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

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

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 501 posts

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

#131

Post by drstewart »

swiftcoder wrote: post #72
dolni wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but also have places where getting to a government office to get such an ID is difficult or expensive Where in the US do you find it's difficult for people to get an ID? Where is it not? What percentage of the population has an ID in a place where it's difficult to get one vs somewhere it is easier? What constitutes an ID being expensive? Nearly every country in the world requires proof of citizenship to vote. How…

> Nearly every country in the world requires proof of citizenship to vote. How is the rest of the world dealing with this problem? Most of those nations have a mandatory national ID, so everyone already has proof of citizenship. The US and UK are very much outliers in having vocal and successful resistance to the implementation of a national ID card.

>Most of those nations have a mandatory national ID

And what are the fees for these IDs, something you conveniently are leaving out (hint: mostly not free)?

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

#132

Post by jabedude »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #78
Auracle wrote: 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.

Neither is voting free, what's the argument here?

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

#133

Post by _whiteCaps_ »

Joker_vD wrote: post #118
jfengel wrote: post #111

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

Interesting. In Canada, for federal elections at least, you're assigned to a specific location and station. You can't vote anywhere else. There's a separate process for mail in ballots to confirm you didn't vote in advanced voting or on election day as well.

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

#134

Post by nness »

ritzaco wrote: 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…

Australia has a system where you are anonymous and can prove that you only voted once:

You have to be registered and must vote within your electorate, so your name appears on a certified list for that electorate and each voting location has that list. When you vote, they strike your name from the list.

After the election, the lists from these locations are compared. Anyone who votes twice has their name struck twice, and are investigated for electoral fraud.

Whether people know if you voted or not is immaterial, as voting is mandatory in Australia.

Works pretty well for a paper system.

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

#135

Post by superxpro12 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #124
d1sxeyes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Voting is only from 9-4" and you have a real job. Let's not pretend this wouldn't immediately be taken advantage of in certain places where disenfranchisement is real.

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

#136

Post by superxpro12 »

jeffbee wrote: post #110
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some districts have limited DMV hours in advance of voting days. Coincidental how these might be Democratic leaning areas in Republican states.

I don't even know why this is downvoted. Standard technique in Texas. Harris County does not have 40 DPS offices for its 5 million people. The current backlog to get a DPS drivers license appointment in Harris County is 45 days. The next available appointment in Kerrville is tomorrow. That is inequitable. But anyway, none of that is the real core issue with the idea of voter ID. The real issue is that there are many…

This doesn't have to be binary... there can be multiple sources of disenfranchisement. They all add up.

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

#137

Post by drstewart »

cj wrote: post #125
Joker_vD wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

This is of course a very high bar to clear, as data such as people's names is highly confidential and almost impossible to get unless you're any one of these 750+ data brokers: https://privacyrights.org/data-brokers

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

#138

Post by SoftTalker »

superxpro12 wrote: post #135
SoftTalker wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Voting is only from 9-4" and you have a real job. Let's not pretend this wouldn't immediately be taken advantage of in certain places where disenfranchisement is real.

Get an absentee ballot then. And I've never seen such limited hours in my lifetime. Usually it's 6am-6pm on election day. And many places now have early voting, you have 20-30 days to find a time to go vote.

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

#139

Post by superxpro12 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #106
expedition32 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump expects half of the US to get a passport in the next 6 months. These kind of fundamental changes require years of preparation. Either Trump is an incompetent moron or he has ulterior motives.

He's trying to prevent poor people from voting. Requiring poor people to pay a hefty fee, which they probably don't have, to get a passport seems a fairly competent way to go about making sure poor people don't vote to me. If I don't want poor people voting, then attaching a fee to voting doesn't mean I'm incompetent. It means I'm smart enough to know poor people don't have money. By the way, I think all of this is h…

I hate that we get so caught up on applying labels to the disenfranchisement, rather than completely and forcefully rejecting any attempts to disenfranchise any voter.

In a functioning democracy, voting is sacred. It must be treated as THEE core, fundamental right of every person under its care.

To violate this sacred tenet should be immediate grounds for exile. If you can't respect the ONE CORE tenet, or are incapable of, then there is not space for you in this society.

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

#140

Post by pseudalopex »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #97
ericmay wrote: post #15

Stories like this probably scare some people off from electronic voting but I don't think this is that big of a deal. When we finish voting operations in my area we load the ballots up on someone's personal vehicle and they take them down, securely, to where they need to go. That vehicle could get blown up and those ballots could be gone, though I think we could still get a record of the results. That being said for…

I would guess most people don't have a proof of citizenship handy. This would get even worse if the effort to get rid of birthright citizenship succeeds, how would you even prove you are a citizen? This would be less of a problem if the US had some sort of national ID issued by right, but we don't, and the same people pushing for requiring ID for voting would be against creating one. They hate the idea of a national…

> My state does all elections by mail now. How would this even work?

Trump told Congress to ban most mail ballots.

> All this is on top of the fact that elections are run by the states, not the national government. Would such a law even be constitutional?

Experts said no. But this Supreme Court surprised experts before. And the constitution said Congress could decide elections of Congress. They have the power. They need an explanation enough people would accept.

Post reply on HN