4 ms·
If it takes a 56 page PDF to explain, and an explanation on encryption... it's too complex. Just do it with paper, have multiple observers, never count to more
by buro9 11y ago
If it takes a 56 page PDF to explain, and an explanation on encryption... it's too complex.
Just do it with paper, have multiple observers, never count to more than 10 (10 slips = 1 bundle, then count 10 bundles and make 1 large bundle, etc).
Basically, I like the UK way. It's not even slow, the whole country gets the results before they wake up the next morning.
The whole thing can be verified, and it can be reverified easily later.
- blackkettle 11y agoexactly. this and similar ideas great examples of solutions in search of a problem. it's also important, i think, to note that the concept of security in this context comes down to voter confidence, and this requires a solution that the average voter can understand. there is no better way to achieve that than the analog one you describe.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jacques_chester 11y agoPut another way: the unwieldiness of British- and Australian-style paper balloting is a feature, not a bug. To steal an Australian state or federal election would require the subversion of hundreds or even thousands of individuals, many of whom are mutually hostile, mutually surveilling agents (scrutineers[1]). Waiting a few weeks at most in exchange for years of democratic legitimacy is a pretty bloody good deal. [1] http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/scrutineers.htm http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/scrutineers.htm
- scraplab 11y agoAgreed, but there are plenty of votes that aren't important enough to justify the expenditure, and would be better administered digitally. Members organisations, etc.
- pasbesoin 11y agoIt suddenly occurs to me: Another aspect of pervasive biometrics. The State -- or, private entity with sufficient influence to access the ballots (think especially but not only at the local/regional level) -- scans the paper ballots for prints. Suddenly, they know how you voted. (DNA as well, I guess, but we are further away from having instant/economic mass DNA scanning.)
- eli 11y agoYou're way overthinking it. Most voters belong to a political party, which is a public record that anyone can look up. Same for campaign contributions. DNC and RNC and various private entities maintain databases of voters' political leanings. One wouldn't need to compromise the voting system to get a list of who (likely) voted for whom.
- IanCal 11y agoThat's not a huge concern, since in the UK there's a record of voter id -> ballot paper id kept. With access to that and the ballot papers you can tell how everyone voted.
- zo1 11y ago"Suddenly, they know how you voted." Why would that be a bad thing? Short of police-state type scenarios, I can't think of anything decently plausible.
- anonbanker 11y agothe slide deck linked to in the article was very informative and straightforward. The length of the PDF is to cover edge cases and scenarios of corruption, with solutions. You seem like a TL;DR kind of guy (nothing wrong with that), so just read the slide deck. maximum 50 words a page.
- buro9 11y agoErm, OK. I did read the article, and I did read the PDF, I understood both and then I commented here. However, the chances of explaining most of that to my mother in a way that she could understand in a moment, such that she could also explain it to the next person? It's unrealistic.
- lifeisstillgood 11y agoCompletely agree. I can only hope that the day after an electronic voting general election, the new Prime Minister is Edward Snowden, because a result that looks kind of ok is not going to throw the whole thing in the bin.