3 ms·

I think it's probably still a little too far outside most peoples' comfort zone, but I think the future of voting will be 100% electronic with the capability of

I think it's probably still a little too far outside most peoples' comfort zone, but I think the future of voting will be 100% electronic with the capability of being instantly recallable. The voting system will allow me to see exactly how my vote was tallied after the fact. From what I have read this is not desirable for the fact that people will more easily be able to sell their vote because they can prove to their "buyer" how they voted. I think from a big-picture perspective this isn't a big deal. The reason is it would be extremely easy to create sting operations on both ends of this transaction: (a) create a sting to find and prosecute people willing to sell their vote, and (b) create a sting to find and prosecute people attempting to buy votes. I'd prefer to move to a voting system where I can account for my vote after I've voted and put in place enforcement via these types of sting operations to prevent the inevitability of people attempting to buy / sell votes more frequently.

3pt14159 8y ago
No the primary problem isn't selling votes. The primary problem is fabricating votes or people trying to destabilize an election by claiming they voted for someone else. If even 100 people come out and said their votes were changed what do we do? Re-run the election? Just use paper ballots. This isn't that hard.
- perpetualcrayon 8y ago
  The way I look at it fabrication would be impossible if done right. 1) precinct has record of every eligible voter 2) voter can (via encrypted means) retrieve their vote so it's still "private", but the voter can view it after they've voted. So as long as (a) the precinct confirms only eligible voter records are counted and (b) each voter can confirm their vote counted how they intended then I can't see how fabrication comes into play. Granted this assumes the systems in place to onboard new voters is solid, but even if it's not breaches should in theory expose the weaknesses and make it possible for us to iterate toward an even more perfect system. By not exposing the core data it's kind of like "security through obscurity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
- perpetualcrayon 8y ago
  Regarding "rerunning the election". As long as the process has integrity there will be a statistically insignificant number of people blaming the system for incorrectly tallying their votes. We have that today even though we can't see the results.
chrsstrm 8y ago
One of the cornerstones of US voting is secrecy. The ability to cast your vote without the public knowing who you voted for contributes to the integrity of the entire election. Today you can already be assured your vote was counted - in California you can go to voterstatus.sos.ca.gov and review your previous election participation and see that it was recorded.
- perpetualcrayon 8y ago
  Of course I'm not thinking we should make a voter's ballot public. Through public key cryptography a voter should be able to secretly retrieve and confirm their votes. And like with any other system there would be a small handful of people who will "claim" their ballot was counted incorrectly. But as long as the system has integrity only a small handful of people will do this. If large swaths of people start blaming the system of counting their vote incorrectly then there are real problems we should all know about.

3pt14159 8y ago

No the primary problem isn't selling votes. The primary problem is fabricating votes or people trying to destabilize an election by claiming they voted for someone else. If even 100 people come out and said their votes were changed what do we do? Re-run the election? Just use paper ballots. This isn't that hard.

perpetualcrayon 8y ago
The way I look at it fabrication would be impossible if done right. 1) precinct has record of every eligible voter 2) voter can (via encrypted means) retrieve their vote so it's still "private", but the voter can view it after they've voted. So as long as (a) the precinct confirms only eligible voter records are counted and (b) each voter can confirm their vote counted how they intended then I can't see how fabrication comes into play. Granted this assumes the systems in place to onboard new voters is solid, but even if it's not breaches should in theory expose the weaknesses and make it possible for us to iterate toward an even more perfect system. By not exposing the core data it's kind of like "security through obscurity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
perpetualcrayon 8y ago
Regarding "rerunning the election". As long as the process has integrity there will be a statistically insignificant number of people blaming the system for incorrectly tallying their votes. We have that today even though we can't see the results.

chrsstrm 8y ago

One of the cornerstones of US voting is secrecy. The ability to cast your vote without the public knowing who you voted for contributes to the integrity of the entire election. Today you can already be assured your vote was counted - in California you can go to voterstatus.sos.ca.gov and review your previous election participation and see that it was recorded.

perpetualcrayon 8y ago
Of course I'm not thinking we should make a voter's ballot public. Through public key cryptography a voter should be able to secretly retrieve and confirm their votes. And like with any other system there would be a small handful of people who will "claim" their ballot was counted incorrectly. But as long as the system has integrity only a small handful of people will do this. If large swaths of people start blaming the system of counting their vote incorrectly then there are real problems we should all know about.