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

Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 197 posts

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#111

Post by plopz »

macspoofing wrote: post #96

I like the pageantry and ceremony of paper ballots at specific voting locations followed by manual paper ballot counting. I know in principle it's easy to automate this away by introducing online voting and other things ... I think those things will further alienate people from their local communities and society at large. Keep paper ballots because they are inefficient.

The problem is then what do you do with low voter turnout? The article says that this election has in previous years resulted in <1% of eligible voters. That is clearly untenable.

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#112

Post by jimmaswell »

skue wrote: post #9

This is for a voluntary county board position without regulatory power that by statute needs to be elected by March when no one is paying attention. So someone decided to try this out. OTOH, the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent [1] and FWIW the Seattle Times recently wrote an Editorial also opposing the practice. [2] Bottom line, this h…

"the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent"

Sounds like nothing but a combination of thinly veiled voter suppression or technophobia, either of which should disqualify someone from public office in the eyes of an educated voter.

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#113

Post by Ill_ban_myself »

specialist wrote: post #84
skue wrote: post #9

This is for a voluntary county board position without regulatory power that by statute needs to be elected by March when no one is paying attention. So someone decided to try this out. OTOH, the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent [1] and FWIW the Seattle Times recently wrote an Editorial also opposing the practice. [2] Bottom line, this h…

Oh boy. Thanks for links. I know, and have occasionally crossed swords with, most of the players mentioned. Our conservation districts fund their own elections. They don't have the budget to pay to be on the normal ballot. The only fix would be for state government to appropriate the money. People like Toby Nixon have floated this reform at various times the last 20 years. Otherwise, there's no push. Current WA SOS W…

I hope by the length of my next sentence I'll be worthy of some small part of the praise you're giving the Seattle Times here :-)

It seems to me that the only difference between an exit poll and a voluntary disclosure checkbox which, if utilized by a statistically significant portion of the electorate, could be leveraged by official government commissions to audit election results where online voting is offered is that one these options is in the price range of the national parties and not publicly disclosed and the other strikes fear into the heart of everyone I've spoken to involved in election process.

Voluntary disclosure doesn't have to be a slippery slope and I firmly believe can and will lead to more fair and equitable access to the voting process and greater participation if it enabled online voting to be audited.

No one believes that large numbers of people will be blackmailed into disclosing their vote and if this or discrimination happens at scale then make it explicitly illegal. For those who aren't subject to these factors and are willing to participate in a census it would completely change how elections are run for the better.

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#114

Post by venantius »

jimmaswell wrote: post #112
skue wrote: post #9

This is for a voluntary county board position without regulatory power that by statute needs to be elected by March when no one is paying attention. So someone decided to try this out. OTOH, the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent [1] and FWIW the Seattle Times recently wrote an Editorial also opposing the practice. [2] Bottom line, this h…

"the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent" Sounds like nothing but a combination of thinly veiled voter suppression or technophobia, either of which should disqualify someone from public office in the eyes of an educated voter.

And this sounds like the opinion of someone who has spent literally zero time investigating how universal the consensus is among voting security professionals about how paper is still the best, most reliable, most secure technology with which to run elections.

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#115

Post by coolspot »

jedieaston wrote: post #45
coolspot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because casting votes online makes it easy to start voting market where you get perks for voting in desired direction.

I could just as easily start a system right now where I'll send you $15 to get a absentee ballot, vote how I want, and take a picture of it with some kind of unique identifier (post it note with your username on it, for example) before mailing it in. It's possible that a much lower price would even work too, since if you were going to vote my way anyway, you'd do it for free. So I only have to convince the voters on…

Absentee ballot or any other real-world interaction dramatically increases price per vote and risks.

With electronic vote, both reward and verification can be done in untraceable way. Basically you could sell your credentials for Monero on some Onion site and vote will be done on your behalf. Low risk for both parties and plausable deniability for seller (OMG, I was hacked!!!).

