81–90 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the biggest problem isn't buying and selling votes, its distribution of the votecoin. if you can get votea into the hands of legitimate voters, the rest falls into place.
That aspect wouldn't have to change from how it's done today. Go to your polling location and show/prove residency for registration purposes.
As a proponent of blockchain-based voting. we're not hitting the 10x better rule with this solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pen & Paper will always be more trustworthy, transparent, and safe than any blockchain-bs. Part of the reason is that to compromise a paper ballot you need thousands of corrupt volunteers (and if you can find them, you have much bigger problems anyway). The other part of the argument is that the security isn't enough for a voting system. You need /obvious/ security, and a mathematical proof just isn't obvious enough.…
With all due respect the only way you could claim blockchain is not safer than paper is if you don't understand blockchain. With a large database that is distributed on 1000s of different computers (identical DB), everyone is free to analyze what happen and tampering IS IMPOSSIBLE. Blockchain is the only technology that is indeed hack-proof. Sure it can be incorrectly implemented, making it hackable, but the technolo…
> Sure it can be incorrectly implemented
...ignore reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone can also compel me to use my own password to log into my bank account and transfer all my money to them. Every new technology that has ever been invented has always had people like you who can think up highly statistically insignificant scenarios where the technology can be misused.
You think people being compelled to vote for a specific person is an unlikely event? Unions, employers, organised crime, parents, etc have all over the years tried to force people to vote a specific way. If voting is verifiable they can be successful.
Paper ballots are really the best for these reasons:
1) Fits human time frame. a large number of voters make up their mind incrementally. They take the mail ballot and mark the offices/measures that they know for certain on. Come election day they show up at the precinct with almost everything filled out. They then sit down and decide for everything else.
2) Does not require good eyesight. Older voters, younger voters, what ever - a simple magnifier can easily be used. We have them at the polling place.
3) Voter can vote on issues nonsequentially. Voting machines present the issues in the order they are on the ballot - not the order that the voter wants.
4) Speed of voting: if a voter knows how they are going to vote they can fly through a ballot in a couple of minutes. Voting on a voting machine takes a minimum of 6. Add in all the back and forth on the screens and it is frustrating for voters.
5) Ability to handle crushload of voters: If I have a lot of voters ready to vote: I put them anywhere in the room I have a seat, flat surface and a pen. With electronic voting machines I am limited to number of machines.
6) requires no training: everyone knows how to use a pen. Computer program... not so much. And I am not talking about tech sophistication. Anytime anyone uses a new program they have to slow down and make sure they understand what is being asked and what are the choices.
7) clarity of errors and error recovery: if a voter knows if they marked a ballot ( with a pen - not the chad Florida ballots) incorrectly. Error correction is easy.
8) No electricity is needed. Paper ballots always boot up correctly.
-----------
Only reason for electronic voting is for sight impaired voters. And of the sight impaired voters, 100% seem to have solved the problem with mail in ballots OR bringing someone with them to the polling place. (In the 6 years i have run a precinct with upwards of ~2000 voters personally processed by me : about 6 have actually voted electronically)
--------------
If you want to solve the real problem, based on my experience:
1) same day registration/automatic registration
2) easy voting at locations near transit.
3) easy access to mail-in ballots.
4) no electronic voting - much faster to process voters with paper.
5) allow people to vote out of precinct. (don't require people to get home - make it easier for them to vote near where they work)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think people being compelled to vote for a specific person is an unlikely event? Unions, employers, organised crime, parents, etc have all over the years tried to force people to vote a specific way. If voting is verifiable they can be successful.
Even with blockchain it would still be "secret ballot". Each person would have their own encryption key they use to lookup their own vote. No one could check how I voted unless I allow them to, just like no one can get into my bank account unless I allow them to.
Parents: Show us you voted for X or you are disowned.
Employer: Show me you voted for X or you are fired.
Criminal: Show us you voted for X or we'll break your knee caps.
Politician: Show me you voted for me or I won't give you that contract
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all due respect the only way you could claim blockchain is not safer than paper is if you don't understand blockchain. With a large database that is distributed on 1000s of different computers (identical DB), everyone is free to analyze what happen and tampering IS IMPOSSIBLE. Blockchain is the only technology that is indeed hack-proof. Sure it can be incorrectly implemented, making it hackable, but the technolo…
With all due respect, the only way you can claim a blockchain is more secure than paper ballots is if you... > Sure it can be incorrectly implemented ...ignore reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with blockchain it would still be "secret ballot". Each person would have their own encryption key they use to lookup their own vote. No one could check how I voted unless I allow them to, just like no one can get into my bank account unless I allow them to.
I didn't say they could I said people in positions of power in your life could make you show them. Parents: Show us you voted for X or you are disowned. Employer: Show me you voted for X or you are fired. Criminal: Show us you voted for X or we'll break your knee caps. Politician: Show me you voted for me or I won't give you that contract
BTW: even if the blockchain data were totally held all within local governments only, it STILL addresses at least the problem of tampering at any level other than where the information is first collected. Even if the blockchain DB doesn't go as fine-grained as per individual it still "hardens the system" considerably from hackers, in a way that paper could never do, because recounts of paper is susceptible to human miscounts (both intentional and unintentional), and blockchain is absolutely not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all due respect, the only way you can claim a blockchain is more secure than paper ballots is if you... > Sure it can be incorrectly implemented ...ignore reality.
LOL @ "ignore reality". Like you have even one single example in your mind of a buggy implementation of blockchain. Nice try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say they could I said people in positions of power in your life could make you show them. Parents: Show us you voted for X or you are disowned. Employer: Show me you voted for X or you are fired. Criminal: Show us you voted for X or we'll break your knee caps. Politician: Show me you voted for me or I won't give you that contract
If society decides the risk of these types of behaviors is significant they could pass a law making it illegal to ask someone how they voted. For those who would violate such a law even if it existed, they are by definition criminals, and already have the ability to tell you "Give me your banking passwords, or else". Blockchain itself won't cure all the problems with humans being criminals in this world, but blockcha…
Anyhow if you can't understand why secret ballots exist after all that explanation I'm never going to be able to explain it in a way you understand so I think we're done here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LOL @ "ignore reality". Like you have even one single example in your mind of a buggy implementation of blockchain. Nice try.
> Also: ethereum