5 ms·

> With anonymous paper ballots, coercion can and does happen, but it basically requires physical control of the polling station / voting booth to pull off. > I

> With anonymous paper ballots, coercion can and does happen, but it basically requires physical control of the polling station / voting booth to pull off. > In this case, anonymized ballots are put on a blockchain. Hopefully the system is auditable, but provides no way for someone to prove which anonymized ballot serial number belongs to them. Otherwise, the thugs can come to your house and either beat you or pay you your bribe after forcing you to reveal how you voted. I don't agree. The amount of damage to the voting mechanism a malicious group can do when physically controlling a polling station (which in itself proves a huge amount of reach and political power) is way greater than thugs coming to someone's house to check the right person was on a 'virtual ballot'. I agree that with this approach you can do voter information data gathering 'at scale' but if you can't really do coercion 'at scale' if you can't afford either violence 'at scale' or similar enforcement via the public system (no benefits, pension cut, etc..) then it's all for nothing. But if you can do all in the first place then there's no sense in talking about the method of voting, neither will be less secure or less private than the other.

thewhitetulip 9y ago
Thugs don't beat you up these days, they throw money at you. At least that happens in India these days.
- abhishekjha 9y ago
  I don't think we are reading the same headlines these days.
  - zhte415 9y ago
    It is common for roadblocks to be erected on election days in order to stop/search cars with bundles of cash in the back to pay the non-enfranchised to vote for a particular candidate. Sadly, lack of political awareness means many are ok to give their vote for cash.
    - rjmunro 9y ago
      The point of a secret ballot is that there is nothing to stop them taking the cash, then going to the polling station and voting for someone else. Are the ballots not secret in India?
      - manquer 9y ago
        They are. People sometimes take money from multiple parties at the same time. However many times largest spenders get the max votes. It is just not money, gifts including alcohol jewellery etc are given, so it mix of relationships with grassroots party representative(inc caste equations) and the gifts. If the sentiment is really against candidate no amount of money help.
vincnetas 9y ago
You might not have enough power for "violence at scale" but you could have enough money to "invest" to buy your way in to government for bigger ROI.
darpa_escapee 9y ago
Low-level coercion can have high level effects. Coercion doesn't have to be at the national level, either. Most elections aren't at scale, and the ones that are, are decided on a relatively few elections around the nation. Coercion doesn't have to take on the form of violence, social and financial reprecussions can be incentive enough to vote a certain way with the proof that you did. Think about this: "I don't want to associate/hire/do business with anyone who voted for Candidate X or Referendum A"
csydas 9y ago
Why not just a voters ransomware? Lockdown the computer except for access to the voting tool, activate day-of, and it lays the stakes out: vote for our guy or say goodbye to your data. You don't need a physical presence to coerce, it's simple to click and deploy, and even easier to Target phishing sites when you know what people are looking for. I easily believe that an interested party would drop big cash on a good exploit for such an event.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Because that would be easily verified, and the election would be thrown out. The attack wouldn't accomplish anything.
  - dfee 9y ago
    This is a tactic used to maintain power - delay elections indefinitely. Currently it’s happening in a number of African countries. Undermining the credibility could therefore accomplish “everything” (the intended purpose).
  - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure if I get the election thrown out and smear my likely to win opponent as someone doing this kind of tampering it's all good.
  - jpalomaki 9y ago
    Being able to sabotage elections and force a rerun might be an accomplishment for somebody. For example a foreign entity could use this to cause confusion and undermine people's trust in elections.
- zaarn 9y ago
  And you think nobody would report that to the police?
  - csydas 9y ago
    Granted, but people already report ransomware to the police with little to no effect. Businesses held hostage with their entire livelihood report it and still end up paying most of the time. The resolutions come month later typically. I'm not against the idea of trying to modernize voting or blockchain in general, but there are extremely practical and real problems that come with it which are a magnitude easier to accomplish than it is with paper ballots at the moment. I'm sure there is a procedural medium which alleviates this but I'm not bright enough to think of it at the moment.
aleksei 9y ago
If you have a group physically controlling a polling station, it will be obvious to everyone that the election is rigged. Small scale coercion, however, is easier to execute and easier to get away with, hence the need for your private vote to be cast in a public place.
- tajen 9y ago
  Russians have been stuffing boxes for years in Russia and it only came known after the surveillance camera was retrieved.
  - specialist 9y ago
    The Carter Center, among others, have published standards, criteria for observing elections.
- usrusr 9y ago
  > Small scale coercion, however, is easier to execute and easier to get away with And it's something that, if standards of voting privacy are sufficiently eroded, could easily emerge even without any big conspiracy behind it. Just think of something as grass-roots as spouses not being amused about a certain vote, that alone could have a huge influence on the outcome in some settings. This potential for casual coercion is why I even consider it an erosion of democratic values when people abuse absentee votes for convenience. A mild erosion, but an erosion nonetheless. Electronic voting could maybe improve on the issue of casual coercion if they allow individual votes to be recast until last minute, maybe even with some mix of deadline customization/randomization (with silent failure if already past the deadline) to add friction to less casual coercion attempts.
KMag 9y ago
> I don't agree. The amount of damage ... It wasn't a statement about the amount of relative damage. It was a statement that a voting system that leaks privacy beyond the polling station strictly increases the number of parties capable of coercion vs. a voting system that only requires securing the polling stations. There's a big "if" in trusting the government to run honest polling stations (and keep phones/cameras/etc. out). That's not in question. However, if a blockchain voting system leaks voter privacy, then random online criminals halfway around the globe with no capability of controlling polling stations can still coerce voters without needing to physically control even a single polling station. Electronic voting done right can be a force for good and transparency, but getting privacy right is absolutely critical. If you screw up privacy, you enormously increase the number of adversaries you need to worry about.
- e12e 9y ago
  And there are many kinds of coercion. What's the price per vote in the poorest half of the population in Sierra Leone? I also wonder if the blockchain means votes are cast publicly. Typically you vote, then tally. With every vote in public on the block chain, I could see mining companies bidding against each other for votes in real-time...

