Public trust demands open-source voting systems • Hacker News Board

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#61

Post by jonathanstrange » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:22 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #29

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.

I wouldn't trust any democracy that uses electronic voting. It is not possible to secure voting machines and make them democratically accountable.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#62

Post by Vinnl » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:23 PM UTC

hannofcart wrote: post #57

bkummel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True! In The Netherlands, where I live, we still vote on paper ballots. The ballots are counted by hand. The counting is public, anyone can go and observe the counting.

This is in no way intended to be disparaging: there are processes that work within the scale of small European nations that simply won't at larger scales.

The same process is used for the Dutch part of the elections for the European Parliament.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#63

Post by abdullahkhalids » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:23 PM UTC

hannofcart wrote: post #57

bkummel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True! In The Netherlands, where I live, we still vote on paper ballots. The ballots are counted by hand. The counting is public, anyone can go and observe the counting.

This is in no way intended to be disparaging: there are processes that work within the scale of small European nations that simply won't at larger scales.

The total number of people voting at each polling station should be the same irrespective of the population of the country.

Besides that what other scaling problems are there?

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#64

Post by ori_b » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:24 PM UTC

The only voting machine we should be trusting is a printer.

If the goal is public trust, open source isn't helpful for the general public.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#65

Post by bogwog » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:24 PM UTC

thadt wrote: post #5

* Opens Github repo * Opens Cargo.lock [1] and pnpm-lock.yaml [2] * Closes Cargo.lock and pnpm-lock.yaml * Goes to find a Tylenol At least with open source we can see the sausage getting made... [1] https://github.com/votingworks/vxsuite/blob/main/Cargo.lock [2] https://github.com/votingworks/vxsuite/blob/main/pnpm-lock.y...

To be fair... What I gather from the readme is that this is monorepo containing 7 sub projects.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#66

Post by horacemorace » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:25 PM UTC

jcarrano wrote: post #20

Just use paper, count by hand, and abolish mail-in ballots and you should be fine.

We’ve been using mail ballots for decades, as a voter this system is convenient and afaik hasn’t been seriously challenged. Your suggestion for its abolition aligns with treasonous players like Vought.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#67

Post by horacemorace » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:27 PM UTC

arrozconcosas wrote: post #35

0x457 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Mail in ballots are even less secure

Source?

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#68

Post by teddyh » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:27 PM UTC

luxuryballs wrote: post #25

Computer-free voting only. Open source in this context is a ruse, only the deployed binary matters.

Only the deployed hardware matters. Or only the person reading the result of the machine matters. Or only the USB key which is transferring the results matters. Or…

Once you start with non-transparent mechanisms, there is no end to it.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#69

Post by lucideer » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:27 PM UTC

okanat wrote: post #23

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.

I live in Ireland which I think has one of the best voting systems in the world (don't worry we've still got plenty of other serious problems with our electoral system).

It's 100% paper PRSTV & so the counts are slow. Not only is this generally OK (because getting a rapid result is absolutely not a requirement of any well-functioning voting system) but it also has actual benefits.

The main benefit is predicated on the count being engaging in and of itself. Other countries put a lot of effort into jazzing up statistical presentations on constituency predictions, cloropleths aplenty, to engage viewers. In Ireland, count centres are not only manned by trained count staff, they're also flooded with volunteer tallymen who verify the counting in realtime. Count coverage is on the ground, showing a real physical process that's intricate enough to be watchable. The entire process also serves as an education-through-doing in how our voting system works, so you get a more engaged & informed electorate (when it comes to the mechanics of voting - still unfortunately not that informed on policy, that's a worldwide problem).

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#70

Post by lucideer » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 5:29 PM UTC

hannofcart wrote: post #57

bkummel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True! In The Netherlands, where I live, we still vote on paper ballots. The ballots are counted by hand. The counting is public, anyone can go and observe the counting.

This is in no way intended to be disparaging: there are processes that work within the scale of small European nations that simply won't at larger scales.

> there are processes that work within the scale of small European nations that simply won't at larger scales

Coming from Ireland (tiny population, low pop density) I've heard this argument countless times (we're an obvious target for this critique), but I still to this day don't see the logic of it. At all.

Constituencies are sized per capita, count centres are staffed per capita, if you have higher pop-density you'll either have more observers at count centres, or the same number at more count centres. This is a distributed system - it's the definition of scalable.

Fwiw the last count I tallied at (Dublin MEP) had an electorate of 890k. It was the smallest constituency in Ireland in that election, but still bigger than the largest congressional district electorate in the US. We counted in one large open warehouse. There were 23 candidates & 19 separate repeating counts.

That could work in favour or against your argument - I don't really know - I don't really think it matters either direction though.