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

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

#101

Post by amalcon » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 7:44 PM UTC

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.

Re: employer, you can just make this illegal and let the police deal with it. Your boss can probably get in trouble with HR for even asking who you voted for (as it provides fodder for a later discrimination lawsuit), though you're free to volunteer that information.

However, your "or worse" note still applies. E.g. a local gang could do the same thing, and they are unlikely to be stymied by illegality.

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

#102

Post by colmmacc » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

amenghra wrote: post #78

paulgb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This protects voters from being coerced into voting a certain way and taking a photo of their ballot as proof I like that, and I think it's an important property of voting systems that people who want to implement online voting overlook. But isn't it undermined by absentee voting, or is there a similar mechanism for that?

Once you go online (not to be confused with electronic-in-person), you cant really hide your vote. Whoever is buying your vote can instead buy your credentials to vote.

This is true of all remote voting. The all-postal ballots in Washington and Oregon are certainly subject to this, and there is a certain rate of voter coercion that goes undetected, particularly within households.

For the proponents of all-postal voting, this trade-off is worth it for the sake of the increased participation rates. Democratic legitimacy can be very nuanced and delicate. A well-publicized example of voter coercion could destroy trust in the existing system, but then the well-publicized problems of lines and poor voting hours eroded trust in the previous system too.

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

#103

Post by colmmacc » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

Tyrek wrote: post #90

nostrademons wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that also a problem with in-person voting and fake IDs?

that's entirely a question of scale - I can imagine that it'll be trivial to scale 'online' voting fraud if you have credential access, whereas doing it in person naturally limits the total number of times you can do it.

Committing identity fraud in person, in locations likely to have an elevated police presence, is extremely risky and getting caught carries severe consequences.

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

#104

Post by astrodust » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

joshfraser wrote: post #14

rectang wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

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.

Can we just not blockchain voting and move on to other things?

Thanks.

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

#105

Post by astrodust » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #61

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.

So we shouldn't attempt anything that could be overridden by illegal activities by employers?

We shouldn't attempt anything that'd make their illegal behaviour easier.

Like mandatory armbands for your religion, a public record of your voting activities is a terrible and dangerous idea.

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

#106

Post by tzs » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #83

hannasanarion wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cuomo is not a good example of an mainline Democrat. He sides with Republicans in the state senate as often as Democrats. The only NY politician with a worse approval rating is Mayor DeBlasio. Election reform is a major piece of the Democratic party platform, and has been for a very long time. Whenever it comes up in Congress, the vote is party-line: all Democrats in favor of more secure and less money-influenced ele…

No, it's all Democrats in favor of things that they know will net them more Democrat votes, and Republicans against them, and vice versa, of course. Why are the Democrats upset about the census not counting "migrants" and going to court to block attempts to make the census only count citizens? Well, you could try to derive an answer from first principles... or you could just count votes, and come to the correct answe…

> Why are the Democrats upset about the census not counting "migrants" and going to court to block attempts to make the census only count citizens?

You are a bit off on that.

The census is supposed to count everyone resident in the US, regardless of citizenship status or legality of their presence here. It's been that way since the Census Act of 1790. (And it does not count US citizens who are not resident in the US, except for Federal employees and their dependents).

The issue with adding a question about citizenship is that it might discourage some people from responding to the census, reducing the accuracy of the count. The Census Bureau estimates that about 6.5 million people will not respond if the question is included.

There are legitimate reasons for the government to want to know how many citizens are resident in the country, and how they are distributed, but they already have that data from the American Community Survey which does include a citizenship question (in fact, I believe, the same question they are trying to add to the census).

The experts at the Census Bureau unanimously recommended not including the question (as did six former directors of the Bureau, both Republican and Democrat). The Commerce Secretary overruled them, claiming that the Justice Department said it wanted the question added to somehow better enforce the Voting Rights Act. (Emails between the Secretary and the DoJ that were introduced in one of the trials over this show that this is not true--the DoJ told him that the question was unnecessary).

Here's a recent article that covers most of this [1].

[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/705210786/a-decade-of-implica...

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

#107

Post by jfk13 » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

joshfraser wrote: post #40

jammygit wrote: post #21

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'

"The secrecy of the vote is crucial to its integrity." Secrecy is also what makes it possible to stuff the ballot box with fake votes.

And multiple independent observers watching the process can make that pretty hard to do at significant scale.

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

#108

Post by Wowfunhappy » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

colmmacc wrote: post #102

amenghra wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you go online (not to be confused with electronic-in-person), you cant really hide your vote. Whoever is buying your vote can instead buy your credentials to vote.

This is true of all remote voting. The all-postal ballots in Washington and Oregon are certainly subject to this, and there is a certain rate of voter coercion that goes undetected, particularly within households. For the proponents of all-postal voting, this trade-off is worth it for the sake of the increased participation rates. Democratic legitimacy can be very nuanced and delicate. A well-publicized example of vo…

> For the proponents of all-postal voting, this trade-off is worth it for the sake of the increased participation rates.

It occurs to me that there's a fairly obvious way to get the benefits of both: require voting in person, but make voting mandatory.

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

#109

Post by rtkwe » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #82

amenghra wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you go online (not to be confused with electronic-in-person), you cant really hide your vote. Whoever is buying your vote can instead buy your credentials to vote.

Isn't that also a problem with in-person voting and fake IDs?

To do that with in person voting you have to physically move around enough people with enough fake IDs to actually swing the election. The difficulty of doing that silently without anyone saying anything is a protection in and of itself. On top of that you have to get that many people on the voter rolls to start with.

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

#110

Post by tptacek » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

amenghra wrote: post #78

paulgb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This protects voters from being coerced into voting a certain way and taking a photo of their ballot as proof I like that, and I think it's an important property of voting systems that people who want to implement online voting overlook. But isn't it undermined by absentee voting, or is there a similar mechanism for that?

Once you go online (not to be confused with electronic-in-person), you cant really hide your vote. Whoever is buying your vote can instead buy your credentials to vote.

Nope, at least, this won't work in Cook County: even if you've mailed in a ballot, you can vote provisionally, and if you have your mail-in ballot in hand, you can spoil it on-site and vote normally. You could therefore "sell" your vote and still override it to vote differently on election day.