81–90 of 303 posts
Why does this keep coming up? What is the compelling argument against paper ballots? There is no need for results to be known immediately, so how does making voting an exercise done by computers make anything better, particularly when computers are much more vulnerable to remote interference?
Because paper ballots increase the cost of manipulating elections.
Have there been any competitions to make an open source, highly scalable and verifiable anti-tampering voting system? Maybe even a competition to see how few resources can be allocated to facilitate millions of simultaneous voters? i.e. "did it in 50 lines of python!" like the javascript 1k competitions. [1] [1] - https://js1k.com/
Yes, for thousands of years. The result is called the paper ballot.
You cannot have a verifiable anti-tampering voting system using computers. You need verifiability by the general public. Auditing a microchip is not something members of the general public know how to do, and in any case, it detroys the chip, so it's kinda useless anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You still have paper ballots - with audits.
Those audits are only triggered when the vote counts are close enough, within a certain margin. Since whoever controls or hacks the machines gets to set the vote counts, the audit only happens if they want it to.
[0] - https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/oversight/co...
> Kiniy said Galois will design two basic voting machine types. The first will be a ballot-marking device that uses a touch-screen for voters to make their selections. That system won’t tabulate votes. Instead it will print out a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices, so voters can review them before depositing them into an optical-scan machine that tabulates the votes. Galois will bring this system to Def Con…
Only part I don't care for is the touchscreen. People consistently overestimate the reliability of that solution, especially for older voters with mobility challenges. Pushbuttons or levers that demand macroscopic elbow/shoulder motion are easier for that demographic to use than sensitive screens requiring fine motor control. And that's all to say nothing of what happens when the screens become miscalibrated and acce…
In general, getting elderly people, low-income populations and other late adopters of technology to use touchscreens correctly has been much easier than getting people to use a mouse. The mouse is less physically intuitive than "poke the thing you want." For most of us, though, we hardly notice a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those audits are only triggered when the vote counts are close enough, within a certain margin. Since whoever controls or hacks the machines gets to set the vote counts, the audit only happens if they want it to.
In California[0] we audit 1% of all ballots, regardless of the outcome. [0] - https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/oversight/co...
Your electronic voting machine could completely tell you the truth about every ballot you ask it about, but lie about the total.
> Kiniy said Galois will design two basic voting machine types. The first will be a ballot-marking device that uses a touch-screen for voters to make their selections. That system won’t tabulate votes. Instead it will print out a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices, so voters can review them before depositing them into an optical-scan machine that tabulates the votes. Galois will bring this system to Def Con…
I hate being outright dismissive but it sounds like an expensive html/pdf form with a printer attached. I do agree that the paper trail is a great thing. I'm not fundamentally against electronic voting, but I haven't heard of a system that can really compete with the simplicity and verifiability of the immutablility you get from paper ballots inside ballot boxes being watched over by interested parties on all sides.
In MN, we use paper ballots with Scantron readers for excellent results. I'm not sure what problem this new system is supposed to solve that the Scantron model doesn't.
Have there been any competitions to make an open source, highly scalable and verifiable anti-tampering voting system? Maybe even a competition to see how few resources can be allocated to facilitate millions of simultaneous voters? i.e. "did it in 50 lines of python!" like the javascript 1k competitions. [1] [1] - https://js1k.com/
> Have there been any competitions to make an open source, highly scalable and verifiable anti-tampering voting system Yes, for thousands of years. The result is called the paper ballot. You cannot have a verifiable anti-tampering voting system using computers. You need verifiability by the general public. Auditing a microchip is not something members of the general public know how to do, and in any case, it detroys…
Or do you mean hand written ballots? Does anyone still use those?
And yeah, the digital ones have been hacked at DefCon by children. (their parents taught them how to hack the devices, so I guess that is cheating)
Maybe throw in some Blockchain or did I use a BS Bingo term?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your ideal voting system is vulnerable to coercion ("log in and show me who you voted for or else") and phishing. Voting systems should provide confidence to voters that votes are counted correctly, but not permit anyone, including the voters themselves, to learn how they voted after the ballot is cast.
how does the current system, or any voting system, prevent coercion? If there's a gun to your head, or some other ultimatum, it seems far too late to be worrying about your vote being shared. Even if votes aren't all logged, you can still be tortured for the answer. I would much rather the country have an individual coercion problem than a mass voting fraud problem. "Voting systems should [...] not permit anyone, inc…
By only allowing you alone into the voting booth, not allowing you to show your ballot to anyone, collecting the ballots in a sealed ballot box that's located in public that anonymizes the votes
> Even if votes aren't all logged, you can still be tortured for the answer.
No, you can't if there is no way for you to prove how you voted.
> I would much rather the country have an individual coercion problem than a mass voting fraud problem.
Why would one have anything to do with the other?
Also, one way to keep a country free from individual coercion problems is by having a reliable election process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your ideal voting system is vulnerable to coercion ("log in and show me who you voted for or else") and phishing. Voting systems should provide confidence to voters that votes are counted correctly, but not permit anyone, including the voters themselves, to learn how they voted after the ballot is cast.
how does the current system, or any voting system, prevent coercion? If there's a gun to your head, or some other ultimatum, it seems far too late to be worrying about your vote being shared. Even if votes aren't all logged, you can still be tortured for the answer. I would much rather the country have an individual coercion problem than a mass voting fraud problem. "Voting systems should [...] not permit anyone, inc…
If there is no possible way for you or me to know (edit: prove) if I'm telling the truth, how is that worth your time and energy? It's not.
The benefit of a secret ballot is that it greatly reduces, if not removes, the incentive for coercion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is missing two completely unnecessary failure modes that pen and paper don't have: 1. You cannot know whether the device leaks your vote, i.e., whether your vote is secret. Mind you that in addition to an attack inside the device, this can also happen via simple electromagnetic side channels inherent in the device--as has been demonstrated quite a while ago for Nedap voting computers by the dutch campaign agains…
> Neither of those failure modes exist with paper ballots. Paper ballots stop secret cameras in the ballot room? I mean, they really don't. It depends on your threat-model. A lot of things will come down to trust. > 2. When the device malfunctions, whether due to a defect or sabotage, and only particular candidates can not be selected, that creates a side channel where the voter is effectively forced to unveil who th…