4 ms·

So, you believe that because a small group of people are kinda sorta overseeing this process over a long period of time, it is secure? Large groups of people wa

by darawk 7y ago

So, you believe that because a small group of people are kinda sorta overseeing this process over a long period of time, it is secure? Large groups of people watching intently are deceived extremely effectively and reliably by magicians all the time. I see no reason to think that the mere fact that some random citizens are "overseeing" the process makes it in any way secure. And any way, we don't have to theorize: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/upshot/mapped-why-voting-anomalies-are-impossible-to-ignore-in-north-carolina.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/upshot/mapped-why-voting-... The point is: a properly designed cryptographic voting system would make all of this provably secure. We wouldn't need to rely on witnesses paying attention, any citizen would be able to verify the integrity of the entire election on their home computer. That is why electronic voting is the best system.

jakeogh 7y ago
Nope. You never can audit most of it. Especially the hardware and firmware at vote time. And that's a false arg anyway, even if you could "audit" it (ask the hardware nicely to not lie to you:), it's still a (really) bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
- darawk 7y ago
  > And that's a false arg anyway, even if you could "audit" it (ask the hardware nicely to not lie to you:) If individuals can audit their own votes, the hardware cannot lie.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    You then have a trivially broken voting system.
    - darawk 7y ago
      I know why you think that is so. But I have already explained elsewhere in this thread why you're wrong. So why don't you look into it a little for yourself.
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        Nothing you wrote negates the requirement of incoercibility. In all instances, the check can lie to you OR the vote system is broken. Electronic (aka proxy) voting is a requirement on the checklist to skip physical presense.

by darawk 7y ago

jakeogh 7y ago

Nope. You never can audit most of it. Especially the hardware and firmware at vote time. And that's a false arg anyway, even if you could "audit" it (ask the hardware nicely to not lie to you:), it's still a (really) bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

darawk 7y ago
> And that's a false arg anyway, even if you could "audit" it (ask the hardware nicely to not lie to you:) If individuals can audit their own votes, the hardware cannot lie.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  You then have a trivially broken voting system.
  - darawk 7y ago
    I know why you think that is so. But I have already explained elsewhere in this thread why you're wrong. So why don't you look into it a little for yourself.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Nothing you wrote negates the requirement of incoercibility. In all instances, the check can lie to you OR the vote system is broken. Electronic (aka proxy) voting is a requirement on the checklist to skip physical presense.