Live data from Hacker News

Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

theregister.com

121–130 of 501 posts

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#121
post #12

I don't care how much maths and encryption you use, you can't get out of the fact that things can be anonymous (no one can know how you voted) or verifiable (people can prove that you only voted once) but not both. - Switzerland usually gets around this by knowing where everyone lives and mailing them a piece of paper 'something you have' - South Africa gets around this by putting ink on your fingernail I've read qui…

The USA threads the needle by simply not having verifiable voting. And it turns out it works pretty well. Despite countless hours and lawsuits dedicated to finding people who voted more than once, only a handful of cases have actually turned up. It's not that there are no checks. You have to give your name, and they know if you've voted more than once at that station that day. To vote more than once you'd have to pre…

This. The process in my precinct is roughly...

- Enter queue

- A front of queue, show ID of some sort (various accepted) to volunteer

- They scratch you from the list and hand you a paper scantron sheet

- Go to private booth, fill out scantron

- Go to exit, scan ballot (it scans and then drops into a locked box for manual tally later, if necessary)

The "easy" ways to vote fraudulently are also easily caught... fake ID documents, voting twice, etc.

For people who forget their ID or have address changes that haven't propagated through the voter roll, there is provisional voting - you do the same as above, but they keep the ballot in a separate pile and validate your eligibility to vote at a later time. IIRC, the voter gets a ticket # so they can check the voter portal later to see if the ballot was accepted.

As noted, the number of fraudulent votes are astonishingly small, given the amount of money spent on proving otherwise. The current GOP has spent 100s of millions or billions on proving wide-spread fraud and so far, all they've managed to prove a few voters, most of whom were actually GOP-leaning, have committed fraud (and most of them were caught day-of already).

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#122
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the reason for electronic voting. The UK manages to tally up paper votes overnight, even from far-flung Scottish islands. Electronic voting is literally solving a problem that nobody has.

The UK is the world's 22nd most populated and 78th largest country.

UK population density (people/sq km) is 289 and Switzerland's is 228, so not very different. Plus Switzerland is fully connected, there are no remote islands.

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by...

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#123
post #99
post #12

I don't care how much maths and encryption you use, you can't get out of the fact that things can be anonymous (no one can know how you voted) or verifiable (people can prove that you only voted once) but not both. - Switzerland usually gets around this by knowing where everyone lives and mailing them a piece of paper 'something you have' - South Africa gets around this by putting ink on your fingernail I've read qui…

Sure you can, you just need an anonymous voting mechanism that's sufficiently naive. You use the verifiable process to restrict access to that anonymous mechanism. In Canada, at both federal and provincial levels, you walk up to a desk and identify yourself, are crossed off a list, and handed a paper ballot. You go behind a screen, mark an X on the ballot, fold it up, take it back out to another desk, and put it in t…

> paper ballots and requiring IDs

isn't that racist? i've heard it repeated but i'm not so sure

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#124
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much every bill that has ever been put forward for needing an ID to vote has had a provision for free IDs. That’s not where things get caught up. Also, it’s a pretty silly thing anyways. I don’t even drink and I still need my driver’s license quite a few times every year.

Even if the ID is nominally free, if I have to take a day off and pay for bus/train tickets to wait in line at some office, it’s not really free.

That's life. Figure it out. It's really an insult to a group of people to imply that they aren't capable of being a functioning adult in society.

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA threads the needle by simply not having verifiable voting. And it turns out it works pretty well. Despite countless hours and lawsuits dedicated to finding people who voted more than once, only a handful of cases have actually turned up. It's not that there are no checks. You have to give your name, and they know if you've voted more than once at that station that day. To vote more than once you'd have to pre…

> You have to give your name, and they know if you've voted more than once at that station that day. So you go to other stations, duh. It's called "carousel voting" [0], if done on a large, organized scale. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carousel_voting

At least in NY, you would have to know the name of someone else assigned to the 2nd polling site, since your name is only on the list of 1 polling location?

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#126
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will never be a technical or operational process that excludes cheating. The only deterrence that seems to work on humans and even then only most of the time is severe capitol punishment and that will only be as effective as people believe it happens thus requiring live streaming of the removal of cheaters heads without censorship. The current legal process of each country would have to be by-passed or people w…

Also cheating with paper ballots is much harder to scale and remain undetected than cheating by altering records in a database.

remain undetected than cheating by altering records in a database.

