Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

engineering.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 316 posts

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#301

Post by seangrogg »

pm24601 wrote: post #276
seangrogg wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that's a decent premise and I agree that less than 5% of the US population understands blockchains, I would also reckon they don't understand HTTP (or HTTPS) protocols, B-trees, networks, cryptographic hashes, or even the compilers that underpin much of technology. But they're more than willing to trust these things with the entirety of their liquid assets if it spares them a 20 minute trip to the bank. I think…

However, with all of those. If there is a problem: either the consequences are not significant. Or there is a paperwork around to a problem, which includes laws and judges. With online voting, we are deciding the judges that get to say - "everything is totally perfect with the way I got elected."

Honestly, given the fact that a significant number of people already think their vote "doesn't count" (given on average ~40% of people don't even bother) I doubt they would be more concerned with vote tampering than with potential identity/bank theft.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#302

Post by FatalBaboon »

burkaman wrote: post #173
FatalBaboon wrote: post #164

> In fact, online voting is such a dangerous idea that computer scientists and security experts are nearly unanimous in opposition to it. Stopped reading. Online voting is not just about electing presidents. If you can poll the people easily, you have a democracy where people directly chose, instead of having a mafious bunch in a grand building making what corporations want the law, ahem I meant doing what is good fo…

Nobody will take your comment seriously if you proudly announce that you didn't read the article. Why not just think "hmm, I wish the title was a little more specific" and then keep reading with the understanding that this particular article is about elections?

You're right, and I did read the whole article, but with a grain of salt.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#303

Post by FatalBaboon »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #222
FatalBaboon wrote: post #164

> In fact, online voting is such a dangerous idea that computer scientists and security experts are nearly unanimous in opposition to it. Stopped reading. Online voting is not just about electing presidents. If you can poll the people easily, you have a democracy where people directly chose, instead of having a mafious bunch in a grand building making what corporations want the law, ahem I meant doing what is good fo…

Do you really think it would be better if anyone could decide about anything, even without having proper knowledge of the issue ? The idea of "representative" democracy (opposed to "direct") is that you elect someone more or less aligned to your ideas, which has the time and competence to make the best decisions. It's far from a perfect system, but let's not delude ourselves about the alternative. In practice, every…

I really do think so, yes.

And I hear your argument, it was my first reaction as well when the thought occurred.

However, while the "average Joe" may suck at understanding online privacy issues, he may be great at accounting/farming/teaching/what-have-you whereas you suck at that. The thing is, your average Joe is more likely to listen for advice than your congressman. And he's good at something else than congressing, something practical that gets voted upon.

It would need adjustments, it would require recluse intellectuals to care for and enlighten their neighbours, but it would give me hope in the system.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#304

Post by mavhc »

germanier wrote: post #281
mavhc wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia had open source voting machines in 2003 http://www.wired.com/2003/11/aussies-do-it-right-e-voting/ If we can bank online we can vote online, not that hard. Not perfect, but better than paper voting, that's full of bugs

How do I verify that the machine actually runs the published software? With online banking there is a paper trail of every action taken. If we want secrecy of the vote that's suddenly a lot harder to do.

Not really, you just have to be given a number that you can later match, no one has to know that number is you. Could even digitally sign things.

I propose a system where each vote is broadcast to multiple counting organisations, to avoid the counters being biased, and each vote is numbered, but only the voter knows that number so they can check with any counting organisation that it was recorded as they wished.

E-voting makes better forms of voting cheaper, instead of just First Past The Post. Preference voting for example.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#305

Post by dspillett »

pdkl95 wrote: post #240
dspillett wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the result is contested you have saved an amount of counting effort which could be a cost saving. Though I suspect it would take some time for the ROI of implementing such a system to work out positive.

> Unless the result is contested By law a representative sample of sites are recounted by hand in about half of the states. > you have saved an amount of counting effort The ballots are already optically scanned. > cost savings A handful of pencils per-voting-booth is far cheaper than any computer+printer solution.

> > Unless the result is contested > > you have saved an amount of counting effort

> The ballots are already optically scanned.

If the result is contested then I presume that this scanning may also be under suspicion (of being faulty or having been somehow doctored deliberately).

> > cost savings

> A handful of pencils per-voting-booth is far cheaper than any computer+printer solution.