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#116

Post by jimmaswell »

venantius wrote: post #114
jimmaswell wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent" Sounds like nothing but a combination of thinly veiled voter suppression or technophobia, either of which should disqualify someone from public office in the eyes of an educated voter.

And this sounds like the opinion of someone who has spent literally zero time investigating how universal the consensus is among voting security professionals about how paper is still the best, most reliable, most secure technology with which to run elections.

In-person voter fraud isn't that difficult, and especially in Washington people get packets in the mail they can vote with by returning in the mail which would be pretty easy for someone to go swiping from mailboxes. Verifying identity online is not an impossible challenge and we can't just avoid improving anything forever.

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#117

Post by Beldin »

Ill_ban_myself wrote: post #113
specialist wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh boy. Thanks for links. I know, and have occasionally crossed swords with, most of the players mentioned. Our conservation districts fund their own elections. They don't have the budget to pay to be on the normal ballot. The only fix would be for state government to appropriate the money. People like Toby Nixon have floated this reform at various times the last 20 years. Otherwise, there's no push. Current WA SOS W…

I hope by the length of my next sentence I'll be worthy of some small part of the praise you're giving the Seattle Times here :-) It seems to me that the only difference between an exit poll and a voluntary disclosure checkbox which, if utilized by a statistically significant portion of the electorate, could be leveraged by official government commissions to audit election results where online voting is offered is th…

Voluntary disclosure sounds as if it undoes the secret ballot.

Just a reminder: the secret ballot is secret to protect those, whose genuine vote would otherwise be manipulated (/forced/extorted/...)

Not every individual voter might need that level of protection for themselves.

But every individual voter requires this level of protection for the whole process.

Phrased differently: for some, anonymity in voting is nice. For others, it is necessary to get their genuine vote. For democracy to function, we need everyone's genuine vote.

Thus: we need voter anonimity that cannot be rescinded by the voter - nor by anyone else.

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#118

Post by Ill_ban_myself »

Beldin wrote: post #117
Ill_ban_myself wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope by the length of my next sentence I'll be worthy of some small part of the praise you're giving the Seattle Times here :-) It seems to me that the only difference between an exit poll and a voluntary disclosure checkbox which, if utilized by a statistically significant portion of the electorate, could be leveraged by official government commissions to audit election results where online voting is offered is th…

Voluntary disclosure sounds as if it undoes the secret ballot. Just a reminder: the secret ballot is secret to protect those, whose genuine vote would otherwise be manipulated (/forced/extorted/...) Not every individual voter might need that level of protection for themselves. But every individual voter requires this level of protection for the whole process. Phrased differently: for some, anonymity in voting is nice…

Again, this assumes a slippery slope. Organ donors abound. Should we be allowed to redact it on our driver's licenses for fear that we might be judged by our bosses and neighbors or compelled to donate or that it reveals our religious beliefs?

When someone says, "America isn't ready for online voting." I hear, "The interests who already buy and aggregate enough information to have the results ahead of time want to stay 1 step ahead of regulators."

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#119

Post by johnchristopher »

joshuaheard wrote: post #25

I don't understand why a bank's website is secure enough to transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I can't cast a single vote online.

Because just outside the voting booth there are actual people watching after your safety and making sure you aren't coming into the booth with a gun on your head or any other kinds of means of coercion. Also, each candidates can make sure the others aren't messing up with the process.

A bank has no way to know in real time if you are being forced to transfer hundred of thousands of dollars or not.

Re: Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election

#120

Post by nokcha »

joshuaheard wrote: post #25

I don't understand why a bank's website is secure enough to transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I can't cast a single vote online.

Because elections have strict secrecy requirements that bank transactions don't. Once you cast your ballot, it can longer be associated with you. So if someone hacks the election equipment to alter the ballots, there is no way for you to find out that your ballot was altered or to reverse the alteration. In contrast, fraudulent bank transactions are routinely discovered and reversed.
Post reply on HN