thewhitetulip 9y ago

Thugs don't beat you up these days, they throw money at you. At least that happens in India these days.

abhishekjha 9y ago
I don't think we are reading the same headlines these days.
- zhte415 9y ago
  It is common for roadblocks to be erected on election days in order to stop/search cars with bundles of cash in the back to pay the non-enfranchised to vote for a particular candidate. Sadly, lack of political awareness means many are ok to give their vote for cash.
  - rjmunro 9y ago
    The point of a secret ballot is that there is nothing to stop them taking the cash, then going to the polling station and voting for someone else. Are the ballots not secret in India?
    - manquer 9y ago
      They are. People sometimes take money from multiple parties at the same time. However many times largest spenders get the max votes. It is just not money, gifts including alcohol jewellery etc are given, so it mix of relationships with grassroots party representative(inc caste equations) and the gifts. If the sentiment is really against candidate no amount of money help.

vincnetas 9y ago

You might not have enough power for "violence at scale" but you could have enough money to "invest" to buy your way in to government for bigger ROI.

darpa_escapee 9y ago

Low-level coercion can have high level effects. Coercion doesn't have to be at the national level, either. Most elections aren't at scale, and the ones that are, are decided on a relatively few elections around the nation. Coercion doesn't have to take on the form of violence, social and financial reprecussions can be incentive enough to vote a certain way with the proof that you did. Think about this: "I don't want to associate/hire/do business with anyone who voted for Candidate X or Referendum A"

csydas 9y ago

Why not just a voters ransomware? Lockdown the computer except for access to the voting tool, activate day-of, and it lays the stakes out: vote for our guy or say goodbye to your data. You don't need a physical presence to coerce, it's simple to click and deploy, and even easier to Target phishing sites when you know what people are looking for. I easily believe that an interested party would drop big cash on a good exploit for such an event.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
Because that would be easily verified, and the election would be thrown out. The attack wouldn't accomplish anything.
- dfee 9y ago
  This is a tactic used to maintain power - delay elections indefinitely. Currently it’s happening in a number of African countries. Undermining the credibility could therefore accomplish “everything” (the intended purpose).
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure if I get the election thrown out and smear my likely to win opponent as someone doing this kind of tampering it's all good.
- jpalomaki 9y ago
  Being able to sabotage elections and force a rerun might be an accomplishment for somebody. For example a foreign entity could use this to cause confusion and undermine people's trust in elections.
zaarn 9y ago
And you think nobody would report that to the police?
- csydas 9y ago
  Granted, but people already report ransomware to the police with little to no effect. Businesses held hostage with their entire livelihood report it and still end up paying most of the time. The resolutions come month later typically. I'm not against the idea of trying to modernize voting or blockchain in general, but there are extremely practical and real problems that come with it which are a magnitude easier to accomplish than it is with paper ballots at the moment. I'm sure there is a procedural medium which alleviates this but I'm not bright enough to think of it at the moment.

aleksei 9y ago

If you have a group physically controlling a polling station, it will be obvious to everyone that the election is rigged. Small scale coercion, however, is easier to execute and easier to get away with, hence the need for your private vote to be cast in a public place.

tajen 9y ago
Russians have been stuffing boxes for years in Russia and it only came known after the surveillance camera was retrieved.
- specialist 9y ago
  The Carter Center, among others, have published standards, criteria for observing elections.
usrusr 9y ago
> Small scale coercion, however, is easier to execute and easier to get away with And it's something that, if standards of voting privacy are sufficiently eroded, could easily emerge even without any big conspiracy behind it. Just think of something as grass-roots as spouses not being amused about a certain vote, that alone could have a huge influence on the outcome in some settings. This potential for casual coercion is why I even consider it an erosion of democratic values when people abuse absentee votes for convenience. A mild erosion, but an erosion nonetheless. Electronic voting could maybe improve on the issue of casual coercion if they allow individual votes to be recast until last minute, maybe even with some mix of deadline customization/randomization (with silent failure if already past the deadline) to add friction to less casual coercion attempts.

KMag 9y ago

> I don't agree. The amount of damage ... It wasn't a statement about the amount of relative damage. It was a statement that a voting system that leaks privacy beyond the polling station strictly increases the number of parties capable of coercion vs. a voting system that only requires securing the polling stations. There's a big "if" in trusting the government to run honest polling stations (and keep phones/cameras/etc. out). That's not in question. However, if a blockchain voting system leaks voter privacy, then random online criminals halfway around the globe with no capability of controlling polling stations can still coerce voters without needing to physically control even a single polling station. Electronic voting done right can be a force for good and transparency, but getting privacy right is absolutely critical. If you screw up privacy, you enormously increase the number of adversaries you need to worry about.

e12e 9y ago
And there are many kinds of coercion. What's the price per vote in the poorest half of the population in Sierra Leone? I also wonder if the blockchain means votes are cast publicly. Typically you vote, then tally. With every vote in public on the block chain, I could see mining companies bidding against each other for votes in real-time...