Live data from Hacker News

Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

belenios.org

61–70 of 307 posts

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or universal suffrage is fundamentally flawed. If people can't understand mildly complex voting systems then why should they be contributing to making political decisions that are significantly more complex.

But we don't vote on complex political decisions; we vote on our representatives, people whose interests allegedly align with ours, which is much simpler to understand, and delegate the complex decisions to them according to their qualifications. Whether the candidates themselves, all of them, can be trusted is a much more serious problem with democracy, I think, than "dumb" people affecting the vote.

this depends on where you live. there are many places in which people directly vote on complex issues. people in California voted to ban gay marriage. people in the UK voted on the incredibly complex topic of Brexit.

dumb people vote for dumb things, whether issues or candidates.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#62

As usual, good old fashioned pen and paper is worlds better than this or any other attempt by overzealous tech people with a hammer looking to hit this particular nail.

Except when mail-in ballots with the same signature and handwriting send in tens of votes each for unqualified "voters"/dead people.

So I'd amend your statement to "pen and paper, with official ID and in-person verification".

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#63

Personally I love the idea of a fully verifiable election. I do the the current election protocol my county uses is pretty good: you present id in one room, they check your eligibility, then you’re given an anonymous ticket, in another room you vote using said ticket, and get a receipt. You can see your but counted online using said receipt. There are two problems with this: 1. You can’t verify extra or in eligible v…

Why could they not verify against extra or ineligible voters? If each ticket is tied to a national ID, then you can verify all tickets, right? To ensure the secrecy of the vote, the votes should not be linked to the tickets. Each voter must verify that his vote has been counted. But once a vote has been counted, using blockchain can ensure that it cannot be undone or changed.

Could this work?

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between trusting HTTPS with credit card details and trusting crypto BS for voting is that you can easily tell if your credit card ends up abused. You can't easily tell if your vote is or isn't counted. You're generally right about each point in the process being a potential point of corruption. That's why voting systems need to be very simple and involve lots of people, even if it costs more. Ideally m…

> You can't easily tell if your vote is or isn't counted. That's why I said: > such as receiving a "tracking number" for your vote that is then easy to see it was counted There absolutely has to be a way to easily tell if your vote is or isn't counted, and that it's part of the sum total. I don't know if Belenios specifically does this in a way that is easy to see, but there's nothing inherently difficult or impossib…

I would concede that it's possible, but if you don't trust the system overall then it is basically impossible to solve the problem. And it's not just about making sure that your own vote is counted. It's about making sure there are no fake ballots cast. There are so many ways that illegitimate ballots can be cast, and I think an electronic system just makes it that much easier. At least with paper in person, someone has to show up and fool a poll worker. There's also a finite number of times that someone can commit fraud in person in one day.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#65
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think these are technically interesting systems, but "trust" really is the goal. "Verifiability" doesn't necessarily imply "trust," especially if it's shrowded behind inscruable crypto mumbo-jumbo. A voting system should be something voters and poll workers (i.e., local volunteers) can understand.

Correct. The system must be something a bottom 15 percentile person can understand and doesn’t think is magic. https://youtu.be/DUZa7qIGAdo?si=RDsgH2uIKb8k7ueG

My opinion is that IT literacy is increasing fast enough that in the near future a significant percentage would understand enough about electronic ballots as people understand now about the paper ballots. And I think you're over estimating how many people "understand" paper ballots. Yes, they know the basics, but the details on how votes are counted, validated and secured might be a bit too much for a random Joe.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#66
post #14

Tom Scott videos which cover why electronic voting is a bad idea: https://youtu.be/w3_0x6oaDmI?si=kGDOYOb_RiiQaZ3u https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs?si=YdQgNC4uUZDUDbab

Something being hard does not mean that it should not be tried. There are methods for preventing all the issues Tom Scott raises.

Voting with pencil and paper is easy, everybody can participate in the voting process and understand it. Also, paper and pencil are more sustainable (can be made from recycled paper and trees, which you can plant, as opposed of mining minerals, shipping, and maintaining thoudsands of computers, with batteries in case there is a power outage).

