6 ms·

I spoke with a voting reform activist in San Francisco about a year ago. I expressed my opinion that one's vote should be securely auditable. He was horrified.

I spoke with a voting reform activist in San Francisco about a year ago. I expressed my opinion that one's vote should be securely auditable. He was horrified. Such a system could be used to buy and sell votes. (In other words you could prove who you voted for to someone else, if you were so inclined.) I can't help but think both sides intentionally talk past each other in order to maintain the status quo.

basementcat 8y ago
What would be so horrifying about buying selling votes? (other than the fact that it is punishable by up to 5 years in prison :-) Political campaigns could be run more efficiently (directly paying voters instead of a barrage of ads on radio, tv, youtube, billboard, every yard sign). Citizens may even pay more attention to important issues as they decide from whom they wish the accept payment. There would be a strong economic incentive to ensure that all votes are reliably cast and accurately counted. Depending on how voter incentives are taxed, local jurisdictions may even have an economic incentive to discourage (or encourage) gerrymandering.
- jancsika 8y ago
  Just to be clear: Our current election system is rag-tag, federated state-by-state, mostly-insecure, run by non-technical volunteers, and cannot leak a national database which links citizens' identities to their vote. Your election system perfectly implements a standard set of zero-knowledge proofs, probably implemented and maintained by experts. These experts can count and cryptographically prove the totals without being able to link citizens' identities to their respective voting choices. At the same time the citizen is granted ultimate control over their data such that they can reveal it to a third party in exchange for payment. Thirdly, a given citizen's voting data is plausibly deniable to any other party so that the third party offering payment cannot aggregate and sell the data. (Otherwise you'd be building a public nuisance that tyrants could leverage to punish citizens for anything in their now non-repudiatable voting history. This is also why I write "perfectly implemented" above.) Do I have this right so far?
  - basementcat 8y ago
    Actually, I think I'm okay with all "paid" votes being public. That would be analogous to a campaign finance disclosure. Campaign contributions are currently public information and future tyrants/public servants are free to reward that information however they like.
- pjc50 8y ago
  You hand the election directly to whichever foreign intelligence service can buy the most votes?
  - basementcat 8y ago
    The foreign intelligence services would have to compete with the petrochemical companies, Hollywood studios, NRA, tech companies, so on and so forth. I think everyone agrees that making choices for a representative democracy is hard and it would be great to have an opportunity to receive all the help we can get!
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  This isn't how it turned out historically.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  Tragedy of the commons. Everyone would just sell to the highest bidder, except a couple idealists.
  - basementcat 8y ago
    The USA economy runs this way and it has grown to be one of the largest economies in the World and had provided it's citizens with one of the highest standards of living in the World.
pulisse 8y ago
Why are you skeptical of the voting reform activist's reasoning? Secret balloting was introduced in the UK and the US in the latter half of the 19th century precisely because political machines abused non-secret balloting (systems in which a 3rd party has the ability to inspect one's vote) in the way he described. It's not a theoretical concern.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  There are lots of reasons. - Technical. You can create auditing systems that require a secret number the user is given at the ballot. They are also shown other numbers that would show different results to deceive people who might try to coerce. This is very off the cuff, there are certainly far more elegant solutions that effect the same result. It's hardly a difficult problem to solve with technology. - Reality. Regardless of whether cameras or photography is allowed in a booth phone video is silent and many voting areas have completely curtained off booths. People could use this to confirm and sell their votes. Problem is nobody's buying, which leads to point three. - Practical. Voting in the US used to be heavily restricted. Each and every vote was crucial. The total number of people voting used to be smaller than the margin of victory between candidates in "close" elections today. To have any effect in modern elections you'd need to carry out an extensive system of vote buying, which is illegal -- you'd get busted incredibly fast. As America has become increasingly politically polarized, you'd also almost certainly end up getting reported by the very people you're trying to buy votes from.
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    > You can create auditing systems that require a secret number the user is given at the ballot. You can also have paper ballots. They are understood by everybody and do not rely on a handful of high-trust individuals to come up with flawless software. You can ensure votes are counted without revealing identity by using scrutineers. > many voting areas have completely curtained off booths Closed off booths are a legacy of lever-pull voting machines. Semi-open is fine and allows officials and scrutineers to spot people photographing their ballots. > To have any effect in modern elections you'd need to carry out an extensive system of vote buying, which is illegal You can also just make it impossible as well as illegal. It's worth noting that even in elections where vote buying and vote menacing don't change the result, they cause harm in themselves. Some individuals are deprived of their vote by fear and the overall legitimacy of the system is corroded.

