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

They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 200 posts

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#41

Post by tptacek »

If you want to have strong opinions about voting security, you should do as Matt Blaze recommends and sign up to be an election judge. I did it after my business partner 'lvh did, presumably at Blaze's urging, and he's right: you really can't comprehend fully what's going on in an election until you've worked on one firsthand. A lot of things you'd be inclined to think are major security problems probably aren't, and the converse is also true.

Wherever you are, it's probably easy to sign up (I did online) and they'll likely pay you to do it.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#42

Post by hannasanarion »

1024core wrote: post #26

It's a shame that neither party is interested in fixing this issue. These problems have been known for many years, but regardless of who's in power in the Congress, nothing gets done about it.

This is a lie. The Democrats have tried at least six times in the last fifteen years to get money out of elections and make elections more secure, such as by requiring paper backups.

Every time they were blocked by Bush, or the Republican Filibuster, or Trump.

Election security is not a "both sides" issue. Democrats want more of it, Republicans want less of it, and this is bourne out very clearly in their voting record.

https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/justice_departm...

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#44

Post by probably_wrong »

joshfraser wrote: post #36
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But perhaps some percentage of people would choose to waive their right to privacy, further strengthening trust in the system. This has the same problem. Didn't waive your right to privacy and provably vote for the right candidate - you're fired (or worse). That's why taking photos of a ballot isn't allowed, you can't have any way to show who you voted for.

But what if our elections are rigged and we don't know it? Is it worth risking a faked election as long as we all feel good about it?

As someone else in the thread pointed out, we already know of a better solution: paper. Any other solution so far turns out to be either convoluted and/or not as good.

Somewhat related, it reminds me of this anecdote about hand-warming handlebars on bikes: http://thedailywtf.com/articles/The_Complicator_0x27_s_Glove...

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#45

Post by deogeo »

joshfraser wrote: post #4

It would be a lot easier to trust an electronic voting system if it was open-source, open-hardware, and votes were recorded on a public blockchain.

Once in the voting booth, how do you know the hardware or software haven't been replaced or tampered with? How would election officials know it? Open-source/hardware won't help you - it's still fundamentally a black box, and must be provable secure solely based on its inputs and outputs.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#46

Post by jellicle »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #28
joshfraser wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be pseudo-anonymous like Bitcoin. You would keep the mapping between public keys and real-world identities private. But perhaps some percentage of people would choose to waive their right to privacy, further strengthening trust in the system. Statistically, the public voters should be in line with the final outcome.

> But perhaps some percentage of people would choose to waive their right to privacy, further strengthening trust in the system. This has the same problem. Didn't waive your right to privacy and provably vote for the right candidate - you're fired (or worse). That's why taking photos of a ballot isn't allowed, you can't have any way to show who you voted for.

All states allow absentee voting, so...

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#47

Post by joshfraser »

joshfraser wrote: post #36
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But perhaps some percentage of people would choose to waive their right to privacy, further strengthening trust in the system. This has the same problem. Didn't waive your right to privacy and provably vote for the right candidate - you're fired (or worse). That's why taking photos of a ballot isn't allowed, you can't have any way to show who you voted for.

But what if our elections are rigged and we don't know it? Is it worth risking a faked election as long as we all feel good about it?

The problem with paper is that it's too easy to remove and replace the ballots you don't like.

Re: They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

#48

Post by aphextim »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #28
joshfraser wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be pseudo-anonymous like Bitcoin. You would keep the mapping between public keys and real-world identities private. But perhaps some percentage of people would choose to waive their right to privacy, further strengthening trust in the system. Statistically, the public voters should be in line with the final outcome.

> But perhaps some percentage of people would choose to waive their right to privacy, further strengthening trust in the system. This has the same problem. Didn't waive your right to privacy and provably vote for the right candidate - you're fired (or worse). That's why taking photos of a ballot isn't allowed, you can't have any way to show who you voted for.

Call centers get entire lists of registered votes (or what they last were registered as) when targeting for polls.

Now they do not come with who the individual voted for which is probably how they get around this.

So many times when you would call someone and say, "Records show you are a registered as a democrat/republican, is that correct?"

Rebuttal, "How do you know what I'm registered as isn't that illegal?"

Candid response, "Knowing who you voted for is illegal, I do not have that information, however your registered party is public information and any questions about who you voted for you can refuse."

Most of the time they didn't like that and hung up but meh throws arms up in the air not caring

Post reply on HN