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

381–390 of 390 posts

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

#381

Post by [deleted] »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #329
svrb wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other problems such as fake votes added First of all, everyone knows we can prove this never happens already, so no big deal. Second, this is a feature, not a bug.

>everyone knows we can prove this never happens You're claiming extra votes are never added? That everyone knows this? Citation? In the 2018 North Carolina 9th Congressional District election had votes added illegally, changing the outcome. The subsequent investigation threw out the fraudulent votes, the illegally elected Mark Harris stepped down, and so far about a dozen people have been charged with felonies. "At t…

[deleted]

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

#382

Post by aksss »

eloff wrote: post #212
pwg wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

There are ways to provide verifiability without that vulnerability. But since there's no way to prevent the wrench guy standing over your shoulder, I think you could only really solve that problem if you vote in person. If you're doing that I still think blockchain voting is great, but then you should also print out a paper trail and tally that separately. Then you have two overlapping systems with different trust pr…

There’s so much to be said for voting in person, the reason you stated chief amongst them. However, attending to the polling place on Election Day is very healthy for a community, IME. Also, there’s something virtuous in expecting people to get their shit together enough to walk in on Election Day, so long as early voting is there to accommodate those who cannot make it that day.

The rush to vote by mail (with risk of ballot harvesting, which I saw in my own city (a Republican incidentally) and online voting (with associated risks) seems foolish to me. The secret ballot, completed by oneself in guaranteed isolation, is the pillar of my confidence in our system. Pandemic be damned - it’s not a severe enough crisis (by the number of deaths) to warrant overhauling the system the night before. Feels very much like a useful opportunity to advance an erosion of faith in the electoral system. If I were Russia or China, I would be looking on at the discord with glee right now.

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

#383

Post by aksss »

the_snooze wrote: post #209
Consultant32452 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most elections the number of absentee ballots is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. I'm not even certain absentee ballots are always counted because of this, winners are surely announced and concession speeches are made long before absentee ballots are counted. So whatever security/intimidation issues might be higher in absentee ballots aren't that big of a deal due to the small number of them. That may b…

> I'm not even certain absentee ballots are always counted because of this This is a misconception. All ballots received according to the laws of the state must be counted before the secretary of state certifies the results. News networks will call an election as soon as they're certain it's gone one way or another. If Trump is up 30% in Wyoming on election night with 500 absentee ballots outstanding, CNN will call i…

What you’re saying about certification is true but the comment you’re replying to was making the point that the volume is low enough that most elections can be safely called without having completed the count, e.g. you have 5 absentee ballots to count but one politician is up by 20 - doesn’t matter what the absentee ballots say. So while intimidation with absentee ballots isn’t a factor, that comment was saying the now material volume of mailed in ballots creates a greater risk exposure than we associated with the absentee system.

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

#384

Post by squeaky-clean »

curryst wrote: post #133
squeaky-clean wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't know my bitcoin wallet address unless I share it with you, and you wouldn't know my voting ID unless I shared it with you.

SSNs are probably the closest existing parallel. How many people in the US of voting age haven't had their SSN leaked yet? Obviously SSN is abused in the things it is used for (I.e. identification), but I don't see any indication voter IDs wouldn't be abused the same way.

SSN is a (mostly) permanent number you use for many many things. A voter ID would be unique with every upcoming vote. Election specific public key would probably be a more correct term.

Abuse of it would definitely be bad, but it would be more difficult as you'd have to repeat the identity theft every election, rather than knowing someone's lifetime secret number.

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

#385

Post by dang »

davisr wrote: post #178
BurningFrog wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One very important thing most people forget: If you can verify that your vote was correctly counted, your vote can't be kept secret, and intimidation and vote buying becomes impossible to stop. > Whereas with paper I can't count the votes myself, I have to trust the authorities who did that. The way it works in my home country is that the paper ballots are handled in an inspectable way and anyone can observe the coun…

I'd never want electronic voting either, but this myth needs to die. Intimidation can happen with absentee voting too, so it's not a valid concern.

Sorry for offtopicness but could you please email hn@ycombinator.com? I want to send you some repost invites.

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

#386

Post by Touche »

Fjolsvith wrote: post #220
Touche wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming those in power want to increase enfranchisement.

So neither party wants to increase enfranchisement?

Parties want to increase enfranchisement when they are in a position to gain from it. Once they've gained power they usually no longer need the help that increased enfranchisement would provide (survivorship bias). This is the same problem that prevents fixing many problems in government, like underrepresentation due to the 2-party system. Those in power want to maintain the status quo.

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

#387

Post by staunch »

throwaway936482 wrote: post #288
staunch wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trusting that all the ballots are present, that no fake ballots have been added, and none have been tampered with, that the officials are all acting in good faith, aren't making mistakes, haven't been bribed, etc. Do you really think paper ballots have not been used to rig elections? Because that's absurd given the current situation in Belarus and the long history of ballot tampering going back thousands of ye…

Of course paper ballots can be undermined. The point is that you can easily tell that they have been undermined by the big burly blokes following people into polling stations and threatening you if you don't vote for the preferred candidate, or the ballot boxes turning up in the swamp. You're asking us to trust a magic algorithm that, as I pointed out in another comment, is likely to be proprietary and back doored to…

You rely on "magic" algorithms every time you fly in an airplane or drive a car. Because they're not "magic" at all but based in reality, on math and science.

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

#388

Post by pgt »

Znafon wrote: post #379
pgt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Issue 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17... up to N for N registered voters. Mix them up and hand out randomly. So let's say you get 5 and I get 7. To vote, you cast your prime for a candidate, thereby consuming it. No two candidates can share a prime, because their checksums will have a common factor, which is not allowed. If we both vote for candidate A, his checkproduct is now 35. If ballots 11, 13 and 17 vote for candidate B…

It doesn't work: let's take 4 people and they vote for two choices "1" or "2". I cheat when I give people their random numbers: A gets 5, B gets 5, C gets 7, D gets 11. Now they all cast their vote: A -> 1 B -> 1 C -> 2 D -> 2 Let's tally the votes, the result for choice 1 is 5 and the result for choice 2 is 77. A checks that its vote has been counted 5%5 == 0 so it's good. B checks that its vote has been counted 5%5…

Of course, you also have to check that your vote was not counted for any of the other candidates.

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

#389

Post by Znafon »

pgt wrote: post #388
Znafon wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't work: let's take 4 people and they vote for two choices "1" or "2". I cheat when I give people their random numbers: A gets 5, B gets 5, C gets 7, D gets 11. Now they all cast their vote: A -> 1 B -> 1 C -> 2 D -> 2 Let's tally the votes, the result for choice 1 is 5 and the result for choice 2 is 77. A checks that its vote has been counted 5%5 == 0 so it's good. B checks that its vote has been counted 5%5…

Of course, you also have to check that your vote was not counted for any of the other candidates.

None of the voters had their vote counted to another candidate here but the result is wrong.

This voting scheme is just broken.

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

#390

Post by hpcjoe »

benrbray wrote: post #331
hpcjoe wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Again, assigning blame to a single party is simply incorrect. It shows bias. From today[1]. And previous reporting on this identifies the party[2]. Not the GOP.

Fraud occurs[3], and it is not only from one particular party or group. The idea is to simply reduce any potential impact from attempts at fraud. We aren't there yet. We need to be in order to have an election that people might accept.

I am, however, of the belief that no matter how this November 3rd goes, about 50% of the population will not accept the outcome. Just like in 2016.

[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paterson-new-jersey-voter-f...

[2] http://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/06/25/fraud-charges/

[3] https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-ele...

Post reply on HN