basementcat 8y ago

What would be so horrifying about buying selling votes? (other than the fact that it is punishable by up to 5 years in prison :-) Political campaigns could be run more efficiently (directly paying voters instead of a barrage of ads on radio, tv, youtube, billboard, every yard sign). Citizens may even pay more attention to important issues as they decide from whom they wish the accept payment. There would be a strong economic incentive to ensure that all votes are reliably cast and accurately counted. Depending on how voter incentives are taxed, local jurisdictions may even have an economic incentive to discourage (or encourage) gerrymandering.

jancsika 8y ago
Just to be clear: Our current election system is rag-tag, federated state-by-state, mostly-insecure, run by non-technical volunteers, and cannot leak a national database which links citizens' identities to their vote. Your election system perfectly implements a standard set of zero-knowledge proofs, probably implemented and maintained by experts. These experts can count and cryptographically prove the totals without being able to link citizens' identities to their respective voting choices. At the same time the citizen is granted ultimate control over their data such that they can reveal it to a third party in exchange for payment. Thirdly, a given citizen's voting data is plausibly deniable to any other party so that the third party offering payment cannot aggregate and sell the data. (Otherwise you'd be building a public nuisance that tyrants could leverage to punish citizens for anything in their now non-repudiatable voting history. This is also why I write "perfectly implemented" above.) Do I have this right so far?
- basementcat 8y ago
  Actually, I think I'm okay with all "paid" votes being public. That would be analogous to a campaign finance disclosure. Campaign contributions are currently public information and future tyrants/public servants are free to reward that information however they like.
pjc50 8y ago
You hand the election directly to whichever foreign intelligence service can buy the most votes?
- basementcat 8y ago
  The foreign intelligence services would have to compete with the petrochemical companies, Hollywood studios, NRA, tech companies, so on and so forth. I think everyone agrees that making choices for a representative democracy is hard and it would be great to have an opportunity to receive all the help we can get!
jacques_chester 8y ago
This isn't how it turned out historically.
emiliobumachar 8y ago
Tragedy of the commons. Everyone would just sell to the highest bidder, except a couple idealists.
- basementcat 8y ago
  The USA economy runs this way and it has grown to be one of the largest economies in the World and had provided it's citizens with one of the highest standards of living in the World.

pulisse 8y ago

Why are you skeptical of the voting reform activist's reasoning? Secret balloting was introduced in the UK and the US in the latter half of the 19th century precisely because political machines abused non-secret balloting (systems in which a 3rd party has the ability to inspect one's vote) in the way he described. It's not a theoretical concern.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
There are lots of reasons. - Technical. You can create auditing systems that require a secret number the user is given at the ballot. They are also shown other numbers that would show different results to deceive people who might try to coerce. This is very off the cuff, there are certainly far more elegant solutions that effect the same result. It's hardly a difficult problem to solve with technology. - Reality. Regardless of whether cameras or photography is allowed in a booth phone video is silent and many voting areas have completely curtained off booths. People could use this to confirm and sell their votes. Problem is nobody's buying, which leads to point three. - Practical. Voting in the US used to be heavily restricted. Each and every vote was crucial. The total number of people voting used to be smaller than the margin of victory between candidates in "close" elections today. To have any effect in modern elections you'd need to carry out an extensive system of vote buying, which is illegal -- you'd get busted incredibly fast. As America has become increasingly politically polarized, you'd also almost certainly end up getting reported by the very people you're trying to buy votes from.
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  > You can create auditing systems that require a secret number the user is given at the ballot. You can also have paper ballots. They are understood by everybody and do not rely on a handful of high-trust individuals to come up with flawless software. You can ensure votes are counted without revealing identity by using scrutineers. > many voting areas have completely curtained off booths Closed off booths are a legacy of lever-pull voting machines. Semi-open is fine and allows officials and scrutineers to spot people photographing their ballots. > To have any effect in modern elections you'd need to carry out an extensive system of vote buying, which is illegal You can also just make it impossible as well as illegal. It's worth noting that even in elections where vote buying and vote menacing don't change the result, they cause harm in themselves. Some individuals are deprived of their vote by fear and the overall legitimacy of the system is corroded.