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

USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

heraldsheets.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 390 posts

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#91

Post by fanf2 »

jsilence wrote: post #60
pgt wrote: post #27

Maybe this is a dumb idea, but what if for each election we issued a ballot containing a unique, random, sequential prime number to every registered voter? Then, when counting the votes for each candidate we display the running product of all the primes counted for that candidate as a "checksum", or "check product". This retains privacy while allowing individual voters to easily verify that their vote was counted by…

Why not simply print a receipt after voting with the vote printed verbatim and a digital token that allows the voter to easily check whether the vote has actually been counted correctly. The token could be a hash of some relevant parameters that are easy to check and maybe digitally signed by the voting machine or whatever.

The point of the secret ballot is to make it very hard to sell votes, because you can’t prove how you voted. (Vote by mail is not a secret ballot.)

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#92

Post by mulmen »

sebmellen wrote: post #52
aoowii wrote: post #48

Am I the only one still against network-based, and to a lesser extent electronic-based, voting? It's near impossible to rig or suppress a physical election without a lot of effort, but one person can DDoS an entire network and no one can vote and the whole election needs to be scrapped. Not even the strongest cryptographic or software systems are free from exploits (especially over time) and there's no way to be sure…

You can read a some of my comments in this thread addressing various concerns. That said, I would still agree. At least for the next 5-10 years (until we have Starlink-level internet and advances in cryptography/UX), electronic voting systems are not feasible. The nice thing about blockchains is you can avoid DDoS by only allowing people who are "authorized" to "talk to" the blockchain. This can be done by ensuring t…

No amount of cryptography can solve the problems of networked voting. It’s an exceptionally bad idea. Don’t do it.

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#93

Post by bootcampwhere »

sebmellen wrote: post #52
aoowii wrote: post #48

Am I the only one still against network-based, and to a lesser extent electronic-based, voting? It's near impossible to rig or suppress a physical election without a lot of effort, but one person can DDoS an entire network and no one can vote and the whole election needs to be scrapped. Not even the strongest cryptographic or software systems are free from exploits (especially over time) and there's no way to be sure…

You can read a some of my comments in this thread addressing various concerns. That said, I would still agree. At least for the next 5-10 years (until we have Starlink-level internet and advances in cryptography/UX), electronic voting systems are not feasible. The nice thing about blockchains is you can avoid DDoS by only allowing people who are "authorized" to "talk to" the blockchain. This can be done by ensuring t…

HN hates blockchain because it's too complicated for most here to bother understanding and idiots hate things they don't understand.

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#94

Post by Qwertious »

dpflan wrote: post #86
jsilence wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not simply print a receipt after voting with the vote printed verbatim and a digital token that allows the voter to easily check whether the vote has actually been counted correctly. The token could be a hash of some relevant parameters that are easy to check and maybe digitally signed by the voting machine or whatever.

Indeed, a record of proof of the transaction instills more confidence in the system (i.e. votes aren't just in this "black box") and provides a redundancy in the case of issues with the electronic system.

If you vote from home, what sort of receipt do you get? A digital receipt for every candidate can't be recorded unless it's mailed in (and if people are all mailing in anyway then it sounds like you're just overcomplicating things), and people keeping a record of their vote at home where they can show others will let people systemically validate blackmail - "show me you voted or I'll break your kneecaps". Although to be fair, if you seize someone's mail-in ballot you could force them to write it out under supervision.

Other than possible cost savings, the only useful benefit of electronic voting is if it lets people vote from home/vote more conveniently. Requiring a paper backup nullifies that benefit, and making it optional damages the usefulness of having a paper backup in the first place and adds privacy problems.

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#95

Post by mrweasel »

aoowii wrote: post #48

Am I the only one still against network-based, and to a lesser extent electronic-based, voting? It's near impossible to rig or suppress a physical election without a lot of effort, but one person can DDoS an entire network and no one can vote and the whole election needs to be scrapped. Not even the strongest cryptographic or software systems are free from exploits (especially over time) and there's no way to be sure…

Add to that, that the average person have a right to understand how voting works and how their vote is counted.

Trying to make voting electronic, regardless of it being block chain or something else, ensures that only a few people are able to understand the system.

Right now it easy to verify that count was done correctly, in theory you could go do it your self. Computers will back voting a black box system where verification is going to be almost impossible for all but a few.

