4 ms·
Any system has flaws, that's for sure. I'm not saying either that everyone should have a key, or how that key would be distributed. I haven't even thought of
by cbanek 10y ago
Any system has flaws, that's for sure. I'm not saying either that everyone should have a key, or how that key would be distributed. I haven't even thought of what the system would look like. I don't think this system would need to be online either.
But yes, I think such a system could be developed. And yes, I think the results could be audited. We have code running nuclear facilities, fighter jets, and other sensitive parts of our government.
In terms of how easy it is, just look at how hard it was to get recounts of votes, not to mention the 'hanging chad' situation, where people were arguing over what the paper votes were. Even the UI on the paper is very important to the whole experience to not confuse the person.
Right now your average joe isn't able to verify if their vote is cast on paper I believe. You have the number on your ballot, as least in nevada on a receipt, but validating that (or at least in a meaningful way, seeing the paper) is almost impossible.
For local elections and non federal elections, I think the system would be easier to mess with, due to the fewer number of people involved in the system.
Overall I'm not saying paper is bad, or that tech would be easier - voting is incredibly complicated. But I think it's entirely possible to design a good system. Personally I think the mail-in ballot systems are the best, but of course I'd like to have some way of checking on that, which isn't easy.
- Klathmon 10y agoI guess I just disagree. I just don't see what a safe secure electronic voting system would give us over the current paper system that makes it worth the downsides. And just to clarify, "validating" your vote is very simple. You just need to watch the box all day. You can (at least in my area) arrive at the opening of polls, inspect the ballot box, watch it get locked, then sit there and watch that thing all day. You could have 10 people, 100 people, all on different "sides" all watching the same box. Then when it comes time to count, you count along. By being there the whole time, you validate with your own eyes that nobody stuffed the box, and that every vote was counted. Sure, there are "attacks" that can be made against that, but they are very complicated and risky, and again even if you pull them off, you've just "hacked" a single district in a single county in a single state. You'll need a LOT of those to win an election, and not a single person involved can ever speak of it.
- angry_octet 10y agoThis reminds me of an effective technique for hacking an election: keeping the people who would vote against you from coming out to vote at all. For example, by threatening a law and order crackdown in the area. Busting people for minor traffic infractions, checking if they have outstanding warrants, etc. This is greatly facilitated by per-booth vote tallies, and pushing people to use a local booth. It might be that electronic voting would allow voting from many places, and hence alleviate the problem. But I'm guessing there will still be restriction of polling booth locations to make it inconvenient for some people to vote.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- stouset 10y ago"I haven't thought about any of the relevant details of such a system, and readily ignore the fact that we regularly fail to securely implement systems with a tenth of the complexity and zero human interaction, but such a system could be developed." Yeah. Okay, dude.