4 ms·

Why is it that electronic voting is so vehemently opposed here on HN and by many technologists in general when virtually every other existentially vital system

Why is it that electronic voting is so vehemently opposed here on HN and by many technologists in general when virtually every other existentially vital system they rely on is run electronically?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Because it doesn't work.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Does a system have to be 100% free of security concerns to "work"?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    No, but it has to be free of devastating vulnerabilities.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      The electronically run global financial system is not free of devastating vulnerabilities, and yet it "works"
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        So, what is your point? The financial system is actually going to collapse, and that's not a problem? Or the vulnerabilities aren't actually devastating, just bad? Or what?
        wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        That many technologists are being hypocritical by wanting to prohibit electronic voting because of "security concerns" while at the same time developing and using other institutional systems with equal or greater attack surfaces and consequences.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        Well, OK, that makes sense. Though I get the sense that the overlap might be limited.
maxerickson 9y ago
The cost of disruption is extremely high for voting, for pretty much everyone. For other systems, a disruption is just inconvenient for most people. Like if I can't use my credit card for a day, I don't care (of course this may be of more consequence for some people). Same thing with a power outage (and people that need it can have a backup for grid power; how do you have a backup for legitimate governance?).
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >For other systems, a disruption is just inconvenient for most people. Like if I can't use my credit card for a day, I don't care Would there not be far more immediate and direct inconvenience if no one could use their credit cards for a day, than if they couldn't vote for a day? (Assuming the following day both systems were back up and running) What is so inconvenient about have to wait an extra day to cast a vote on who your senator will be for the coming years versus being able to buy food or medicine?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    A disruption in voting brings the results into question. So it isn't just a matter of voting the next day, it's a matter of determining whether you have to redo the entire election, and whether you have to do that with different procedures or equipment and whether other jurisdictions have to redo their elections and whether past election are legitimate and on and on.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      >it's a matter of determining whether you have to redo the entire election, and whether you have to do that with different procedures or equipment and whether other jurisdictions have to redo their elections and whether past election are legitimate and on and on. Are you implying that these aren't already pre-existing problems that we haven't witnessed in recent decades?
  - scaryclam 9y ago
    Where I vote, if you couldn't vote that day, you don't get to vote. So, yeah, I'd prefer to be able to vote than eat for that particular day, given that the consequences can be so vastly different (someone manipulating the voting system to win, and then execute their damaging agenda vs being kind of uncomfortable for one evening). Credit cards are a convenience, voting is both a privilege and (in most western countries) a right. They're not really comparable in their importance. You also ignore the biggest problem: voter fraud. It's so much easier to mess with the vote with electronic voting than it is with paper ballots. Technical people don't like electronic voting, because they understand this. There's no way to be sure no-one's manipulating a voting machine. You'd need to physically interfere with each single person and their single paper ballot with paper voting. That's way harder to pull off.
marcosdumay 9y ago
It's worse than not working. It's because nobody can ever be sure if it's working or not. Granted what is publicly known, it not working is a very likely outcome, but nobody will ever be able to contest it.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  How can any one person be sure that a completely paper based voting system is working fraud-free in a country with hundreds of millions of people? How can you be sure the financial system you use is working? >nobody will ever be able to contest it. See blockchain. If everyone has a copy of the vote registry, then they can contest it if things don't match up.

Why is it that electronic voting is so vehemently opposed here on HN and by many technologists in general when virtually every other existentially vital system they rely on is run electronically?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

Because it doesn't work.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Does a system have to be 100% free of security concerns to "work"?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  No, but it has to be free of devastating vulnerabilities.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    The electronically run global financial system is not free of devastating vulnerabilities, and yet it "works"
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      So, what is your point? The financial system is actually going to collapse, and that's not a problem? Or the vulnerabilities aren't actually devastating, just bad? Or what?
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        That many technologists are being hypocritical by wanting to prohibit electronic voting because of "security concerns" while at the same time developing and using other institutional systems with equal or greater attack surfaces and consequences.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        Well, OK, that makes sense. Though I get the sense that the overlap might be limited.

maxerickson 9y ago

The cost of disruption is extremely high for voting, for pretty much everyone. For other systems, a disruption is just inconvenient for most people. Like if I can't use my credit card for a day, I don't care (of course this may be of more consequence for some people). Same thing with a power outage (and people that need it can have a backup for grid power; how do you have a backup for legitimate governance?).

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>For other systems, a disruption is just inconvenient for most people. Like if I can't use my credit card for a day, I don't care Would there not be far more immediate and direct inconvenience if no one could use their credit cards for a day, than if they couldn't vote for a day? (Assuming the following day both systems were back up and running) What is so inconvenient about have to wait an extra day to cast a vote on who your senator will be for the coming years versus being able to buy food or medicine?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  A disruption in voting brings the results into question. So it isn't just a matter of voting the next day, it's a matter of determining whether you have to redo the entire election, and whether you have to do that with different procedures or equipment and whether other jurisdictions have to redo their elections and whether past election are legitimate and on and on.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >it's a matter of determining whether you have to redo the entire election, and whether you have to do that with different procedures or equipment and whether other jurisdictions have to redo their elections and whether past election are legitimate and on and on. Are you implying that these aren't already pre-existing problems that we haven't witnessed in recent decades?
- scaryclam 9y ago
  Where I vote, if you couldn't vote that day, you don't get to vote. So, yeah, I'd prefer to be able to vote than eat for that particular day, given that the consequences can be so vastly different (someone manipulating the voting system to win, and then execute their damaging agenda vs being kind of uncomfortable for one evening). Credit cards are a convenience, voting is both a privilege and (in most western countries) a right. They're not really comparable in their importance. You also ignore the biggest problem: voter fraud. It's so much easier to mess with the vote with electronic voting than it is with paper ballots. Technical people don't like electronic voting, because they understand this. There's no way to be sure no-one's manipulating a voting machine. You'd need to physically interfere with each single person and their single paper ballot with paper voting. That's way harder to pull off.

marcosdumay 9y ago

It's worse than not working. It's because nobody can ever be sure if it's working or not. Granted what is publicly known, it not working is a very likely outcome, but nobody will ever be able to contest it.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
How can any one person be sure that a completely paper based voting system is working fraud-free in a country with hundreds of millions of people? How can you be sure the financial system you use is working? >nobody will ever be able to contest it. See blockchain. If everyone has a copy of the vote registry, then they can contest it if things don't match up.