Pen and paper works, it simple, easy to understand and the process is transparent in all steps except for the few seconds where the voter is in the booth.

There’s a talk by PHK, where among other things, he goes into why you shouldn’t mess with elections : https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Predictable-Failures/

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#96

Post by enaaem »

atoav wrote: post #72
aoowii wrote: post #48

Am I the only one still against network-based, and to a lesser extent electronic-based, voting? It's near impossible to rig or suppress a physical election without a lot of effort, but one person can DDoS an entire network and no one can vote and the whole election needs to be scrapped. Not even the strongest cryptographic or software systems are free from exploits (especially over time) and there's no way to be sure…

You are not the only one. However I don't think security is even a relevant concern, because there is one much more fundamental flaw in all electronic voting systems: The goal of voting is to produce agreeable consent — so it doesn't really matter how you organise voting, as long as everybody afterwards can agree who won, who lost and by how much. So phrased differently, one of the most important properties of any vo…

Taiwan has the best way of counting votes. Ballot is hold in the air, the name is called out and someone in the back keeps the score. Everyone can see what is going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqKt-lPfJuw

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#97

Post by mulmen »

pgt wrote: post #56
lalaland1125 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This setup seems mostly pointless to me. Instead of publishing the product, why not just list the primes themselves? Both should be roughly equivalent and just publishing the list of primes would be simpler. And then once you do that, why even use prime numbers? Just assign unique tokens to voters. What exact security garantee are you trying to provide that wouldn't also be satisfied by just giving each voter a token…

It can be verified with a pencil and piece of paper and a calculator, so anybody can do it. As long as you agree about the number of sequential primes issued, you can calculate how many votes are still outstanding and keep voting booths open until 99% has voted. By issuing ranges of primes to states, you know where you have to keep booths open.

How do you know how many votes there should be? Don’t you just have to trust whoever gave you the ballot/prime? Why wouldn’t they just generate the checksums ahead of time, they already know your prime exists. They gave it to you.

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#98

Post by lentil_soup »

pgt wrote: post #44
luckylion wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It allows for verification not only by the voter but also by third parties, doesn't it? That would make it possibly to sell votes (with proof!) or threaten people with repercussions unless they vote a certain way.

This is only a risk if ballots are not issued privately.

That is a great system, but there could still be coarcion to show your "prime number" token to someone, say your employer. Probably not common in the US or the EU, but in Venezuela for example there is a lot of pressure for employees of state owned companies to vote for the government and they use many tactics to make sure you do. I'd be worried about making it simpler for them. Maybe there's a way of addding an extra layer of security?

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#99

Post by xorcist »

sebmellen wrote: post #63
barbegal wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stellar operates on the basis of trust in a third party [1]. The jury is still out on proof of stake blockchains like Casper [2] [1] https://stellar.stackexchange.com/questions/160/how-does-the... [2] https://medium.com/@muneeb/peer-review-cbc-casper-30840a98c8...

If you define "third party" as your first link does, everything relies on trust in a third party. The counting of ballots also relies on a third party, albeit a less homogenous and "centralized" third party (though that term is also hard to define). The difference is that a public blockchain provides an open and auditable overview of the actions of the third party, and what the state of the entire "database" is. This…

> The counting of ballots also relies on a third party,

A third party counting all ballots, unless audited, would be a terrible way to conduct a public vote.

In pen-and-paper voting systems, counting is carried out by the very same people that vote, publicly, in the open. Then there are also auditing systems in place.

Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System

#100

Post by mulmen »

Qwertious wrote: post #94
dpflan wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, a record of proof of the transaction instills more confidence in the system (i.e. votes aren't just in this "black box") and provides a redundancy in the case of issues with the electronic system.

If you vote from home, what sort of receipt do you get? A digital receipt for every candidate can't be recorded unless it's mailed in (and if people are all mailing in anyway then it sounds like you're just overcomplicating things), and people keeping a record of their vote at home where they can show others will let people systemically validate blackmail - "show me you voted or I'll break your kneecaps". Although to…

Blackmail doesn’t scale.

In WA the ballot has a tab you peel off and can track through a webpage. It’s basically the system outlined above but we actually fill out a paper ballot then mail it in. The postage is prepaid.

This solves basically all problems and works great.

It’s independently verifiable. It’s anonymous. It’s accessible.

Post reply on HN