Why is why I mentioned the time for ROI to become positive. The electronic counting will save time (man power for the initial count, the need for recounts, and just wall-clock time so the results are available earlier) but the cost will be high. At some point perhaps the solution will pay for itself in time/resources saved but it will take quite a while if at all.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#306

Post by csydas »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #285
csydas wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's fair to hand-wave the concerns presented in the article with your argument of "just make it fail-proof". How often is software really fail-proof? The more complex software gets, the more difficult it is to ensure that it's bug free enough to be fit for purpose, and that's what the article is effectively arguing; software for voting on a national scale (the size of the US) is going to have an incredi…

1. It's not fair to hand-wave and say "make it fail-proof." It's also not fair to hand-wave and say "It could never be fail-proof." It's also good to ask how secure the current system is. 2. As for the advantages of a minority voting, the fact is that any rational agent would never vote. Your argument that "an elite few" might be better than the masses is irrelevant, the fact is the current turnout isn't the "elite f…

1. I didn't advocate or posit that it could never be fail proof, I was just responding to the original idea of "just make software fail-proof" as if it addressed all the concerns within the article. The article did bring up a lot of issues that had nothing to do with the actual voting software, which would naturally not be resolved by "fail proof" software. I also do question the very idea of "fail proof", since bugs and errors are an inevitability. For the most part, software works, as I said, fit for purpose. When it does fail, it hopefully fails gracefully (like OSes do quite frequently), but even if the software was 100% bug free, the non-software related issues with a national Internet vote still need to be addressed.

2. I also never suggested that an elite few would be better. I made no particular opinion on standards for voting or who should vote, instead responded to the OP's suggestion that more votes is automatically good. The mention of "elite few" was to address the overwhelming influence that a few wealthy individuals and corporations have when it comes to elections in the United States, and how view points on voting issues are greatly distorted by the imbalance of power/the "loudness" of certain voices in a democratic society.

I made no suggestion as to how to vote so much as a criticism of the current system in which, while all people are able to voice their position, individuals and groups are able to effectively drown out the voices of others by means of wealth, not by the merit of position or through debate and discussion.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#307

Post by germanier »

mavhc wrote: post #304
germanier wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I verify that the machine actually runs the published software? With online banking there is a paper trail of every action taken. If we want secrecy of the vote that's suddenly a lot harder to do.

Not really, you just have to be given a number that you can later match, no one has to know that number is you. Could even digitally sign things. I propose a system where each vote is broadcast to multiple counting organisations, to avoid the counters being biased, and each vote is numbered, but only the voter knows that number so they can check with any counting organisation that it was recorded as they wished. E-vo…

If you just give out a number you suddenly open up the system to voter coercion. I can actually prove to you how I voted. Also, as a voter I can't be sure that they system that gives me the number does not save the link between it and me.

For preference voting you don't need e-voting. Using computers to help you count ballots (with an analog check and fallback option) is possible without actually collecting the votes electronically.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#308

Post by tremon »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #168
mantas wrote: post #75

I'm strongly against online voting. The problem #1 is buying and manipulation of votes. Security and/or anonymity is much smaller issue IMO. In my country, barely 50% of people vote. Most people don't care about politics. "Incentivized" votes is a huge issue there. People are routinely brought to polling stations and given a thank-you beer on return. Agitators are using all kind of borderline-blackmailing techniques…

I think you've stumbled across a bigger issue - democracy is fundamentally broken since no one has any incentive to vote correctly. I know a lady who's a likely Trump voter. But she also donated money to Hillary in order to get the "woman card". https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/products/the-woman-card She's pretty honest that it's just entertainment for her - like voting on American Idol. Think about how many election…

democracy is fundamentally broken since no one has any incentive to vote correctly.

Correction: democracy is fundamentally broken when no one has any incentive to vote correctly.

Your argument against democracy is based on one single implementation, and a pretty flawed one at that. Maybe take a look at how other countries implement proportional representation, or where the political landscape is diverse enough that no single party usually gets a majority on its own (e.g. most of northern Europe).

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#309

Post by mavhc »

germanier wrote: post #307
mavhc wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, you just have to be given a number that you can later match, no one has to know that number is you. Could even digitally sign things. I propose a system where each vote is broadcast to multiple counting organisations, to avoid the counters being biased, and each vote is numbered, but only the voter knows that number so they can check with any counting organisation that it was recorded as they wished. E-vo…

If you just give out a number you suddenly open up the system to voter coercion. I can actually prove to you how I voted. Also, as a voter I can't be sure that they system that gives me the number does not save the link between it and me. For preference voting you don't need e-voting. Using computers to help you count ballots (with an analog check and fallback option) is possible without actually collecting the votes…

Much more of an issue that people don't vote than people sell their votes, which they do indirectly anyway.

Does anywhere use computer printed ballots?, to avoid ambiguously filled out ballots.

Computer creates PNG, you print that, or it's printed at a station, you carry that paper to the vote counting machine, it's optically read, (and read by humans if you wish) without errors because it was just printed by a computer

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#310

Post by rmc »

pdkl95 wrote: post #150
lb1lf wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the voting machine should print a paper receipt which in plain text tells what vote you cast; this receipt is then deposited in a ballot box. If a result is disputed, simply count the paper ballots like we do today.

If it's printed paper ballots, you have merely created a very expensive pencil. There isn't any benefit of using a computer+printer.

Printed paper ballots can remove ambiguity. Did the person spoil their vote, or did they really mean to vote for X, Y, Z?
Post reply on HN