Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

51–60 of 200 posts

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

#51

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 reco…

This isn't uniformly true: consider that New York's governor Cuomo blocked played a part in blocking reforms there for several years. It's not historically true, either, when you consider buying votes in the Daley machine of Chicago.

It's possible to talk about the politics of this on HN, but if we apply one level of generalization ("people in power for whom free and fair elections do not serve their interest"), we can have a less inflamed discussion.

My rejoinder to the grandparent is, "some states are better than others". This is well known, and the correlation with party is well known as well.

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

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really. Best practices in the field involve having representatives from many to all parties present at each step of the voting process, from the distribution of ballots at the booth, to the counting, to the archiving of counted boxes pending recounts.

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

#53
post #8

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.

But such a system is incompatible with the secret ballot, and is therefore vulnerable to voter coercion. Didn't vote for the right candidate? You're fired "for performance reasons".

The voting system sends out postcards to registered voters with a temper-evident scratch-off covering, over a private key.

This key can be used with a personal computer, or public voting computer, each using the same open-source, audited software, to produce a printed ballot with a 2D barcode on it, and a printed voting token with a 2D barcode on it.

The ballot printout can be scanned and verified independently, before casting it, that all the choices are correct. Again, all using the same open-source, audited software as the public vote-recording computers. This printout contains a hash of the voting token. This is so a party can't just print out a bunch of pre-filled ballots, and then hand them out for voters to cast, and also useful for recounts and audits.

A separate printout encodes the voting token. It cryptographically verifies that a registered voter is voting now. The voter registration system associates a different hash of the voting token, a voter hash, with the voter. The voting system can associate the ballot hash of the voting token with the voting choices. If you have a voting token, you can compute the voter hash, look up the registered voter on the voter site, compute the ballot hash, and look up what their votes were on the vote-counting site. You can't tell whether that particular ballot is the one that counts for that voter.

Because up until the end of the election, the voter can also request a new token, which invalidates their previous ballot, and cast a new one. That token will also be associated with their votes and their name, but the official election system knows to count that one, and not another one. Or they can request a "provisional", "test", or "decoy" token, which can be used to cast a ballot that will never be counted.

Anyone that attempts to coerce a voter into voting a particular way, or who tries to pay for votes, can be given a genuine token that is later cancelled, or a dummy token that was never valid to begin with. They have no means of validating if the token represents a vote that counts until after the election is over. At that time, an audit or recount might show that it was a decoy vote. You can't work backwards from a ballot to see who cast it. You can't work backwards from a public voter registration to see how they voted in any election. You can only start from the set of tokens, verify that one belongs to a registered voter, verify that it was used to cast a ballot, and if you also have privileged access to the voter registration system, determine whether or not that token is the single authoritative voting token for that voter in the current election.

In a recount or audit, the voter registration authority consults its database, finds all the tokens valid for a given election, computes the ballot hashes for each, and prints out all the ballot hashes, including machine-readable barcodes. A sorting machine could be loaded with the list, and automatically spit out a pile of ballots to be counted, and a pile of ballots that don't count. Or a human could sort them by hand, by consulting the list of valid ballot hashes, and crossing out the one printed on the ballot they are looking at. Any ballot not on the list, or already crossed off of it, goes in the "don't count" pile. Then, once again, by machine or by human, the ballots in the "valid" pile can be independently counted for the office or issue in question, and compared against the original automated count.

The secret part of this voting system is the secret kept between the voter and the government with respect to "does this specific ballot count or not?".

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

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose every election they could randomly distribute voter ids that are unique to that election? Ie, pull an I'd from a hat at the polling station then use it and keep it for verification? Edit: undo auto'correct'

Because now you can prove to anybody which way you voted, opening yourself to blackmail, bribery, or duress. The secrecy of the vote is crucial to its integrity.

Maybe you could move things down the chain: make it illegal for any entity (with perhaps some exceptions for anonymity compliant polling) to ask for voting proof, with very significant felony punishments (large organizational fines, jailtime for individuals).

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

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s even possible to waive anonymity, people will try to entice or coerce others to vote in a certain way, and require they prove it. That’s why taking a picture of your ballot is illegal in the US. This isn’t just a theoretical concern - there are various real-life allegations of it happening, in Southeastern Europe and other places.

Meh, the concern of the integrity of the election itself is a thousand or a million times more pressing than the concern about somebody trying to coerce somebody. Plus such coercion isn't impossible now, like you said it can be done with a camera. Presumably if you're being coerced by threat the "illegal" doesn't really help you at all. It seems obscene to me to pass up such an obvious improvement like a verifiable r…

>Meh, the concern of the integrity of the election itself is a thousand or a million times more pressing than the concern about somebody trying to coerce somebody.

1) Coercion is literally the biggest concern within elections. You put a big guy with a pair of brass knuckles outside of the polling location and he beats up everyone who comes out without a picture of his ballot with the right vote in place.

Theoretical? Lol. This WAS and IS common. This is why we have international election observers.

2) There's no integrity loss with paper if things are done right. Every ballot given out at a voting booth is recorded - you can't stuff the box as a voter. The only way you can do so is if election officials from all parties collude to fudge the books together, which they would need to do in view of the public as they man the voting desks, or under the supervision of the locale manager during the end-of-night count.

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

#56

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.

Huh? If you're asked to waive your right by your employer, I'm pretty sure you can get them in trouble by going to the media and make a fuss about it. This is a silly hypothesis.

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

#58

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.

Sure. You get to be the one who explains how the Blockchain works to a bunch of octogenarians in Florida who can't quite figure out how a double sided paper ballot works.

Voting is already complicated enough. There are way too few people who fully understand all of the security implications of the Blockchain and all of the implementation details you need to get correct to make this a workable solution on the national level.

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

#59

This isn't a complicated problem. State election agencies are underfunded and have to cut corners in order to survive. A simple federal cash infusion would solve 70% of this problem. The other 30% is coming up with sufficient election machine standards.

This problem was solved millenia ago, no focus group needed. The problem is power interests standing in the way of simple solutions. More money for more polls, hell yes. More money for "better machines" fuck no, that money goes to no good.

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

#60
post #8

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.

But such a system is incompatible with the secret ballot, and is therefore vulnerable to voter coercion. Didn't vote for the right candidate? You're fired "for performance reasons".

This is already a theoretical risk with vote-by-mail systems, and in practice it is Not a Problem.

Oregon has had vote-by-mail for more than two decades; there are present-day voters who were born after Oregon dropped polling places entirely.

Vote coercion is not a concern, after 20 years of practical experience with the system. Neither is voter fraud (something like 54 fraudulent ballots cast, out of 2+ million, in 2016; the vast majority of those were people voting in Oregon and in another state.)

The benefit, however, comes in the form of increased turnout; no need to rush to a polling place on a day that's very likely not a holiday for you.

I wish everyone would switch to vote-by-mail the way Oregon does it.

Post reply on HN