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

331–340 of 390 posts

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

#331

Post by benrbray »

hpcjoe wrote: post #317
benrbray wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the premise that fraud happens or not is highly politicized. People on one side believe it happens/happened. On the other side, they believe it to be impossible. > Though, curiously, those who believe it to be impossible also strongly believe in voter suppression, which would be a form of election fraud.... Can't have suppression without fraud[4]. Can have fraud without suppression, as this would be one potential f…

> No, you're missing the point. There is a difference between election fraud (the election itself meddled with by those who administer it) and voter fraud (whereby US or foreign citizens not involved in the administration of the election nevertheless interfere by submitting fraudulent ballots / hacking / etc). No, I don't think I was "missing the point." I carefully used the word "fraud". Not "electoral fraud". Nor "…

I think I should have been more careful with my "revised" statement, as I set up a straw man for my own position. You are absolutely right that both voter fraud and electoral fraud occur. We should take efforts to minimize both kinds. The divisive question is whether VOTER FRAUD or ELECTORAL FRAUD is currently a bigger threat to our government / society.

I maintain that it is important to clearly distinguish between voter vs election fraud. As your comments have shown, conflating the two risks confusion. I think the idea that "both sides are the same" is ignorant at best and intentionally misleading at worst.

I have so far seen no evidence that voter fraud has significantly impacted the outcome of any state or national elections. There is, however, overwhelming evidence that electoral fraud is widespread, and in most cases enabled by members of the Republican party, either through negligence or malice.

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

#332

Post by ycombonator »

I received two separate ballots on two different people who resided in this house in the past. What’s stopping me from filling both these ballots and mailing them. The point is unless and until the voter roll integrity is guaranteed there is always a possibility of fraud.

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

#333

Post by ddingus »

ihm wrote: post #276
ddingus wrote: post #231

So, we are making all the votes a matter of public record? It's either do that, or the voter is forced to blind trust whatever system is used to record their voter intent. To consider this problem properly, think about the problem a blind voter has with a ballot. They cannot see the record of their vote, when it's made by a mark. With a punch card, they cannot see the candidate associated with their record either. Th…

You can us zero knowledge proofs plus a blockchain to anonymize votes.

But you can't use those things to insure a voter intent is actually used for the tally.

Without publically identifiable votes, records like banking has for good reason, voter intent cannot be trusted to contribute to the final tally accurately.

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

#334

Post by ddingus »

dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote: post #286
ihm wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can us zero knowledge proofs plus a blockchain to anonymize votes.

This seems to be the tech underneath Algorand. If the USPS created a "Vote Token" and it was truly anonymized, how would a central entity ensure that people were not double-voting etc?

Exactly.

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

#335

Post by foepys »

pwg wrote: post #257
foepys wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the average citizen verify what is actually happening and that their vote is actually being counted? That when they vote for X that the counter for X is increasing by 1? By verify I mean full understanding of the process without the need to believe somebody who calls themselves an "expert".

> How does the average citizen verify what is actually happening and that their vote is actually being counted? Volunteer to be a poll worker and to be one of the witnesses during the counting process. You can then watch every step of the process occur openly and see that the votes are being counted accurately. If you watch the process accurately count all of the vote papers in the box at the end of the day, you can…

Yes, that why I'm advocating pen and paper in this thread. Nothing is simpler than counting ballots by hand.

It's blockchain that makes is impossible for the average voter or even for people with math or CS degrees.

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

#336

Post by donaltroddyn »

sebmellen wrote: post #66
donaltroddyn wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not a ridiculous argument. Anonymity is a cornerstone of fair voting systems, and any system that allows votes to be deanonymised increases the risk of coercion. The same type of risk applies to postal voting, although with less severity, as with postal voting there is only one opportunity to check the coerced vote. Blockchain based votes can be checked after the fact. Still, for this reason, postal vo…

The results of blockchain-based elections can be checked after the fact, that's true. But if the votes of the individuals in the electorate can be checked after the fact, the system was badly architected. The USPS solution linked by OP does not link the identity of a voter to their blockchain identity, so coercion remains as much of a threat as in postal voting. Blockchain-based voting systems can be either the least…

> I just think the above argument was made from a fundamental misunderstanding of blockchain technology.