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#67

In reality private keys will be mailed in insecure envelopes, issued multiple times (just to be sure) or issued to people, who are not citizens, moved away or died.

I think this will be prevented when these private keys will be part of the national IDs, similar to how Estonia and other European countries do it.

If there's a "national registry of citizens" comprised of public keys, I think it will be easy to organize ballots on top of that.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#68
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something being hard does not mean that it should not be tried. There are methods for preventing all the issues Tom Scott raises.

Voting with pencil and paper is easy, everybody can participate in the voting process and understand it. Also, paper and pencil are more sustainable (can be made from recycled paper and trees, which you can plant, as opposed of mining minerals, shipping, and maintaining thoudsands of computers, with batteries in case there is a power outage).

everyone _that can make it to the ballot_ can participate. also most people have computers already, so you don't need to ship anything. from a sustainable perspective, I'm assuming it's better to have everyone stay home instead of travel to the nearest ballot, and just use their anyway-always-on device.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#69

As usual, good old fashioned pen and paper is worlds better than this or any other attempt by overzealous tech people with a hammer looking to hit this particular nail.

Good old fashioned pen and paper has tons of problems, and doesn't meet most of the guarantees that these voting systems are going after. Also, good old-fashioned pen and paper, when used, is surrounded by various systems and various equipment in order to: keep it anonymous and to make sure that a voter can't prove their vote to others, prevent false votes from being added and real votes from being thrown away, etc.…

> Also, good old-fashioned pen and paper, when used, is surrounded by various systems and various equipment

I don't know what the US does, but this is how it works in Germany: Around half-ish of the polling station staff are clerks of the local administration (normal office workers of the city hall, who almost always serve their whole life - they are not re-appointed by the current ruling party), half (or more) are citizens. If not enough citizens sign up voluntarily, random citizens are drafted.

The equipment is: A list of all eligible citizens, who can vote (no registration is required), a ballot box with a very flimsy padlock, for which the polling station staff has the key, mobile privacy screens for the voters, pens and the actual ballots.

If a citizen wants to vote, they show their national ID (something which the US does not have, I know, but that's not the fault of the paper voting process) and get a ballot. They make their choice behind the privacy screen and put the ballot in the ballot box.

After the polling station closes, the ballot box is shaken around a bit and anyone[1] can come to look / supervise the polling station staff as they count the votes. The number of votes must be round about equal to the number of voters. The result if given to the city hall via phone, the ballots get put into the ballot box and can be recounted later, if necessary. City hall puts all results on their website, so the polling stations can verify.

If a ballot has more than the allowed number of votes or something written on it, the polling station staff holds a quick vote, majority decides.

That's all, the whole process. No ink, no complex seals (the key for the ballot box is in a box with the blank ballots, it's only there to prevent accidental opening of the ballot box), no timed process (except "voting until 18 o'clock"), no politically motivated selection of polling station staff or observers.

Would you really say that this is more complicated than electronic voting, including understanding the algorithms? Especially for someone with no CS background.

And it works - will you sometimes have one ballot more than voters? Yeah, sure, because someone may forgot to count a voter. But those tiny, human discrepancies IMO don't matter when you have >1000 ballots. The result is correct enough, and based on keeping each other in check, not on technical security measures. Everyone can understand the process, and everyone can be a part of it.

It does not meet the correctness guarantees of (perfect, untamperable) electronic voting, but it's IMO a heck of a lot simpler, just as trustworthy at scale and anonymous.

[1] literally anyone, even non-citizens, no registration required - we even give them coffee if some is still left :D

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#70

The many ways that an electronic ballot machine can lose its integrity: https://x.com/TallJohnSilver/status/1721918130568511822

Any idea how those apply to the current topic? Just on a quick glance some of the voter fraud methods don't seem to apply: unregistered voter, multiple voting, etc.
Post reply on HN