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

Public trust demands open-source voting systems

voting.works

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 292 posts

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#21

Post by 0x457 »

fabian2k wrote: post #10
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it's incredible how many problems are solved by hand-counted paper ballots. I get that it's a big task, that it takes time (and some US administrations seem to despise not knowing election results the night of the election), and that it's very tempting to automate, but the basic formula of 1) everyone gets a paper ballot; 2) the ballots are collected at a polling station; 3) the ballots are counted by hand i…

Other countries get preliminary election results the same day even with hand-counted paper ballots. So even that isn't impossible.

Some stakes couldn't start counting mail-in ballots before the election day. That slowed down counting a lot.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#23

Post by okanat »

Public trust cannot exist if the voting system requires *any* expertise. Voting systems should be idiot-proof. If you cannot explain how voting system is manipulation-proof to a 7 year old, your voting system is untrustworthy.

This means anything more complex than a pen or a stamp on an approved paper is too complex.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#24

Post by ncr100 »

teddyh wrote: post #13

No. Public trust demands no software or programmable hardware in the election process. • Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI > • Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs >

(META: Anyone want to summarize the 20 minutes of video, and make it more relevant to this conversation than simply, "No." ?)

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#26

Post by Areibman »

From a process perspective, how can a constituent know with absolute certainty that their vote was counted, every voter in the system was legal, and the final tally was authentic? Especially when there's no way to even audit what you voted for after the fact?

Every time I try to get to the bottom of this, it always boils down to "trust the system" which makes me uneasy.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#27

Post by ericmay »

My preference (I think) is we have a federal holiday "America Day", (call it Trump day for all I care) where we celebrate, hand out cookies, friends and family get together, etc. and we all vote in person.

One of the weaknesses in our democracy is the insistency of doing things virtually - it's the same weakness exposed by social media.

Electronic systems are always going to be subject to hacking and manipulation, and are more easy to hack and manipulate at a large scale (scaling is the point of software). In-person voting is still subject to manipulation, but you can just go back and look at the ballots on paper as they are. You get more targeted manipulation, but it's probably easier for a single person to uncover and reason about.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#29

Post by bogwog »

teddyh wrote: post #13

No. Public trust demands no software or programmable hardware in the election process. • Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI > • Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs >

I agree that paper ballots are better, but also agree that electronic voting, when used, should be open source.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#30

Post by indymike »

ncr100 wrote: post #24
teddyh wrote: post #13

No. Public trust demands no software or programmable hardware in the election process. • Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI > • Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs >

(META: Anyone want to summarize the 20 minutes of video, and make it more relevant to this conversation than simply, "No." ?)

Too easy to cheat.
Post reply on HN