6 ms·

Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to ac

Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy posed by blatantly insecure endpoints, blatantly insecure company infrastructure, insecure network communications and devices (routers, etc.), private companies that often have a track record of insecure and sloppy programming, voting machines that have been shown to be hackable easily (people from CCC and similar groups do that routinely when they get hold of a machine), voting program code that has been improperly audited and/or cannot be verified by the public, flawed patching mechanisms, flawed and insecure operating systems of voting machines, and on and so forth. The list of flaws of electronic voting systems is nearly endless, and, what's worse, there is no mathematical proof that the encryption used in those systems cannot be broken. (There are lots of proofs in cryptography, but almost all of them are based on very strong idealizing assumptions. In the end, only OTPs are provably secure. We do not even have a proof that P!=NP yet.)

reallydude 7y ago
> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. That is incorrect. Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters. The slower the process is, the less representative it is. The fidelity of the loop is paramount, but the issue remains. EDIT: do the downvoters understand that there is setup involved in a paper process and getting results is not the end of the feedback loop (not race)? SMH
- arethuza 7y ago
  "The slower the process is, the less representative it is" If we are talking about months perhaps, but as long as a result is known within a day or two (at most) I'm not sure it really makes that much difference.
- gjm11 7y ago
  Surely the relevant feedback-loop time is the interval between elections, not how long it takes for votes to be counted.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  The uk manages to get a result in general elections in < a day
- afiori 7y ago
  This is only relevant if you propose to have weekly/monthly elections. For elections every few years even a week of counting would not be a problem.
  - jfk13 7y ago
    Although the longer counting takes, the more difficult it becomes for a substantial number of people to monitor the entire process. In the UK, counting takes place overnight, immediately after the polls close; it's feasible for multiple parties to ensure they have people at every location for the entire time, keeping an eye out for irregularities. If the process were extended over a week instead of a night, it becomes correspondingly harder to ensure that there was never an opportunity for someone to tamper.
    - afiori 7y ago
      That is true, but if they happen digitally then that becomes completely impossible. As things are now I see no reason of sort not to use paper ballots as the main proof of vote. Especially for big nation wide elections.
      - heavenlyblue 7y ago
        If that happens digitally (and using correctly distributed crypto signatures), then we can provide the public with the necessary tools to check every single vote.
        afiori 7y ago
        > and using correctly distributed crypto signatures you sort of lost me here. I will not say it is a bad idea, but it would never work in any country I know. Thee sheer size and cultural innovation required would still need to place an inordinate amount of trust in the system. Again, it is not that it is evil, as much as there are so many possible problems for so little gain (IIRC Estonia has a nice program where you have a state-SIM and you can vote via telephone, so there it actually might work)
- wongarsu 7y ago
  I don't think I understand what feedback loop we are talking about? Everyone who wants to be on the ballot registers a few months in advance, which is usually a short enough time. Since people are usually voted into a job they have to do for 4-6 years you don't want hasty decisions anyways. Getting poll results while the voting stations are open is usually not a desired feature because of how it influences voters. The delay for counting the votes measures in days, which is a tiny amount in a feedback loop where one iteration takes 4-6 years. Other steps, like forming a government, routinely take an order of magnitude more time in many nations.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > The delay for counting the votes measures in days, which is a tiny amount in a feedback loop where one iteration takes 4-6 years. I think their argument is precisely that that's too slow of a time to reflect what the voters want and that a faster turnaround time would allow referendums and more of a direct democracy, even when it comes to minor issues, since 'representatives' often don't quite represent. Such a system does need informed voters, otherwise it opens up to reactionary activism, but that's a whole another debate.
- rwj 7y ago
  Canadian elections (federal and provincial) are done with paper ballots, and are always available the same day.
- Rexxar 7y ago
  > Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters Why should it go on both direction ? Even if it's true, is it a good thing ? You should change your opinion if you hear good arguments and not because you want to vote like the others.
amelius 7y ago
> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. And some may argue that voting is a pretty bad "solution" by itself.
- snaky 7y ago
  And some may argue that democracy is a pretty bad "solution" by itself. https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democracy-cant/ https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democ...
  - username444 7y ago
    And some may argue.
  - sam_goody 7y ago
    "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" - Winston Churchil https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/ https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form...
dreamer7 7y ago
Electronic voting may be a harder to implement solution in terms of trust but the problem is not non-existent. Voting today is a complex and costly process. Hence, it cannot be carried out frequently and hence the accountability/ feedback loop is slower. Imagine if we could conduct voting in a day (even in large democracies). We would be able to remove bad representatives faster.
- jonathanstrange 7y ago
  > Imagine if we could conduct voting in a day (even in large democracies). That would be horrible. "direct democracy" does not work (Switzerland is also a representative democracy), practical policy making requires some domain knowledge, patience and the ability to make compromises that the Internet mob could not possibly deliver. People are generally very good at judging the trustworthiness of other people, however, and at being critical about other people (rather themselves). Both traits work well for a representative democracy.
  - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
    Have you seen who represents the people? just have a test we can take to illustrate competence in a domain. Passing the test grants us the right to vote on laws in that domain. Then, those who represent us are those who have illustrated the intellectual capacity to make good decisions.
    - JoshuaDavid 7y ago
      Who makes the tests, and who decides which domain a given policy proposal falls under?
AsyncAwait 7y ago
> Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy You already accept the influence of corporate PACs, which arguably are a much bigger threat to democracy. Not saying you should add another vector, (electronic voting), just that the argument that there's a solid democratic system now is not quite true.
- jonathanstrange 7y ago
  > You already accept the influence of corporate PACs This is leading astray but just to make this clear for anyone looking up this thread later: I do not accept the influence of corporate PACs at all, and believe (but IANAL) that where I live these would be illegal.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > I do not accept the influence of corporate PACs at all Good, but I meant "you" as in the broader society concerned about electronic voting, not "you" as the individual.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  A corporate PAC is simply a group of people joining together to create political speech, with the added legal protection of incorporation. The Citizens United case was in direct response to the FEC approving nearly all corporate speech from liberal sources, while stopping conservative versions. Explicitly in the Michael Moore v Citizens United FEC complaints. Nothing changed for liberals voices in Citizens United, only for conservatives. Which is why this is such a polarizing issue as one side lost a hugely unfair advantage.
  - josinalvo 7y ago
    that is a version of the story I never heard before! Can you share some links?
    - 7y ago
terryschiavo22 7y ago
The problem is cost, which electronic voting solves to some degree.
EGreg 7y ago
A bit earlier? Election recounts were triggered and entire countries and regions were affected because a recount couldn’t be completed in time. Take for example Al Gore vs George W Bush: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qcz6NSyxrfQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qcz6NSyxrfQ Because the recount was stopped earlier than it could be completed, Bush became President, stopped watching Bin Laden and we got 9/11, then invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and the entire region was heavily destabilized and overrun with Islamic terrorists. The largest geopolitical disaster of the last 50 years with effects as far reaching as Syrian civil war, Libyan anarchy, and millions of refugees and families broken. If only a recount could have been done faster...
- sharot4 7y ago
  Do you truly believe that Bin Laden is the beginning and end of 9/11? That multiple buildings were turned to dust because two planes hit two of them? That some "art students" filming the event were happenstance? That Bin Laden was captured, killed, and thrown into the sea? That Middle East destabilization, the War on Terror, and ubiquitous global surveillance were unplanned consequences of an unforeseen catastrophe?

