Regarding sale of verifiable votes. Why not regulate the sale and tax it ?
USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
121–130 of 390 posts
Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
#122Am 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…
voting != elections. everyone agrees that voting on elections is not wise. but direct vote for deliberation (for example on laws) works great
Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's a bigger threat. "selling votes" or unverifiable election. i.e. we generally say election fraud is not a huge problem because its too easy to get caught. if that's the case, one would think any vote buying scheme would be even easier to get caught.
Or coercion. If at any point your vote can be known, there is very high risk that someone forces you to vote like they want. Only way to prevent this is total anonymity of which vote was by which person.
is coercion really a threat on a large scale in the US (I'm sure in other countries it is). But if the onl way to know my vote is to have my random identifier, if I dispose of my random identifier, they can't know my vote.
i.e. I feel we can both have total anonymity if a person desires, while also having verifiability.
as an example: a random uuid is assigned to me and my votes are printed out on a slip of paper with the uuid (and with a cryptographic signature to verify that it was produced by a voting machine). I can choose to burn the paper and no one can know how I voted or I can keep the paper and anonymously verify that my vote was recorded correctly (i.e. download the whole set of uuid -> vote mappings).
if the number of uuids submitted at each polling place is recorded reliably (i.e. observers from multiple sides having agreed upon counts), you have a good belief that no votes were added or removed.
if every voter who chose to keep their slip is able to verify their vote is recorded correctly you have a good belief that the votes weren't manipulated (assuming enough people verify their votes).
yes, there are issues, vote buying / coercion, but I'm just not convinced that those issues are severe enough or probable enough (at least in the USA) to want to avoid simple steps that will make people more comfortable with the election outcomes.
i.e. make the punishments harsh enough for anyone caught coercing / paying others for their votes to make it unlikely to happen at a scale that will negatively impact things.
but perhaps I'm naive about this.
Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
#124What is wrong with in-person paper-ballots? They have worked for centuries. And continue to be the absolute best system from multiple criteria.
Covid? Waiting in long lines? Not having votes on a holiday like in civilized countries?
All of those are solvable (and solved in most western countries).
Re. Covid, it would be a simple solution to spread in person voting out a few days. It would be an inconvenience but no need to invent a new system.
Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
#125Electronic voting is a terrible idea. Attacks on paper & pen ballot systems are much, much harder to scale. Here's Tom Scott with a great explanation of the basics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
The same argument applies to the internet at large. Shall we move back to filing cabinets because that makes data leaks more difficult? I'm sure that at some point we'll crack the electronic voting nut. But yeah: it's scary and the stakes are high. Then again, we've fixed electronic banking and that runs pretty nicely without many problems -- right?
Electronic banking works prescicely because it isn't a secret semi-anonymous blockchain thing.
If credit card payments end up in the wrong account, someone notices. If an electronic voting system assigns votes to the wrong candidate, who notices?
Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, at least in my circles nobody thinks electronic voting is a good idea. I think Tom Scott has the best argument: you can't build a system that requires you to have a PhD in computer science to fully understand why you should trust it. Every day people need to have faith in voting and not just because a group of experts say they should.
We put our faith into systems built by PhDs every day. People don’t have to understand why airplanes stay in the air in order for them to be the only practical means of rapid international transport.
It's also inconsequential when people say that planes are a lie from the fake news media. Science works whether or not you believe in it. Elections, not so much.
If people just decide not to believe the results of an election, then democracy falls apart.
Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
#127Am 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…
No, you're not. This is the consensus in tech. Well, at least in the infosec community, this opinion is held by the majority. For example, Bruce Schneier is an advocate of paper ballot for 20 years.
* Voting Security (2004)
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2004/07/voting_secu...
* Securing Elections (2018)
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_elec...
* See also: xkcd #2030 - Voting Software
> "They say they've fixed it with something called "blockchain."
> "AAAAA!!! Whatever they sold you, don't touch it, bury it in the desert, wear gloves."
> There are lots of very smart people doing fascinating work on cryptographic voting protocols. We should be funding and encouraging them, and doing all our elections with paper ballots until everyone currently working in that field has retired.
Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
#128Why does a government service provider need to file a patent?
Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
#129anonymous, verifiable: chose one. I would chose verifiable.
I'm with you. If someone votes for someone, they should also be held accountable for their Politicians actions.
Re: USPS Files Patent for a Blockchain-Based Voting System
#130Am 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…
Exactly. The other thing the current system does is that it involves LOTS of people. The people counting a specific polling place may only count 1000 votes. They know their count. They can talk to the other counters at other locations. So if your state or area all of a sudden miraculously goes blue/red, you can know it instantly and have the paper to prove it. This is the beauty of the system. It can't be hacked at scale and you have a hard time inserting fake ballots because each location can triple check their reported district counts.