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

Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

engineering.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 316 posts

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#191

Post by pc86 »

clamstew wrote: post #186
noonespecial wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not a lawyer and can't really read new laws... Even elected officials seem to have a hard time reading all the things they vote on... And yet you're expected to follow them. All of them. Ignorance is no excuse and lack of criminal intent is no defense. We've got a bigger problem here than how the votes are cast.

When Austin gave its citizens the task to make a decision, they voted against uber/lyft, and now both companies have left the city. Currently feeling like we shouldn't give more voting power to citizens on everyday issues, since the media and lobbies can get people to do crazy things like give up easy cheap and safe rides.

Funny how any time a vote goes your way it's democracy, but any time it goes the other way it's "the media" and "special interests" and "lobbyists" that perverted the system. I am extremely pro-Uber, but wasn't Uber's own marketing partly to blame for the outcome of that vote?

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#192

Post by yummyfajitas »

vlehto wrote: post #185
yummyfajitas wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've stumbled across a bigger issue - democracy is fundamentally broken since no one has any incentive to vote correctly. I know a lady who's a likely Trump voter. But she also donated money to Hillary in order to get the "woman card". https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/products/the-woman-card She's pretty honest that it's just entertainment for her - like voting on American Idol. Think about how many election…

I just finished reading Kant's perpetual peace. He says something like "war protects from despotism". I'm a Finn. During the cold war we we're situated right next to Leningrad, but still pretty much free-trade capitalist liberal democracy. Our country has very little corruption, very good primary education, free health care, conscription and long line of very very well liked past presidents. Everybody had skin in the…

Suppose you vote wrong for some national socialist who will destroy the economy and kill the muslims. How much will you, personally, lose? I.e., multiply your actual losses by the probability of your vote affecting the outcome.

Now compare that number to the 1 Euro worth of tribal satisfaction/self righteousness/other positive feels you get from voting for that national socialist.

In contrast, consider a true "wisdom of crowds" situation. When I hold irrational views about share prices, the stock market immediately takes my money and gives it to people with rational views. Bad decisions result in immediate losses in direct proportion to how bad the decisions are.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#193

Post by sccxy »

DennisP wrote: post #182
guard-of-terra wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be much more difficult? The difference is "upload a photo of your ballot" versus "upload a screenshot of your vote".

That's why it's illegal to take a photo of your ballot, at least in most states in the U.S.

Wow, if it is illegal then it won't happen.

They should make killing also illegal.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#194

Post by throwawaysocks »

clamstew wrote: post #186
noonespecial wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not a lawyer and can't really read new laws... Even elected officials seem to have a hard time reading all the things they vote on... And yet you're expected to follow them. All of them. Ignorance is no excuse and lack of criminal intent is no defense. We've got a bigger problem here than how the votes are cast.

When Austin gave its citizens the task to make a decision, they voted against uber/lyft, and now both companies have left the city. Currently feeling like we shouldn't give more voting power to citizens on everyday issues, since the media and lobbies can get people to do crazy things like give up easy cheap and safe rides.

Yeah, democracy can suck when you disagree with the majority opinion...

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#195

Post by DMac87 »

mkingston wrote: post #172
mantas wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your comment correctly. I totally agree we should aim towards educated and politically active society. However, educated bit should come first. Then we can start making it easier to participate. Tiering the barrier of coming to polling place won't educate people by itself.

This comment papers over a huge problem. How educated is educated enough?

Yeah, I'd imagine the founding fathers would see today's voting populace as quite educated, relative to theirs...

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#196

Post by relix »

rlpb wrote: post #143
relix wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not an issue with online voting, and paper voting does not guarantee that right either. In Estonian e-voting, you can vote as many times as you want, only your last vote is counted. A week after online voting is closed, there is still a paper voting day, where you can go and override your online vote with a paper vote in the traditional booth. If you were coerced to vote a certain way online, you can still go…

You assume that a coerced voter has the freedom to go to the polling booth later to override a vote. What about coerced voters who are the victim of domestic abuse[1][2]? [1] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/02/uk.election2... [2] http://www.fahrenheit211.net/2015/12/04/oldham-was-it-the-be...

Exactly, so it is at least as secure against coercion as current methods.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#197

Post by dspillett »

pdkl95 wrote: post #150
lb1lf wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the voting machine should print a paper receipt which in plain text tells what vote you cast; this receipt is then deposited in a ballot box. If a result is disputed, simply count the paper ballots like we do today.

If it's printed paper ballots, you have merely created a very expensive pencil. There isn't any benefit of using a computer+printer.

Unless the result is contested you have saved an amount of counting effort which could be a cost saving. Though I suspect it would take some time for the ROI of implementing such a system to work out positive.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#198

Post by dspillett »

pdkl95 wrote: post #150
lb1lf wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the voting machine should print a paper receipt which in plain text tells what vote you cast; this receipt is then deposited in a ballot box. If a result is disputed, simply count the paper ballots like we do today.

If it's printed paper ballots, you have merely created a very expensive pencil. There isn't any benefit of using a computer+printer.

Unless the result is contested you have saved an amount of counting effort which could be a cost saving. Though I suspect it would take some time for the ROI of implementing such a system to work out positive.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#199

Post by relix »

tremon wrote: post #133
relix wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not an issue with online voting, and paper voting does not guarantee that right either. In Estonian e-voting, you can vote as many times as you want, only your last vote is counted. A week after online voting is closed, there is still a paper voting day, where you can go and override your online vote with a paper vote in the traditional booth. If you were coerced to vote a certain way online, you can still go…

In Estonian e-voting, you can vote as many times as you want, only your last vote is counted. A week after online voting is closed, there is still a paper voting day, where you can go and override your online vote with a paper vote in the traditional booth. So they can unambiguously tie a specific vote to a voter, yet nobody is concerned about the possibilities of retribution against certain voters?

Yes, they can at some point in the flow unambiguously tie a specific vote to a voter. Postponing the "separation" to after the paper ballots have been cast is then a simple trick. How it works is they encrypt the vote (using assymetric encryption), and then sign that datapackage with the private key on your ID card.

Once the votes need to be counted, the signature is removed, and all the resulting encrypted vote data is then sent (without identifying information) to a third server which has the private key to decrypt the votes. They are decrypted and then counted. This third server has no access to identifying information. The server stripping votes from identifying information has no access to the decrypted data.

Re: Why Online Voting Is a Danger to Democracy

#200

Post by throwawaysocks »

thegp wrote: post #159
Natanael_L wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secure multiparty computation. You trust that the right software runs, because unless multiple mutually distrusting parties runs the EXACT SAME software in the same configuration, nothing will happen at all - and they'll hopefully never agree to collude on running anything but the officially agreed upon version. https://roamingaroundatrandom.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/an-mp...

So who do you trust enough to be distrusting parties? This to me seems to be the same problem as making it proof of work: if the incentives are big enough, the scheme collapses. Look at the creativity that lead to caging and other forms of voter suppression

Contesting political parties. That's exactly how it's done in many countries already.
Post reply on HN