5 ms·

They are still counted through a central authority and your vote can't even be tracked. You basically just have to "trust the system" today even though there ha

They are still counted through a central authority and your vote can't even be tracked. You basically just have to "trust the system" today even though there has been a lot of strange things happening for decades with votes.

akvadrako 6y ago
They can certainly be counted locally first, requiring a wide conspiracy of all parties to make a big difference.
- techntoke 6y ago
  Not really when the parties choose the observers.
  - setr 6y ago
    The larger the conspiracy, the harder it is to keep secret. Ballot counters across multiple states is a pretty wide net, and really only one person needs to defect for the whole thing to unravel
    - techntoke 6y ago
      It did unravel in Georgia and nothing was done. We still haven't got the full report of the VR Systems hack as well that spanned 8 states.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  The more you do this, the less anonymous the ballots are.
  - jackvalentine 6y ago
    I don't think to any appreciable extent unless you go nuts restricting people to a particular polling place and limit their size severely. In the most recent federal byelection in Australia, 114,000 voters were able to cast their votes at any one of the 86 different polling places, where the votes were counted locally. The smallest polling place had 110 people vote at it, I'm not even sure you could reasonably deanonymise the votes in that. How would you do it? https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-25820-117.htm https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-25820-117.htm
    - notahacker 6y ago
      tbf with an electorate of just 110 people casually acquainted with each other, it might not be too difficult for some to guess who cast the Fringe Party vote. But yes, you're not likely to deanonymise them all.
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        You can guess, but you can guess before you know how they voted - you can narrow your error bars, but it seems very unlikely you can out someone that you couldn't already out. Say you see all the votes, one is for an extreme party, there's going to be plenty of people whose politics you don't know in depth - people (IME) will either keep secret their allegiances or be very vocal. Those who are vocal won't care that you "know", those who're secretive ... did it help?
        notahacker 6y ago
        Knowing that somebody in your village definitely voted for the Fringe Party is a piece of information you wouldn't otherwise have. There's a big difference between having your suspicion about someone's voting intent supported by data and not having your suspicion supported by data. This matters if said community is liable to alienate people based on their assumed view; the fact it isn't 100% accurate doesn't make things better...
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        I don't think there's a big difference between: 'there was one person out of 20,000 [smallest electoral ward in UK] who voted this way' and 'I think this person will vote this way'. If you were going to beat them up you'd do it either way, I'd expect?
        notahacker 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you've changed the subject from "an electorate of just 110 people casually acquainted with each other" in the Australian local example I addressed in my OP to UK electoral wards which are 200-1000x the size, and obviously far beyond the scope of people being acquainted with everyone eligible to vote. I believe that's the reason the Electoral Commission doesn't collect results at polling station level and distribute that data despite the theoretical capability to do so. And no, I don't think witch hunts are as likely to take place if people aren't informed of the presence of a witch.
  - gonzo41 6y ago
    This isnt so correct. If no ones names are on the papers, everyone is ticking, or numbering boxes and using supplied stationary then there's not much you can differentiate on to de-anonymize the system. The last step would be to encourage everyone to fold their ballot and place it in the box that get's tumbled a few times before counting in public. It's an easy risk to control. And if you use a centralized voting roll you can enable people to cast votes from any place they like. As an example, In Australia I have three places to vote that are about 1, 1.5 and 2.5km from where I live. Each election I usually walk with my wife down past each to figure out which cake stall I'm going to spend money at. It's a big day of choices.
Ma8ee 6y ago
That is not really a problem. The count from all voting stations are public, and they are checked by the people that counted the votes. And it is of course trivial to check that the totals are correct.

akvadrako 6y ago

They can certainly be counted locally first, requiring a wide conspiracy of all parties to make a big difference.

techntoke 6y ago
Not really when the parties choose the observers.
- setr 6y ago
  The larger the conspiracy, the harder it is to keep secret. Ballot counters across multiple states is a pretty wide net, and really only one person needs to defect for the whole thing to unravel
  - techntoke 6y ago
    It did unravel in Georgia and nothing was done. We still haven't got the full report of the VR Systems hack as well that spanned 8 states.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
The more you do this, the less anonymous the ballots are.
- jackvalentine 6y ago
  I don't think to any appreciable extent unless you go nuts restricting people to a particular polling place and limit their size severely. In the most recent federal byelection in Australia, 114,000 voters were able to cast their votes at any one of the 86 different polling places, where the votes were counted locally. The smallest polling place had 110 people vote at it, I'm not even sure you could reasonably deanonymise the votes in that. How would you do it? https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-25820-117.htm https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-25820-117.htm
  - notahacker 6y ago
    tbf with an electorate of just 110 people casually acquainted with each other, it might not be too difficult for some to guess who cast the Fringe Party vote. But yes, you're not likely to deanonymise them all.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      You can guess, but you can guess before you know how they voted - you can narrow your error bars, but it seems very unlikely you can out someone that you couldn't already out. Say you see all the votes, one is for an extreme party, there's going to be plenty of people whose politics you don't know in depth - people (IME) will either keep secret their allegiances or be very vocal. Those who are vocal won't care that you "know", those who're secretive ... did it help?
      - notahacker 6y ago
        Knowing that somebody in your village definitely voted for the Fringe Party is a piece of information you wouldn't otherwise have. There's a big difference between having your suspicion about someone's voting intent supported by data and not having your suspicion supported by data. This matters if said community is liable to alienate people based on their assumed view; the fact it isn't 100% accurate doesn't make things better...
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        I don't think there's a big difference between: 'there was one person out of 20,000 [smallest electoral ward in UK] who voted this way' and 'I think this person will vote this way'. If you were going to beat them up you'd do it either way, I'd expect?
        notahacker 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you've changed the subject from "an electorate of just 110 people casually acquainted with each other" in the Australian local example I addressed in my OP to UK electoral wards which are 200-1000x the size, and obviously far beyond the scope of people being acquainted with everyone eligible to vote. I believe that's the reason the Electoral Commission doesn't collect results at polling station level and distribute that data despite the theoretical capability to do so. And no, I don't think witch hunts are as likely to take place if people aren't informed of the presence of a witch.
- gonzo41 6y ago
  This isnt so correct. If no ones names are on the papers, everyone is ticking, or numbering boxes and using supplied stationary then there's not much you can differentiate on to de-anonymize the system. The last step would be to encourage everyone to fold their ballot and place it in the box that get's tumbled a few times before counting in public. It's an easy risk to control. And if you use a centralized voting roll you can enable people to cast votes from any place they like. As an example, In Australia I have three places to vote that are about 1, 1.5 and 2.5km from where I live. Each election I usually walk with my wife down past each to figure out which cake stall I'm going to spend money at. It's a big day of choices.

Ma8ee 6y ago

That is not really a problem. The count from all voting stations are public, and they are checked by the people that counted the votes. And it is of course trivial to check that the totals are correct.