That's nothing, once e-voting is legal in Chicago, it will be 144% of the vote.
In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
21–30 of 208 posts
Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
#22That's nothing, once e-voting is legal in Chicago, it will be 144% of the vote.
The title is incorrect, it's i-voting, not e-voting, there's a difference.
Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
#23That is worrying. How do you know that the voter could vote freely and didn't sell their vote? Corruption around vote-selling is a concern in certain ethnic enclaves in Britain, and there were even elections annulled over that. The foremost concern shouldn't be convenience, it should be that the vote is safe and secret.
The article answers that. You can cast your vote as often as you want; only the last vote cast counts. So someone could coerce you to vote A (often a spouse), but afterwards you just go and vote again for B.
Of course that requires having the opportunity to vote again, so the solution won't deter anyone determined enough.
With paper ballots that problem exists too when you can authorize another citizen to vote on your behalf (this tends to be limited to one or two extra votes per person).
Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
#24That is worrying. How do you know that the voter could vote freely and didn't sell their vote? Corruption around vote-selling is a concern in certain ethnic enclaves in Britain, and there were even elections annulled over that. The foremost concern shouldn't be convenience, it should be that the vote is safe and secret.
How do you know they don't change your physical ballots?
You can inspect and watch the ballots.
Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
#25Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
#26That is worrying. How do you know that the voter could vote freely and didn't sell their vote? Corruption around vote-selling is a concern in certain ethnic enclaves in Britain, and there were even elections annulled over that. The foremost concern shouldn't be convenience, it should be that the vote is safe and secret.
The article answers that. You can cast your vote as often as you want; only the last vote cast counts. So someone could coerce you to vote A (often a spouse), but afterwards you just go and vote again for B. Of course that requires having the opportunity to vote again, so the solution won't deter anyone determined enough. With paper ballots that problem exists too when you can authorize another citizen to vote on you…
> You can cast your vote as often as you want; only the last vote cast counts. So someone could coerce you to vote A (often a spouse), but afterwards you just go and vote again for B.
How does this help you? If some one can coerce you once, they can coerce you again (and coerce you in showing when you voted last). Your assumption seems to be that the person forcing one does not understand the system.
Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
#27Wasn't it compromised a few years ago? [1] https://edri.org/estonian-eid-cryptography-mess-750000-cards...
Those certificates were replaced and/or revoked.
They have also changed the wifi password that they had made public in one of their youtube videos via a note on the wall.
(Sure, it was the guest-wifi but still)
Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article answers that. You can cast your vote as often as you want; only the last vote cast counts. So someone could coerce you to vote A (often a spouse), but afterwards you just go and vote again for B. Of course that requires having the opportunity to vote again, so the solution won't deter anyone determined enough. With paper ballots that problem exists too when you can authorize another citizen to vote on you…
> You can cast your vote as often as you want; only the last vote cast counts. So someone could coerce you to vote A (often a spouse), but afterwards you just go and vote again for B. How does this help you? If some one can coerce you once, they can coerce you again (and coerce you in showing when you voted last). Your assumption seems to be that the person forcing one does not understand the system.
Not my understanding; just how the system is explained there. I would guess that after casting the vote you can only see that you voted, not when. The only way to ensure someone votes the way you want them to is to wait until the very last moment (or just take away their identifiers).
Again, this is no different from using another citizen's mandate to vote for them, and it doesn't scale.
Of course there are plenty of other problems with e-voting that remain unaddressed.
Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
#29Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online
#30@Moderators
Just to avoid people collating together all e-voting (voting machines and similar) with the tech that Estonia uses (they call it i-voting for that reason), could the title be changed from "e-voting" to "i-voting"?