those living in elder-care or health-care facilities, the polls should be brought to the facility, complete with voting judges from the leading contending parties. In this particular case, electronic voting machines can be used, as a better choice than to disenfranchise those who need assistance. But the electronic voting machines still must produce a paper ballot, not an electronic ballot, separable, and anonymized.

Mail-in absentee ballots can be provided for those for whom bringing the polling place to the voter won't work. Again, they must be separable ballots, and they should be opened in the presence of judges from the leading contending parties.

How does this avoid invalidating the result?

These approaches depend on one more adjustment:

When election/polling results are not statistically significant, the election should be done over. I won't dig into details here, but, mathematically speaking, when the top ballots are within 2 to 5% of each other, the result is essentially indistinguishable from a tie, and therefore there should be a run-off.

Along with this adjustment, there also needs to be a none-of-the-above option in every ballot. A hundred years ago, holding an election was difficult enough that trying to deal with a none-of-the-above option was out of the question. In these modern times, we can communicate quickly enough to start a ballot fresh when none-of-the-above wins.

The number of exceptional cases where voters need to send absentee ballots in by mail should never exceed 1% of the number of voters, so perverting the absentee ballot process really should never have substantial effect on the total outcome.

If we handle the rest of it right, we can handle the exceptions.

And now it's time for me to go to bed, so I'll have to finish later (about how all systems fail, and how electronic voting machines must not communicate or track their results, etc.). Have a good night.