One of the few things that I’m really excited about in my life right now is a course I’m going to be teaching this summer (May-June). I know, you’re probably saying that if I have to look ahead to May for things that I’m excited about then my life is really sad. And maybe it is. So shut up.
Anyhow.
Officially, the course is in “finite mathematics”; it’s purpose is to fulfill the requirement that all students must take a math course, while recognising that for some students algebra, calculus and all of those good things are unwelcome, impractical, and sometimes inimical. A consequence of this is that it’s generally the only math course these students will take at my Urban Commuter Campus, and so there’s no strict list of things that must be taught. There’s a standard textbook, but the book in question sort of wanders all over the map and so doesn’t really restrict the instructor’s freedom — my freedom — in selecting topics.
So I’m turning it into a course about mathematics and politics. The timing’s perfect, it being an election year and all. I can talk about statistics and how to read them; I can talk about voting systems, their various strengths and drawbacks; I can talk about fair division and apportionment and measures of political power. And all of it’s accessible with only a small amount of mathematics background.
One topic I’m debating introducing is the debate surrounding electronic voting machines. I’m a bit leery not because it’s a controversial area; from the technical standpoint, there’s nothing controversial about it at all, and that’s where I’d be coming from. It’s more a case of not being sure that explaining the basics of cryptography and computer security to the class is a wise idea. But even if the mathematics is somewhat trickier, there’s enough conceptual material there that I think it would make a good topic for a couple of days of lectures/discussions.
Which brings me to what I thought was going to be the point of this entry. NPR had some people on the other day talking about voting mechanisms… the usual sorts of things, really. Different voting machines, whether there should be a paper audit trail, voting on the internet, things like this. And one of the guests made some comment to the effect of, the only real alternatives to paper printouts of votes would require some heavy mathematics, and we don’t want to put into place a system that you have to be a Ph.D to understand.
I have a couple of problems with this statement.
First of all, no, you don’t need to be a Ph.D to understand how cryptography works. I learned about RSA in my first-term algebra course as an undergraduate. Thousands and thousands of working programmers understand the requirements of computer security and at least somewhat how the standard algorithms work to satisfy them. Math isn’t impenetrable, folks; it takes thought and work, sure, but so do most things.
And secondly, why the hell should “not everyone can understand it” be a criterion for rejecting a perfectly valid proposal? The tax code in this country is sufficiently Byzantine that legions of professionals make their living interpreting it for everyday folks. I’m sure most people driving their cars don’t really know how the internal combustion engine really works, or for that matter how the Reed-Solomon codes that render a CD playable even with minor damage to the surface work. People deal with technologies and systems that they don’t really understand every day.
That being said, I think that if there is going to be a good solution for electronic voting then it’s going to have to be open-source. The flip-side to the last paragraph is that, if you want to know how it works, then you should be able to find out. Security through obscurity isn’t security at all, merely the appearance of security.