reallydude 7y ago

> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. That is incorrect. Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters. The slower the process is, the less representative it is. The fidelity of the loop is paramount, but the issue remains. EDIT: do the downvoters understand that there is setup involved in a paper process and getting results is not the end of the feedback loop (not race)? SMH

arethuza 7y ago
"The slower the process is, the less representative it is" If we are talking about months perhaps, but as long as a result is known within a day or two (at most) I'm not sure it really makes that much difference.
gjm11 7y ago
Surely the relevant feedback-loop time is the interval between elections, not how long it takes for votes to be counted.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
The uk manages to get a result in general elections in < a day
afiori 7y ago
This is only relevant if you propose to have weekly/monthly elections. For elections every few years even a week of counting would not be a problem.
- jfk13 7y ago
  Although the longer counting takes, the more difficult it becomes for a substantial number of people to monitor the entire process. In the UK, counting takes place overnight, immediately after the polls close; it's feasible for multiple parties to ensure they have people at every location for the entire time, keeping an eye out for irregularities. If the process were extended over a week instead of a night, it becomes correspondingly harder to ensure that there was never an opportunity for someone to tamper.
  - afiori 7y ago
    That is true, but if they happen digitally then that becomes completely impossible. As things are now I see no reason of sort not to use paper ballots as the main proof of vote. Especially for big nation wide elections.
    - heavenlyblue 7y ago
      If that happens digitally (and using correctly distributed crypto signatures), then we can provide the public with the necessary tools to check every single vote.
      - afiori 7y ago
        > and using correctly distributed crypto signatures you sort of lost me here. I will not say it is a bad idea, but it would never work in any country I know. Thee sheer size and cultural innovation required would still need to place an inordinate amount of trust in the system. Again, it is not that it is evil, as much as there are so many possible problems for so little gain (IIRC Estonia has a nice program where you have a state-SIM and you can vote via telephone, so there it actually might work)
wongarsu 7y ago
I don't think I understand what feedback loop we are talking about? Everyone who wants to be on the ballot registers a few months in advance, which is usually a short enough time. Since people are usually voted into a job they have to do for 4-6 years you don't want hasty decisions anyways. Getting poll results while the voting stations are open is usually not a desired feature because of how it influences voters. The delay for counting the votes measures in days, which is a tiny amount in a feedback loop where one iteration takes 4-6 years. Other steps, like forming a government, routinely take an order of magnitude more time in many nations.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > The delay for counting the votes measures in days, which is a tiny amount in a feedback loop where one iteration takes 4-6 years. I think their argument is precisely that that's too slow of a time to reflect what the voters want and that a faster turnaround time would allow referendums and more of a direct democracy, even when it comes to minor issues, since 'representatives' often don't quite represent. Such a system does need informed voters, otherwise it opens up to reactionary activism, but that's a whole another debate.
rwj 7y ago
Canadian elections (federal and provincial) are done with paper ballots, and are always available the same day.
Rexxar 7y ago
> Voting is a feedback loop for the will of the voters Why should it go on both direction ? Even if it's true, is it a good thing ? You should change your opinion if you hear good arguments and not because you want to vote like the others.

