9 ms·

Wouldn't a blockchain voting system help here, if everyone can examine the time, place, and votes in the history, and see that all the block hashes match what's

by eloff 6y ago

Wouldn't a blockchain voting system help here, if everyone can examine the time, place, and votes in the history, and see that all the block hashes match what's expected? That gives much stronger guarantees than paper, and while the average Joe can't verify it himself, there would be three million programmers in the US alone who easily could. Whereas with paper I can't count the votes myself, I have to trust the authorities who did that.

Ericson2314 6y ago
The average Joe doesn't want the nerds to pick the president. Also, don't forget it's a secret ballot, and we do not have any good database of people with public keys in this country. What the hell am I supposed to make of a ledger with 100s of million anonymous public keys? Surely I cannot claim that relates 1-1 with the choices of real people.
- dnpp123 6y ago
  I'm definitely opposed to 'electronic' voting, but the problem you are describing is easily solvable with asymmetric cryptography. You'd have your private key on your 'voting card' (unsure how you call it in the US) with some pw and the machine would just scan it, ask your password. You just need the proof that someone having a private key associated with a public key on a public record has signed, not necessarily know to which public key it is associated. But there would be so much problems with such a system that I would'nt even know where to start..
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Right. It's not that anonymity is impossible, but that anonymity is one requirement we can remove and make the problem tractable again. There may be other such "straws that broke the camels back", but IMO anonymity is one property that makes a cryptosystem far less intuitive even to me. It's the bridge I never advocate crossing unless people with more security knowledge than me go to great lengths to demonstrate otherwise.
- egypturnash 6y ago
  This is America. Your social security number will make a perfectly fine secret key! It works so well as a secret for everything else in your life, after all. I'm sure nobody else has has it, or can acquire it for use in mass voter fraud!
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    I realize you are being sarcastic, but: > Your social security number will make a perfectly fine secret key! Never in its history was it a secret key anymore than your drivers license number, it’s an ID number that can be used to look you up in a DB like a username would be. The problem is, that despite everyone just instinctively knowing a username needs to be paired with a password (or ideally multiple factors, but that isn’t as universal in understanding yet), no such thing exists currently to pair with your social security number.
- eloff 6y ago
  The first point is a strawman. The second is obviously something the system would have to be built for, and that would be arguably more verifiable than what we have now.
bjo590 6y ago
> That gives much stronger guarantees than paper, and while the average Joe can't verify it himself, there would be three million programmers in the US alone who easily could. I think the current US population that really understands blockchains is less than 1% of the population.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  I would argue that lesss than 1% of software professionals REALLY understand blockchains.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    On top of that, how do you guarantee the voting machine is running the right software? They have problems as it is. Even worse, good luck getting election software formally verified on a budget.
the_snooze 6y ago
>I have to trust the authorities who did that. Poll workers who do the count aren't "authorities" who lord over us. They are us. I volunteer to be a poll worker. You can too. Anyone who's an eligible voter can be part of the counting process and see how it's done. In my precinct, it's exactly what people see when they vote: they feed the machine their completed ballots and the machine spits out the count at the end of the night. If there's a problem, all the ballots are kept in sealed boxes and can be re-tallied independent of the scanner software/hardware. If you think there's monkey business going on in your precinct, you're free to participate in the process and verify it for yourself.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  The number of people actually tabulating the results is still very very small - especially in key swing state districts. You cannot argue much with a public algorithm doing public tabulation, where you can literally follow your vote.
  - the_snooze 6y ago
    What do you consider "very very small?" Tabuation is done at the precinct level, and there are many many precincts involved in an election. Also jurisdictions can do risk-limiting audits (RLA) to spot-check that the electronic counts are in line with the results. "Following your vote" is dangerous because it opens up the possibility of at-scale voter intimidation or vote-buying. "Receipt-freeness" is a desirable property because it eliminates this risk. RLAs allow for aggregate verification while maintaining receipt-freeness.
    - singron 6y ago
      Receipts (paper records received after voting) are OK as long as they don't reveal who you voted for. Confusingly, sometimes this is called "receipt-free".
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
BurningFrog 6y ago
One very important thing most people forget: If you can verify that your vote was correctly counted, your vote can't be kept secret, and intimidation and vote buying becomes impossible to stop. > Whereas with paper I can't count the votes myself, I have to trust the authorities who did that. The way it works in my home country is that the paper ballots are handled in an inspectable way and anyone can observe the counting process. You can't check your vote, but you can control all the votes.
- beaner 6y ago
  > If you can verify that your vote was correctly counted, your vote can't be kept secret This is false. Votes (transactions) in Bitcoin are pseudonymous, meaning everyone can see what votes were placed, but nobody knows who was responsible for the specific votes. Only the owner knows, unless they choose to reveal to others.
  - ses1984 6y ago
    Did you stop reading right at the end of the part you quoted?
    - beaner 6y ago
      Yes, not sure how it's related.
      - milkshakes 6y ago
        if you can verify your vote after it has been counted, you can be induced by a third party to vote for a specific candidate
        beaner 6y ago
        Yeah, I think it wasn't clear to me as being the point said in the line in question. Guess I can see it now.
  - 6y ago
suifbwish 6y ago
Do you really believe there are 3 million programmers in the US that understand blockchain?
pwg 6y ago
> Wouldn't a blockchain voting system help here No, because it violates this principle the GP pointed out: > This can only be true if most people voting understand the mechanism, can verify it themselves Most people, i.e., most voters, will not be able to understand the mathematics behind a blockchain system sufficiently to either "understand the mechanism" or to "verify it themselves". Most voters can understand the paper ballot counting system: 1) turn over next ballot 2) count filled ovals/check marks/whatever it is on this particular ballot sheet that signifies a "vote" 3) add count to running tally 4) return to step 1 Observers can also watch the individuals doing the counting, and believe that they (the observers) are accurately following along in the process. Blockchain does not provide for that transparency in the process of counting the votes.
ehnto 6y ago
The OP was trying to point out that whilst you and I may understand the mechanism in order to trust it, others can't, because they won't be able to understand why it's trustworthy. My friends don't understand crypto, so they can only ever trust it if they trust me (or the person telling them it's trustworthy). Imagine this, you rig a crypto-vote not through technical means, you just say you won even though the blockchain says you didn't. How many people in your country do you think will believe the experts over the politicians? My honest opinion about the US, is that the experts will lose. It doesn't matter if you're right if no one believes you, and currently people believe the paper vote because they can understand how it would be executed fairly. The fact is that currently, America's democracy is in danger because people are going to find it hard to trust even a paper vote during this election. No matter which way the vote swings, by planting the seed of doubt, the current administration has undermined the vote.
blackearl 6y ago
We can't even have nearly half the nation agree on mask wearing. People completely disregard what doctors and scientists think. What makes you believe they'll listen to some San Fran programmer??
danesparza 6y ago
It won't matter in presidential elections in the US. It's the electoral college that picks. It's in the constitution. States aren't even required to let the citizens pick -- we vote at our individual states pleasure.

