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

311–316 of 316 posts

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#311

Post by pdkl95 »

dspillett wrote: post #305
pdkl95 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I presume

Maybe you should study how elections are actually implemented instead of making assumptions. I suggest watching the talk I linked to in my top-level post.

> this scanning may also be under suspicion

Obviously. Hence why it's important to recount the paper ballots by hand. This is also why about half of the states require confirming the reliability of the optical scanners with a random sampling of hand counts.

> At some point perhaps the solution will pay for itself

No, it won't. Computers per-voting-booth are always going to be a lot more expensive than an optical scan tabulator per-site.

Also, because a computer+printer solution involves a lot more devices, you will need a larger amount of testing by hand recount. You are increasing the workload.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#312

Post by pdkl95 »

rmc wrote: post #310
pdkl95 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Canadian ballots are a far cheaper way to reduce ambiguity.

https://www.google.com/search?q=canadian+ballot&tbm=isch

(only one election per paper, no hanging chads, no ambiguous mapping between the name and mark-area)

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#313

Post by andrewwhartion »

lb1lf wrote: post #141
andrewwhartion wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My preferred voting mechanism would be a hybrid This is the system advocated by Bruce Schneier[1], I wish it would get more traction. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me... [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2004/07/voting_secu...

Wow. The bitter part is that I googled and found that I first suggested something like this in 2007, three years after Schneier. (It would have felt great to claim that 'Bruce Schneier later formed a similar opinion.') Heck, it is even possible that I merely parroted Schneier's idea; I do read him on occasion, but not as often as I should!

Arriving at the same solution independently probably just adds to its merit. It's a good solution IMHO.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#314

Post by curried_haskell »

ethbro wrote: post #253
curried_haskell wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comparisons overlook a major difference between the paradigms of paper and digital ballots. It's the same problem with autonomous cars. An unsafe car can cause a single crash. An unsafe autonomous car program could crash every car everywhere all at once. And with the current state of software development, we KNOW that these softwares are vulnerable. With paper ballots, it's not easy to tamper with the entire vot…

I think you underestimate the sophistication needed to tamper with paper ballots. There's certainly a "boots on the ground" requirement for tampering, but the knowledge requirements are trivial compared to crypto attacks.

Knowledge is not the problem. In fact, knowledge is a trivial problem because with electronic ballots, you only need a single guy with the right knowledge and he can compromise the entire election.

The old way, you need an entire army of idiots.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#315

Post by curried_haskell »

ethbro wrote: post #272
specialist wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The physical chain of custody can be guaranteed with paper ballots. Yes, you can burn ballots, or stuff the box, but if you're minding the store, someone would notice. Source: former poll judge, inspector.

I defer to your expertise but did you ever work in third-world countries? (To use the phrase as a proxy for inadequate political/physical infrastructure) To use the engineering aphorism, just because it can be done doesn't mean it is done. I'm curious about how physical security/verification works in that environment vs a hypothetical crypto solution.

If you've worked in third-world countries, you should realize that elections are a human problem determined by societal attitudes. Electoral fraud is not a technical problem.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#316

Post by BuildTheRobots »

drdeadringer wrote: post #203
BuildTheRobots wrote: post #183

Tom Scott has done a very good video on the dangers of e-voting [1]. Good watching for me and also entirely suitable for my mum. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

I've watched this video several times now. Is there any balance to this enthusiastic laundry list of "here's another negative reason why this is a Very Bad Idea"?

Sometimes a bad idea is just entirely bad o_0
Post reply on HN