Which misunderstanding of blockchains/merkle trees do you believe has caused the argument above to be incorrect?

The system as described in the patent provides no protection that I can see against voter coercion, and in some embodiments, allows a voter to verify that their vote has been counted as cast, which is significantly more ripe for abuse than in-person or even postal voting.

I did read your other comments in this thread, but it seems to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of blockchain technology and the problems that it can solve. Your proposed right-to-vote token solution is worse in every way than paper ballots cast in-person at polling stations with private areas, counted by hand in publicly observable count centres.

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

#337

Post by mulmen »

wtracy wrote: post #330
mulmen wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I follow. Are you threatening people’s jobs? Do you think you can reliably get away with that? This is the part where it doesn’t scale. You’re taking on an enormous risk to maybe swing a tight election by committing widespread extortion. It’s totally unrealistic and has nothing to do with voting in person, online or by mail. Your threat would apply to all of them.

> Are you threatening people’s jobs? Yes. > Do you think you can reliably get away with that? Robber barons did reliably get away with it throughout the nineteenth century. That's the whole reason that you don't get to take a copy of your ballot home today. > It’s totally unrealistic Well, somebody forgot to tell reality.

> That's the whole reason that you don't get to take a copy of your ballot home today.

My ballot gets mailed to my house. I fill it out in my kitchen.

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

#338

Post by godelski »

the_snooze wrote: post #309
godelski wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the problem "people not filling in circles properly" or is the problem that there are other errors. If I'm not mistaken you're referring to the hanging chad issue. The reason it was an issue is because it is hard to see the chad. We're in tech, this should be unsurprising that machines don't work with 100% efficiency. If your machine (human or computer) is marking a ballot it would be unsurprising if the mark is t…

>Instead we should design a system that accounts for these errors in a clear and concise manner. We already have these systems in deployment. My precinct uses optical-scan paper ballots where any mark inside the bubble is valid. You can fill, dot, cross, check, whatever---the machine will count it as a mark. If you have a stray mark that results in an overvote, the machine will reject your ballot, then prompt you to…

Yes, basically my response was about how the parent's issues are solvable and don't make things a non-starter.

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

#339

Post by hrktb »

the_snooze wrote: post #305
hrktb wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I the only one still against network-based, and to a lesser extent electronic-based, voting? I think that’s an extreme position that would be hard to argue keeping, in particular in the current situation. I see it the same way we deal with money: what is fundamentally different that makes us accept electronic money transfers as core part of our life but argue there’s no way electronic voting could be possible ?…

>what is fundamentally different that makes us accept electronic money transfers as core part of our life but argue there’s no way electronic voting could be possible ? The requirements aren't as strict for money as they are for civil elections. Financial transactions are frequent, so an error isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. All parties to a transaction know what everyone did; there's no requi…

Anonymity/privacy is only on the vote content, everything else needs to be traceable (who voted, where, when etc.)

And no, losing transactions is a big deal. Not receiving your house sale transfer when the sending bank emited the operation is a big deal, and you won’t solve it with a phone call. It can be repaired with money by the bank, but the system is heavily built to prevent it from happening.

Actually if the last mile issue is to have a paper in a box, you could connect a physical printer to a central secured voting machine.

To compare, election votes error margin is not small either, and those errors are mostly ignored as of now. I don’t see the status quo as some perfect state that should be preserve ad vitam eternam, and it is more and more preventing some people to vote.

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

#340

Post by grumple »

pwg wrote: post #210
eloff wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make the vote anonymous with electronic voting, in a way only you can verify if you wanted. There are existing voting systems with that property.

> in a way only you can verify if you wanted But, if "you" can verify it, then "you" can also be coerced into revealing that verification in order to avoid physical punishment (guy with big wrench who /requested/ you vote for A lest he begin breaking knee caps mentioned in a sibling post).

You can already be compelled to do that with your cell phone. People take pictures/videos of their ballots all the time (making it illegal doesn’t stop it).

Someone else mentioned a real/mask vote solution with blockchain so that issue could be solved by electronic voting.

Post reply on HN