amelius 7y ago

> Electronic voting is the classical solution to a nonexistent problem. And some may argue that voting is a pretty bad "solution" by itself.

snaky 7y ago
And some may argue that democracy is a pretty bad "solution" by itself. https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democracy-cant/ https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democ...
- username444 7y ago
  And some may argue.
- sam_goody 7y ago
  "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" - Winston Churchil https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/ https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form...

dreamer7 7y ago

Electronic voting may be a harder to implement solution in terms of trust but the problem is not non-existent. Voting today is a complex and costly process. Hence, it cannot be carried out frequently and hence the accountability/ feedback loop is slower. Imagine if we could conduct voting in a day (even in large democracies). We would be able to remove bad representatives faster.

jonathanstrange 7y ago
> Imagine if we could conduct voting in a day (even in large democracies). That would be horrible. "direct democracy" does not work (Switzerland is also a representative democracy), practical policy making requires some domain knowledge, patience and the ability to make compromises that the Internet mob could not possibly deliver. People are generally very good at judging the trustworthiness of other people, however, and at being critical about other people (rather themselves). Both traits work well for a representative democracy.
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  Have you seen who represents the people? just have a test we can take to illustrate competence in a domain. Passing the test grants us the right to vote on laws in that domain. Then, those who represent us are those who have illustrated the intellectual capacity to make good decisions.
  - JoshuaDavid 7y ago
    Who makes the tests, and who decides which domain a given policy proposal falls under?

AsyncAwait 7y ago

> Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy You already accept the influence of corporate PACs, which arguably are a much bigger threat to democracy. Not saying you should add another vector, (electronic voting), just that the argument that there's a solid democratic system now is not quite true.

jonathanstrange 7y ago
> You already accept the influence of corporate PACs This is leading astray but just to make this clear for anyone looking up this thread later: I do not accept the influence of corporate PACs at all, and believe (but IANAL) that where I live these would be illegal.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > I do not accept the influence of corporate PACs at all Good, but I meant "you" as in the broader society concerned about electronic voting, not "you" as the individual.
merpnderp 7y ago
A corporate PAC is simply a group of people joining together to create political speech, with the added legal protection of incorporation. The Citizens United case was in direct response to the FEC approving nearly all corporate speech from liberal sources, while stopping conservative versions. Explicitly in the Michael Moore v Citizens United FEC complaints. Nothing changed for liberals voices in Citizens United, only for conservatives. Which is why this is such a polarizing issue as one side lost a hugely unfair advantage.
- josinalvo 7y ago
  that is a version of the story I never heard before! Can you share some links?
  - 7y ago

terryschiavo22 7y ago

The problem is cost, which electronic voting solves to some degree.

EGreg 7y ago

A bit earlier? Election recounts were triggered and entire countries and regions were affected because a recount couldn’t be completed in time. Take for example Al Gore vs George W Bush: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qcz6NSyxrfQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qcz6NSyxrfQ Because the recount was stopped earlier than it could be completed, Bush became President, stopped watching Bin Laden and we got 9/11, then invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and the entire region was heavily destabilized and overrun with Islamic terrorists. The largest geopolitical disaster of the last 50 years with effects as far reaching as Syrian civil war, Libyan anarchy, and millions of refugees and families broken. If only a recount could have been done faster...

sharot4 7y ago
Do you truly believe that Bin Laden is the beginning and end of 9/11? That multiple buildings were turned to dust because two planes hit two of them? That some "art students" filming the event were happenstance? That Bin Laden was captured, killed, and thrown into the sea? That Middle East destabilization, the War on Terror, and ubiquitous global surveillance were unplanned consequences of an unforeseen catastrophe?