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

371–380 of 501 posts

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

#371

Post by matheusmoreira »

t0mas88 wrote: post #261

While this sounds like it allowed remote voting, it's interesting that some places (e.g. The Netherlands) went back to 100% paper instead of voting machines. That causes counting to take quite some time, with estimates/interim counts in between. I don't understand why voting machines can't just print your vote on a piece of paper behind a plastic window for you to see while also recoding the vote in a database. That…

> I don't understand why voting machines can't just print your vote on a piece of paper behind a plastic window for you to see while also recoding the vote in a database.

They absolutely can. Brazil uses electronic voting machines and that exact method was proposed to increase the trustworthiness of the system. We'd get the best of both worlds: fast vote counting and an auditable paper trail that serves as the ultimate truth.

Supreme court declared it unconstitutional using total bullshit arguments ranging from "it compromises voting secrecy" to "it's hard to implement", thereby fueling concerns that the voting machines are compromised.

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

#372

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

alistairSH wrote: post #235
MC995 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd also need a fake ID For what? In my state there's no requirement to show ID. When I first moved here I attempted to show mine at the poll and the poll worker told me to quickly put that away and she didn't want to see it. I'm not even sure it's legal for them to ask for ID here, given her panicked reaction to me trying to show it. Since then I've voted in this state for around 10 years and it's always the sam…

Yeah, it's inconsistent between states. I'm in VA and an ID is required. Despite being a bleeding heart liberal, I'm ok with that safe-guard (despite much of the left being against the notion). I'd also prefer an actual national ID (not the half-baked RealID programs, which some states still haven't adopted).

It's not really "much of the left" that is against it, just the loudest voices. Pew research says [1 sorry for the ugly URL]

Support for photo ID requirements also remains widespread in both parties. More than nine-in-ten Republicans (95%) and about seven-in-ten Democrats (71%) favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/22/majority-of-...

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

#374

Post by DoctorOetker »

The article is very light on the encryption scheme and software used.

For HN I would have expected a more detailed discussion of what could have gone wrong (it seems like a bug in some software package since we have this power of 2 ^ 11 being 2048

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

#375

Post by nemo44x »

hocuspocus wrote: post #335
nemo44x wrote: post #327

Paper ballots work just fine. Why are we using tools for scale (computers) when voting is an incredibly small and finite domain. Just total waste of tax dollars and over engineered solution to a simple problem.

Voting is definitely not a small domain in a direct democracy, and many Swiss citizens abroad don't receive paper ballots early enough to mail them back in time.

Provisional ballots work fine. Statistical inference works too.

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

#376

Post by matheusmoreira »

diego_moita wrote: post #17
palata wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I don't understand the push towards e-voting in countries like Switzerland. E-voting can be hacked from the other side of the world, because it happens on computers. In-person voting or physical mail is much harder to hack from the other side of the world.

Can't talk about Switzerland, don't know the particularities. But in continental countries like Brazil it makes a lot of sense. It is cheaper, faster and safer. > E-voting can be hacked from the other side of the world, because it happens on computers How do you "hack from the other side of the world" a computer that isn't even online? True, the transmission of computed results is made online, but keeping that safe i…

> How do you "hack from the other side of the world" a computer that isn't even online?

Supply chain attacks. You just need to get in there before everything is cryptographically signed and sealed.

The best part is even if they published the source code for everything it would prove nothing. I seriously doubt the builds are reproducible. Lack of source-to-binary correspondence means source code would serve only to embarrass anyone protesting the electronic voting system.

As it stands, nothing short of a full audit of the complete signed software image that the machine booted and executed on election day would suffice. The judge-kings are on the record saying this system is UNQUESTIONABLE so they should publish the image on the internet and let the whole world take a look. I'm sure no faults will be found.

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

#377

Post by throwaway85825 »

everfrustrated wrote: post #302

The biggest advantage physical voting has it is follows human-scaling laws. Which often is a problem (inefficient) but for voting this is a massive benefit for one particular reason - due to lack of automation any fraud doesn't also benefit from the same automation so has to be large scale and widely distributed for it to be impactful (the fraud has to be distributed to the humans involved). Which isn't to say that i…

Sorting physical ballots is very easy to automate. You get the security of paper with the speed of computing.

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

#378

Post by throwaway85825 »

drstewart wrote: post #137
cj wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Confidential? You can buy the voter list from your state government. They legally have to give it to you.

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

#379

Post by throwaway85825 »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #341
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…

> The USA threads the needle by simply not having verifiable voting. And it turns out it works pretty well. No, no, no. January 6 is a systemic failure. The purpose of a voting system is to select the most popular candidate in a way that is so far beyond doubt that a populist loser can't claim the results are wrong without alienating his base . Even leaving aside the whole "Trump doesn't care if his lies are credible…

The purpose of elections is to manufacture trust.

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

#380

Post by userbinator »

qq66 wrote: post #373

> By the close of polling on Sunday, its e-voting system had collected 2,048 votes I have a hard time believing that it collected exactly 2,048 votes by coincidence

Hopefully everyone on this site notices the significance of that number.
Post reply on HN