5 ms·

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 pl

by jfk13 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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)
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      >> 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. Bitcoin works this way though. It is a set of tools to manipulate a highly abstract data structure. These tools are developed by a minority of the population, but the rest of the population trusts them. This works because it has value for the folk. Now you're speaking about elections. Most of the people speaking of e-elections are _mostly_ trying to get to the public that if you could make the elections work electronically - then there's a bunch of other things that could be done digitally too. One example - company board voting. What if you could be present at any board meeting because everything that is said over there is cryptographically signed by each party thus providing non-repudiation of whatever they said? What if every newspaper reporter had to sign their articles with their signature which is linked to a news trust network? Contract signatures. Inheritance. This is a reply to your: >> Again, it is not that it is evil, as much as there are so many possible problems for so little gain Little gain is only for people who have no idea of what you can do with "digital".

by jfk13 8y ago

afiori 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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)
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    >> 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. Bitcoin works this way though. It is a set of tools to manipulate a highly abstract data structure. These tools are developed by a minority of the population, but the rest of the population trusts them. This works because it has value for the folk. Now you're speaking about elections. Most of the people speaking of e-elections are _mostly_ trying to get to the public that if you could make the elections work electronically - then there's a bunch of other things that could be done digitally too. One example - company board voting. What if you could be present at any board meeting because everything that is said over there is cryptographically signed by each party thus providing non-repudiation of whatever they said? What if every newspaper reporter had to sign their articles with their signature which is linked to a news trust network? Contract signatures. Inheritance. This is a reply to your: >> Again, it is not that it is evil, as much as there are so many possible problems for so little gain Little gain is only for people who have no idea of what you can do with "digital".