Live data from Hacker News

Public trust demands open-source voting systems

voting.works

131–140 of 292 posts

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#131
post #93

This is a power problem, not a technical problem. The US has the worst voting system intentionally, not accidentally. And mail-in voting shows we aren't even a little serious about election integrity. We're militantly against it: you can get people to rabidly support universal IDs for trivial, nonsensical reasons that have never resulted in significant problems; and to demand digital IDs, device attestation, and real…

The US doesn’t have a national ID system, so your proposal doesn’t make sense. The closest thing is social security cards but those are not photo IDs. A signed affidavit or local ID should be fine to establish identity. That can be done when signing up for mail in voting (although I personally prefer in person). Voter fraud is extremely rare under the current system.

> The US doesn’t have a national ID system, so your proposal doesn’t make sense. The closest thing is social security cards but those are not photo IDs.

RealID is a national ID system (that they pushed since the 90s for no reason), and we're all issued voter IDs when we register as voters.

> A signed affidavit or local ID should be fine to establish identity.

I don't think you understand that people are against showing any ID to vote; if you pull one out, the poll workers' eyes get big and they fall over themselves trying to get you to put it away (I just took it out so you could read my address to pick my precinct, ma'am.) An ID which, very soon, will be required to be a RealID if it isn't already in your state. It is in mine.

I also don't think you really mean that a signed affidavit is enough to establish identity, even though you said it clearly. If you actually do mean what you said, I'd love to hear the argument.

> That can be done when signing up for mail in voting

Mail-in voting allows other people to watch you as you vote, and is the opposite of voter integrity. You should not be able to prove who you've voted for, or else you can be forced to prove who you voted for. This is why you are not allowed to take pictures of your ballot in the voting booth.

There's absolutely no reason to spend any time on open source voting code if you'll allow churches to call their entire memberships in to fill out their mail-in ballots together (under pain of expulsion), or hypothetical gangsters to go door to door threatening to shoot people if they don't give their ballots up.

> Voter fraud is extremely rare under the current system.

1) There is no way to know, and 2) if so, that makes this proposal even sillier.

I personally am very interested in electronic voting and voting algorithms. I've read a million papers and think about it all the time. But this is not a technical problem. There is no country that has a worse voting system than the US. Normal countries don't take weeks to count up the votes.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#132
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 >

Aren't most paper ballots processed by machine anyway? Every ballot I've ever cast has gone through something akin to a Scantron machine. The cost of human labor to count all ballots by hand will be enormous. Probably worth it I suppose, but this really is something that should be primarily automated. But again, trust in software. Sigh, why can't we just have nice things?

If your paper ballot are counted by simple, airgapped machines - that's both a vastly reduced attack surface, and is easy (if laborious) to physically audit.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#133
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 cannot upvote this enough.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#134
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 >

Brazil and India are doing fine

Haha no. Voting machines caused absurd amounts of political instability here in Brazil. It's essentially become wrongthink to question the system.

Our elected representatives have tried to add a paper trail to the machines twice now and it was ruled unconstitutional for total bullshit reasons. Our former president was banned from future presidential races because he questioned the machines. We have a judge loudly proclaiming that the machines are UNQUESTIONABLE with such unwavering pride you'd think he'd have the balls to start a billion dollar bug bounty and post it here on HN. He only allows you to "audit" the system by appointment behind closed doors and the only tools you're allowed to bring with you is a pen and a piece of paper. People found issues even with these restrictions. There are people protesting to this day, laymen asking for source code, completely unaware of the existence of supply chain attacks and the fact the source code would prove nothing and serve only to humiliate them. We have former US president Biden's top CIA guy telling our former president to stop questioning the machines, wouldn't be surprised if they had access to this shit.

Germany did it right: voting machines are unconstitutional because citizens do not understand it. Elections must be fully auditable by the average person. This is the correct stance.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#135
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...

EW . Here, I’ll share some of my Extra Strength Acetaminophen. Those are some cursed lock files.

[deleted]

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#136
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.

Just the fact that there are millions of citizens means you have to trust the process. When I go vote and stamp my votes, you need to trust my county’s counters. I find it strange we focus so much on tampering with an individual vote (machine says you voted for X instead of Y) rather than tampering with aggregation

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#137
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And enforce national photo ID finally, like all other countries. I know this is a REP take, but they are absolutely correct in this particular issue.

Correct on the idea maybe, but their implementation schemes are designed to disenfranchise those less likely to vote for them.

I heard this concern and looking at the MAGA it is totally believable. But really, how can a country disenfranchise anyone, if they will issue a mandatory national ID? If it is not national (state or lower) or if it not mandatory (voluntary and/or paid for), then I can see parth for corruption. But if it is mandatory national document, issued to every citizen without exception and only to citizens, then I honestly don't see where the corruption may happen. If anything, USA SSNs are much bigger vector of corruption, a proven vector of corruption, but again, like with FPTP no one bats the eye.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#138
Stop me if you heard it before, but paper ballot with automatic counting machine is the way to go. You still get real time update, and you have a physical ballot box that's constantly under watch of volunteers from multiple parties. And if there's any dispute (there will be disputes) you can simply bring out the boxes and count again.

It's a simple, cost-effective system which is impossible to hack. Electronic voting offers no advantage over this.

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#139
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 >

Aren't most paper ballots processed by machine anyway? Every ballot I've ever cast has gone through something akin to a Scantron machine. The cost of human labor to count all ballots by hand will be enormous. Probably worth it I suppose, but this really is something that should be primarily automated. But again, trust in software. Sigh, why can't we just have nice things?

A single polling station usually only has a few thousand voters. During the day, polling officers at the station processed (signed/stamped/tore/etc) every single ballot that went into the boxes. They also verified every person's ID. When polling closes, why is it enormous human labor to count the votes, but all the processing during the day is not?

Re: Public trust demands open-source voting systems

#140
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree but worry about what this implies for accounting and other financial systems. If we can't trust the voting machines to tell us what the vote totals are, how can we trust the bank computers to tell us who owns what?
Post reply on HN