Absolutely. Any time something is centralized it becomes an irresistible target for unlimited numbers of bad actors and the bar to entry for remote anonymous access makes it a much easier target. Anonymous access to paper ballots means someone is going to be on at least a handful of cameras and has to bypass many security systems so if cheating happens it is because the people gathering the votes want it that way. Such cities or states should be excluded from the voting process.

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have e-voting systems that protect ballot secrecy and are verifiable. You can use homomorphic encryption or mixnets to prove that: 1) all valid votes were counted 2) no invalid votes were added 3) the totals for each candidate is correct And you can do that without providing proof of who any particular voter voted for. A few such systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Voting https://www.belenios.org/ A…

> You can have e-voting systems that protect ballot secrecy and are verifiable. In these systems the voter cannot verify that their vote was secret as they cannot understand, and much less verify the voting machine. > And you can do that without providing proof of who any particular voter voted for. Which is good for preventing the sale of votes, but keeps things obscure in a magical and correct box. How can I tell t…

And if it could tell you that then a third party could force you to reveal that you voted "right" as agreed before.

Paper ballots with mutually suspicious representatives of all parties watching themselves during handling and counting is the only way to go for big things like parliament/presidential elections and national referendums where, in the worst case, the greatest of all matters are at stake. And foolproof method for voting is most needed when the levels of trust are at the lowest.

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#128
post #99
post #12

I don't care how much maths and encryption you use, you can't get out of the fact that things can be anonymous (no one can know how you voted) or verifiable (people can prove that you only voted once) but not both. - Switzerland usually gets around this by knowing where everyone lives and mailing them a piece of paper 'something you have' - South Africa gets around this by putting ink on your fingernail I've read qui…

Sure you can, you just need an anonymous voting mechanism that's sufficiently naive. You use the verifiable process to restrict access to that anonymous mechanism. In Canada, at both federal and provincial levels, you walk up to a desk and identify yourself, are crossed off a list, and handed a paper ballot. You go behind a screen, mark an X on the ballot, fold it up, take it back out to another desk, and put it in t…

[deleted]

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have e-voting systems that protect ballot secrecy and are verifiable. You can use homomorphic encryption or mixnets to prove that: 1) all valid votes were counted 2) no invalid votes were added 3) the totals for each candidate is correct And you can do that without providing proof of who any particular voter voted for. A few such systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Voting https://www.belenios.org/ A…

> You can have e-voting systems that protect ballot secrecy and are verifiable. In these systems the voter cannot verify that their vote was secret as they cannot understand, and much less verify the voting machine. > And you can do that without providing proof of who any particular voter voted for. Which is good for preventing the sale of votes, but keeps things obscure in a magical and correct box. How can I tell t…

> How can I tell the machine didn't alter my vote if it cannot tell me, and just me, who I voted for?

Isn't that the whole point of having ballot secrecy ? Even with paper vote you cannot tell which ballot is yours (or at least, a recognisable ballot is voided during the counting).

Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA threads the needle by simply not having verifiable voting. And it turns out it works pretty well. Despite countless hours and lawsuits dedicated to finding people who voted more than once, only a handful of cases have actually turned up. It's not that there are no checks. You have to give your name, and they know if you've voted more than once at that station that day. To vote more than once you'd have to pre…

[flagged]

Also, most crimes aren't uncovered by lawsuits. They're uncovered by law enforcement. The reason people resort to lawsuits is because law enforcement does not rigorously investigate or monitor. Voting laws vary by state / municipality, and they're mostly run by well-meaning volunteers acting in good faith.

When we're not sure how well the TSA is doing, we try to send prohibited items through, and infamously get abysmal results [1]. IMO the reason we don't see more election fraud cases is because *we're not looking for it*, so we just see the obvious cases like when dead people vote or people brag about voting twice publicly.

Until we actually do some "red teaming" of elections, we won't ever know. But the reality is, if we actually did, the results would reduce credibility of numerous prior elections.

[1] https://abcnews.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-ope...

Post reply on HN