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

251–260 of 501 posts

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

#251

Post by brainwad »

1718627440 wrote: post #176
tribaal wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Swiss citizen I strongly disagree. Most people capable of reading and basic maths (addition!) can understand the counting of our paper ballots. My kids understand how this works since they are like 5. Any citizen can go and check how votes are counted in their Geminde. Any citizen can check what is reported in the federal tally. I did several times. It's not rocket science.

> basic maths (addition!) Technically you don't even need that, you just need to be able to count, i.e. find the successor to a given number.

The rules for deciding the winners in proportional parliamentary elections are quite a bit more complex than that...

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

#252

Post by raron »

jjmarr wrote: post #87
dmos62 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should care how much maths and encryption you use [0][1], because this is not only possible, but there are multiple approaches. [0] https://satoss.uni.lu/members/jun/papers/CSR13.pdf [1] https://fc16.ifca.ai/voting/papers/ABBT16.pdf

More important than lack of voter fraud is proving to the population a lack of voter fraud.

This. A voting system and it security must be understandable to the average people. You can not do that with electronic voting. (Even if electronic voting can be done securely.)

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

#253

Post by brainwad »

Waterluvian wrote: post #53
soco wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Switzerland I voted last week for 5 election lists and 6 different topics. This happens at least 4 times a year, but I don't call it "ridiculous number of things".

For the voter that may not be a ton of work. I imagine to count all those votes you need technology and not just the election workers at each station? Here we have kept it dead simple. They’re all just hand counted over a few hours.

No, they count them by hand. Each issue/office has a separate ballot paper, so it can be done in parallel with sufficient number of counting personnel. It takes a couple of hours, sometimes more in big districts in cities but usually they are done by 6pm at the latest after starting at noon.

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

#254

Post by IshKebab »

ninalanyon wrote: post #201

Why is everyone so obsessed with automating voting? It seems to me to be a 'solution' to a non-existent problem.

If implemented properly it has some significant advantages: faster counting, votes can be verified, more resilient to fraud. Unfortunately it seems like nobody is implementing it properly yet.

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

#256

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

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…

On the US keep in mind elections are run at the state level and below, so we don't have a single voting system, we have 50+.

My state, Oregon, for example uses a very straightforward vote by mail system. They ask if you wanna register to vote when you get/update your drivers license or state id. Your ballot just comes in the mail, you fill it out, send it back. For folks that lack a permanent address or similar, you can get provisional ballots at libraries and similar city offices. The provisional ballots make you fill out enough information to check if you're allowed to vote.

It's simple, convenient, secure, and efficient.

So why don't more states do it this way?

Unfortunately there's a long ugly history of using all sorts of dirty tricks for voter suppression in the US, in particular to keep Jim Crow going. And unfortunately variations of that continue today. I don't have the energy to dig into it fully here, I just want any international readers to be aware there's a whole lot of utterly craven bad faith when it comes to discussions around voting fraud and security in the US.

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

#257

Post by zahlman »

chrisandchris wrote: post #244
zahlman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> you walk up to a desk I think the day I _must_ walk go a desk to vote is the day I'll give up. Voting by mail is one of the best things occuring here (in Switzerland). You get the voting stuff by mail, make your crosses, put it back into the postal box and it's delivered for free (as in beer) to the government.

It's completely normal here. People get federally mandated time off to go vote; 3 hours IIRC, which is way more than would ever ordinarily be necessary (and polling stations are open well past typical work hours). I typically walk a few minutes from home, and never experience a significant lineup.

Relying on the postal service here would make it much worse, honestly.

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

#258

Post by IX-103 »

some_random wrote: post #241
dirasieb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> paper ballots and requiring IDs isn't that racist? i've heard it repeated but i'm not so sure

It's been a talking point specific to the voting system in the US, strangely no other country seems to think it's an issue and as soon as the topic changes no one in the US has an issue requiring IDs for things.

No other country is quite as heterogeneous as the US. And there is a significant history in the US of using restrictions around voting to disenfranchise certain ethnicities. That makes any restriction around voting a sensitive topic in the US.

Proponents of voter ID claim it is needed to prevent fraud, while opponents point out that there's not enough fraud for it to be worth the cost.

Note that countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand also didn't require voter ID. First-world countries that do require ID to vote have systems in place to ensure that getting that ID is easy even for poorer people - such as automatically sending the ID to the voter by mail if the government requires you to report your residence or filing out the necessary forms once, before turning 18.

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

#259

Post by 1718627440 »

brainwad wrote: post #251
1718627440 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> basic maths (addition!) Technically you don't even need that, you just need to be able to count, i.e. find the successor to a given number.

The rules for deciding the winners in proportional parliamentary elections are quite a bit more complex than that...

True.

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

#260

Post by someguynamedq »

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…

Sorry, isn't this dead simple?

Maintain a list of identity hashes. When someone goes to vote, deny them if they're already in the list . Otherwise, add their hash to the list then allow a vote to be cast.

Post reply on HN