4 ms·

I'm not convinced that any method will ever be 100% foolproof, but I think it can be improved immensely, and if we could limit the inaccuracies/fraud to always

I'm not convinced that any method will ever be 100% foolproof, but I think it can be improved immensely, and if we could limit the inaccuracies/fraud to always be less than those incurred by a traditional paper ballot[1], I think I'd approve. In regards to your comment regarding untrusted parties handling the hardware, here are a few counterpoints: - We already trust polling place workers with paper ballots, the possibility for fraud already exists. - The potential for fraud from any one polling place can be limited by implementing a system which makes it impossible (or very very difficult) to spoof the location from which a vote was cast, and ensuring that the number of votes cast per polling place is within an expected range. - Such a system could also include a paper receipt with an ID number on it. A voter could plug this "tracking number" in on a trusted website (ie. vote.gov) and confirm that their name is associated with their preferred candidates, but not allow them to change these choices. This would go a long way towards identifying fraudulent activity when/if it occurs. [1] Though figuring out how to quantify this is anybody's guess.

biafra 16y ago
"We already trust polling place workers with paper ballots, the possibility for fraud already exists." I don't know about the US, but here in Germany _anyone_ can watch the whole process including the counting of the votes. So it is possible for me to check up on my polling place. With the current paper ballot system you need a lot of people to cheat significantly. With voting computers you need only a really tiny number of people to steal an election.
- ams6110 16y ago
  Is it not the case in the US that representatives of each party supervise the counting of the ballots? Pretty sure that's how it works locally; though elections are state-governed so I guess there could be some variation. Having representatives of each party overseeing the process should serve to keep any monkey business in check. Though when people are involved, there's always a chance for corruption.
chadgeidel 16y ago
Certainly we trust the polling workers with paper ballots, and fraud exists there, but IMHO the ease of electronic fraud is much greater than the ease of paper ballot fraud. I'm thinking of the work involved with ballot stuffing - you basically can turn it into a "one click" operation. (Speaking only of the US voting system)
arghnoname 16y ago
You can't let people look up their vote or their employers, spouse, etc, could force them to vote for preferred candidates. Ron Rivest has a system to make it verifiable and deniable (Three ballot system). There are others.
- dandelany 16y ago
  Rivest has the right idea in terms of thinking about this cryptographically... But the Three Ballot system would be an absolute mess :-P Remember hanging chads? Try telling people that to vote against a candidate, they have to mark them on one of three ballots...
  - arghnoname 16y ago
    Usability is a big problem with election systems. Making something anonymous, auditable, fraud resistant, affordable, etc and simultaneously make it usable more or less by everyone is tough. They recently used a system called Scantegrity in Takoma Park, MD (Rivest also collaborated here). I've been meaning to look up the usability conclusions on this one, but I don't remember seeing much in the way of problems at the time.

biafra 16y ago

"We already trust polling place workers with paper ballots, the possibility for fraud already exists." I don't know about the US, but here in Germany _anyone_ can watch the whole process including the counting of the votes. So it is possible for me to check up on my polling place. With the current paper ballot system you need a lot of people to cheat significantly. With voting computers you need only a really tiny number of people to steal an election.

ams6110 16y ago
Is it not the case in the US that representatives of each party supervise the counting of the ballots? Pretty sure that's how it works locally; though elections are state-governed so I guess there could be some variation. Having representatives of each party overseeing the process should serve to keep any monkey business in check. Though when people are involved, there's always a chance for corruption.

chadgeidel 16y ago

Certainly we trust the polling workers with paper ballots, and fraud exists there, but IMHO the ease of electronic fraud is much greater than the ease of paper ballot fraud. I'm thinking of the work involved with ballot stuffing - you basically can turn it into a "one click" operation. (Speaking only of the US voting system)

arghnoname 16y ago

You can't let people look up their vote or their employers, spouse, etc, could force them to vote for preferred candidates. Ron Rivest has a system to make it verifiable and deniable (Three ballot system). There are others.

dandelany 16y ago
Rivest has the right idea in terms of thinking about this cryptographically... But the Three Ballot system would be an absolute mess :-P Remember hanging chads? Try telling people that to vote against a candidate, they have to mark them on one of three ballots...
- arghnoname 16y ago
  Usability is a big problem with election systems. Making something anonymous, auditable, fraud resistant, affordable, etc and simultaneously make it usable more or less by everyone is tough. They recently used a system called Scantegrity in Takoma Park, MD (Rivest also collaborated here). I've been meaning to look up the usability conclusions on this one, but I don't remember seeing much in the way of problems at the time.