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

161–170 of 200 posts

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

#161

Post by Izkata »

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.

> Statistically, the public voters should be in line with the final outcome.

Not likely. Social stigma means the "acceptable" candidate would have a larger proportion of the public votes than total votes. For example, the Democrat candidate in Chicago.

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

#163

Post by jakeogh »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #156
jakeogh wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you don't pay?

Same as if you don’t pay your taxes, or you don’t pay your speeding ticket, or any other fine.

And... Take it to it's logical conclusion.

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

#164

Post by jakeogh »

jellicle wrote: post #46
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.

All states allow absentee voting, so...

Mail in voting is a problem. It's too easy to game.

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

#165

Post by jakeogh »

orev wrote: post #19
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.

There’s no reason to have identifying information at all. That would be handled at the voting location just like it is now. Blockchain voting doesn’t mean you can then vote over the Internet — you’d just have a better type of system in place at the voting locations.

Incrementalism is powerful.

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

#166

Post by jakeogh »

kazagistar wrote: post #54
hannasanarion wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Criminals don't follow laws. Plenty of things are felonies, they still happen, often.

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

#167

Post by village-idiot »

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.

The problem with blockchains in this situation is that your security has to be perfect forever. If anyone figures out a way to de-anonymize votes, they get all of them due to the public and append only nature of blockchain systems.

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

#168

Post by village-idiot »

joshfraser wrote: post #47
joshfraser wrote: post #36

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 across thousands of voting places.

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

#169

Post by village-idiot »

jakeogh wrote: post #164
jellicle wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All states allow absentee voting, so...

Mail in voting is a problem. It's too easy to game.

No, it’s not.

It’s easy to tamper with one ballot, but the level of coordination required to tamper with a large number of them quickly enough trends into the impossible category. Especially if you’re trying to keep such an operation a secret.

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

#170

Post by jakeogh »

village-idiot wrote: post #169
jakeogh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mail in voting is a problem. It's too easy to game.

No, it’s not. It’s easy to tamper with one ballot, but the level of coordination required to tamper with a large number of them quickly enough trends into the impossible category. Especially if you’re trying to keep such an operation a secret.

You don't need to tamper with them.
Post reply on HN