...so they found voting fraud, good job
Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
351–360 of 501 posts
Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
birth certificate is not the only form of ID
How birth certificate is even a form of id? I don't understand.
... Why wouldn't it be? It's an official document, with your name (and other verifiable details) on it, that nobody else is supposed to have.
Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
#353I 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…
This is just plain wrong.
An extremely simple scheme is allowing voters to enter an identifier of their choosing and displaying that with the votes publicly. This is both verifiable and anonymous.
Any issues you can come up with this scheme are also iirc pretty easily solvable.
Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
#354I don't understand the need for e-voting. Germany's entirely paper-based system works fine! After voting closes, volunteers count the votes for a few hours and we get a result.
The pilot is for people unable to get to a polling booth. Traditionally, we use postal votes for this. But postal votes enable voter fraud (primarily selling your vote), so we can only use it for a small portion of votes or results become too suspect.
So paper systems require ballot boxes and polling stations for the vast majority, which makes elections expensive, complicated, and generally problematic. And unpopular, with low turnout, particularly during flu season and pandemic.
Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
How birth certificate is even a form of id? I don't understand.
... Why wouldn't it be? It's an official document, with your name (and other verifiable details) on it, that nobody else is supposed to have.
I'm not supposed to vote for some other person too, but I could if spend some minimal amount of effort. The same applies to a birth certificate.
The document itself says that someone had a name listed there, or at least that the authorities who issued it believed so about 20 years ago. If anything, the voters roll itself is more reliable for that matter (somebody still believed the same facts more recently).
I mean, proof of possession is some level of assurance, which is better than nothing. Knowing my mothers maiden name and birth date is also some level of assurance (this of it, you don't know those about a random me in the internet, so you can't vote for me in the elections for the next 15 minutes at least). But what is a desired level of assurance for something so many people feel strongly about? Is it more or less compared to visiting porn websites, boarding a plane, drinking alcohol, crossing international border and driving a car on a public road?
Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
#356eVoting cannot be understood and audited by normal citizens, not even by nerdy ones. It's just good for the trash.
It is not even about understanding. It is about how easy it is to distrust it. Contrary to what nerds think, the goal of elections isn't to get bulletproof results by mathematical standards. The goal is to create agreeable consent among those who voted. A good election system is one where even sworn enemies can begrudgingly agree on the result. A paper ballot system has the advantage that it can be monitored by any g…
> The goal is to create agreeable consent among those who voted.
If you still consistently miscount so that popular power isn't aligned with the electoral results, you will still face all the problems a democracy was designed to avoid. Starting with violent protests and revolutions.
But then, most countries fail this at other stages already.
Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
#357That's a very exact number if you know what I mean
You mean round, not exact.
Looks like some block-size thing.
Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always wondered (Clearly Not North America) How does one get on a list anyways? I would imagine getting on a list fraudlently leaves paper trail and this would have been discovered in 5 minutes retroactively, but I'm still curious.
When you register to vote, you give your address as well as proof of eligibility to vote. That address is used to assign you a polling place, and also as an additional piece of data needed in order to filter out fakers. Your voting eligibility is checked before being added to the list, which also mitigates fakers. If you're trying to register in someone else's name, you have to pray that they don't register themselve…
So... For each election, I have to register anew and the agency in charge has a backoffice is cross-checking this against... something? I guess they would first look if I was voting the last time? What if my birth certificate or whatever is from a different place. Do they assume I'm not risking using a forgery over politics (it's a fair assumption I would say)?
Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
#359Earlier 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…
> Despite countless hours and lawsuits dedicated to finding people who voted more than once, only a handful of cases have actually turned up. Trust in the system should always be highly valued even if the skepticism is largely unwarranted. Saying a lawsuit hasn't caught it yet won't persuade many skeptics.
> Saying a lawsuit hasn't caught it yet won't persuade many skeptics.
It wasn't a factual argument to begin with, wholly based on vibes and fear of Other
Re: Swiss e-voting pilot can't count 2,048 ballots after decryption failure
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on what qualifies as an ID and how hard it is to get one. But unless you're actively providing them to people that need them with no extra work or travel on their part then you're going to be discriminating against people with less money or time. In the case where disproportionately more poor people are of a certain race then it can be seen as racist (as it affects the population of that race differently). If…
>Depends on what qualifies as an ID how about the ones accepted by the police when they ask "show me your ID"? if it's enough to ID you to cops it should be enough to ID you to enter the voting booth, no? >and how hard it is to get one. you can get one at the DMV
[deleted]