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

In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 208 posts

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#61

Post by deogeo »

IanCal wrote: post #44
tim333 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>few-to-none signs of subversion You could make it so you can view your vote and check it was registered the way intended. If you voted A and it came out B that would be a sign.

This makes voter intimidation much easier though. Nobody without a court order can check how I've voted, and can't ask me to show how I've voted.

It should be impossible even with a court order, and I think most voting systems are set up like that. How else do you guard against the party in power, that can get all the court orders it wants?

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#62

Post by lolc »

drdeadringer wrote: post #42
lolc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can inspect and watch the ballots.

What is stopping The Public from watching electronic ballots just as equally as electronic ballots? If I wanted to see paper ballots, how is that different from wanting to see electronic ballots? I'm not confident that I could successfully petition Government for paper ballots just as much as I could sue a given contractor for same electronic records.

If I want, I can go down to my polling place before it opens, inspect all the boxes to be empty, watch as people put their ballots in, then watch as the boxes are emptied and the ballots counted. If I'm not allowed to do all this, I can't trust the vote unless I trust the people that administered it.

Electronic voting always requires trust in the administrators.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#63

Post by pytester »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #57
pytester wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>yeah but part of cracking down on vote buying has to do with making it difficult to track if you actually did vote for who you said you would That isn't necessary to prevent vote buying. Vote buying is easy to detect because advertising in secret is impossible. All that's required is the political will to look for people wanting to buy votes and come down hard on them when they're detected. Moreover, if you do do aw…

how far did Tammany Hall have to scale? How big is Estonia? Do you think every election ever held that can be worth money and power is the size of the U.S National Election? As far as the political will to come down on people for vote buying or intimidation etc. I'm sure that making things illegal when there is a profit to be made at doing it has always succeeded in driving that illegal thing out of existence without…

>How big is Estonia?

Are you saying that it's small enough that you can sway the election by threatening to beat up every voter?

That's a brave claim.

>As far as the political will to come down on people for vote buying or intimidation etc. I'm sure that making things illegal when there is a profit to be made at doing it has always succeeded in driving that illegal thing out of existence without any untoward effect on society whatsoever.

there is ZERO profit to be made in vote buying if you are thrown in prison after purchasing your 9th vote. You'd have to be enormously stupid to even try.

that's why vote buying doesn't exist. that's why it's not like drugs. It's not because you "can't tell people" who you voted for. It's because it's trivial to detect, easy to crack down on and there's nothing to be gained by risking it. The only time when there was something to be gained by doing it, it was because it was COMPLETELY LEGAL.

Let me repeat that: the only time in history it was ever a problem, it was because it was LEGAL.

I want proof that my vote counted because that helps protect against the kind of threats which DON'T disappear just because they're made illegal. I don't need people like you telling me that I'm not responsible enough to get proof because I might sell it.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#64

Post by jakeogh »

riffraff wrote: post #50
pedrocr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you can demonstrate to anyone what you voted. That's how you get people selling votes. In any reasonable election system you need to be able to be sure your vote is being counted without at the same time being able to prove who you voted for. The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting. For every layer of extra complexity you add there's either a way to sub…

You can avoid that, by having your vote correspond to multiple potential entries. But that is still pointless cause the person you sold your vote can be physically next to you, or you can film yourself voting. Online voting is unsafe, and should only be used if any other option is unfeasible.

Unfeasible? Simple, just call it unfeasible. It's a undefined word, perfect for manipulation.

There are no circumstances where online political voting should be used. Ever.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#65

Post by KorematsuFred »

Newver understood the fascination with e-votes. E-votes are great when you vote for reality shows but for a normal election I think walking to the local booth and vote is a much better idea because it is hackers proof and also only citizens with enough motivation will vote.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#66

Post by contravariant »

drdeadringer wrote: post #42
lolc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can inspect and watch the ballots.

What is stopping The Public from watching electronic ballots just as equally as electronic ballots? If I wanted to see paper ballots, how is that different from wanting to see electronic ballots? I'm not confident that I could successfully petition Government for paper ballots just as much as I could sue a given contractor for same electronic records.

When someone writes something on a piece of paper, puts that piece of paper in a box, and later I see someone reopens that piece of paper then I can be reasonably confident I see whatever the original person wrote on the piece of paper.

I have no such confidence in electronic messages. Unless they're plaintext.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#67

Post by antidesitter »

pedrocr wrote: post #43
tim333 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>few-to-none signs of subversion You could make it so you can view your vote and check it was registered the way intended. If you voted A and it came out B that would be a sign.

Now you can demonstrate to anyone what you voted. That's how you get people selling votes. In any reasonable election system you need to be able to be sure your vote is being counted without at the same time being able to prove who you voted for. The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting. For every layer of extra complexity you add there's either a way to sub…

> Now you can demonstrate to anyone what you voted.

Not necessarily. It is possible to have verifiability and receipt freeness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_sy...

> The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting.

Clearly you need to do more research before making such sweeping claims.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#68

Post by antidesitter »

IanCal wrote: post #44
tim333 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>few-to-none signs of subversion You could make it so you can view your vote and check it was registered the way intended. If you voted A and it came out B that would be a sign.

This makes voter intimidation much easier though. Nobody without a court order can check how I've voted, and can't ask me to show how I've voted.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19355603.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#69

Post by pedrocr »

antidesitter wrote: post #67
pedrocr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you can demonstrate to anyone what you voted. That's how you get people selling votes. In any reasonable election system you need to be able to be sure your vote is being counted without at the same time being able to prove who you voted for. The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting. For every layer of extra complexity you add there's either a way to sub…

> Now you can demonstrate to anyone what you voted. Not necessarily. It is possible to have verifiability and receipt freeness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_sy... > The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting. Clearly you need to do more research before making such sweeping claims.

> Not necessarily. It is possible to have verifiability and receipt freeness

I know these methods, but they were not used in OPs suggestion. They fix this issue and introduce others.

> Clearly you need to do more research before making such sweeping claims.

On the contrary, I'm willing to double down on my claim. I'm willing to provide either a breach or a denial of service for any digital or online voting system you care to describe.

Electronic/Online voting is like catnip for programmers. We can consistently overcomplicate things and create these horribly complex constructs because we're sure there must be a solution. After all software is eating the world. Voting is however one of the few situations where the lack of sophistication of pen and paper works in your favor significantly.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#70

Post by antidesitter »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #38
pytester wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is worrying. How do you know that the voter could vote freely and didn't sell their vote? Historically, vote buying in the UK and the US used to be rife until it was cracked down upon (which came after it was made illegal). Once that happened it completely disappeared. For voters to sell their votes, somebody needs to advertise that they are willing to buy their votes. That advertisement makes them easy to dete…

yeah but part of cracking down on vote buying has to do with making it difficult to track if you actually did vote for who you said you would, with online voting it becomes totally possible to track you did the vote, give it to the guy who has promised to pay you, forgive your debts, the debts of your son, not beat you up, allow you to keep your job etc. etc.

> with online voting it becomes totally possible to track you did the vote

Not necessarily. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19355603

Post reply on HN