by eloff 6y ago

Ericson2314 6y ago

The average Joe doesn't want the nerds to pick the president. Also, don't forget it's a secret ballot, and we do not have any good database of people with public keys in this country. What the hell am I supposed to make of a ledger with 100s of million anonymous public keys? Surely I cannot claim that relates 1-1 with the choices of real people.

dnpp123 6y ago
I'm definitely opposed to 'electronic' voting, but the problem you are describing is easily solvable with asymmetric cryptography. You'd have your private key on your 'voting card' (unsure how you call it in the US) with some pw and the machine would just scan it, ask your password. You just need the proof that someone having a private key associated with a public key on a public record has signed, not necessarily know to which public key it is associated. But there would be so much problems with such a system that I would'nt even know where to start..
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Right. It's not that anonymity is impossible, but that anonymity is one requirement we can remove and make the problem tractable again. There may be other such "straws that broke the camels back", but IMO anonymity is one property that makes a cryptosystem far less intuitive even to me. It's the bridge I never advocate crossing unless people with more security knowledge than me go to great lengths to demonstrate otherwise.
egypturnash 6y ago
This is America. Your social security number will make a perfectly fine secret key! It works so well as a secret for everything else in your life, after all. I'm sure nobody else has has it, or can acquire it for use in mass voter fraud!
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  I realize you are being sarcastic, but: > Your social security number will make a perfectly fine secret key! Never in its history was it a secret key anymore than your drivers license number, it’s an ID number that can be used to look you up in a DB like a username would be. The problem is, that despite everyone just instinctively knowing a username needs to be paired with a password (or ideally multiple factors, but that isn’t as universal in understanding yet), no such thing exists currently to pair with your social security number.
eloff 6y ago
The first point is a strawman. The second is obviously something the system would have to be built for, and that would be arguably more verifiable than what we have now.

bjo590 6y ago

> That gives much stronger guarantees than paper, and while the average Joe can't verify it himself, there would be three million programmers in the US alone who easily could. I think the current US population that really understands blockchains is less than 1% of the population.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
I would argue that lesss than 1% of software professionals REALLY understand blockchains.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  On top of that, how do you guarantee the voting machine is running the right software? They have problems as it is. Even worse, good luck getting election software formally verified on a budget.

the_snooze 6y ago

>I have to trust the authorities who did that. Poll workers who do the count aren't "authorities" who lord over us. They are us. I volunteer to be a poll worker. You can too. Anyone who's an eligible voter can be part of the counting process and see how it's done. In my precinct, it's exactly what people see when they vote: they feed the machine their completed ballots and the machine spits out the count at the end of the night. If there's a problem, all the ballots are kept in sealed boxes and can be re-tallied independent of the scanner software/hardware. If you think there's monkey business going on in your precinct, you're free to participate in the process and verify it for yourself.

koheripbal 6y ago
The number of people actually tabulating the results is still very very small - especially in key swing state districts. You cannot argue much with a public algorithm doing public tabulation, where you can literally follow your vote.
- the_snooze 6y ago
  What do you consider "very very small?" Tabuation is done at the precinct level, and there are many many precincts involved in an election. Also jurisdictions can do risk-limiting audits (RLA) to spot-check that the electronic counts are in line with the results. "Following your vote" is dangerous because it opens up the possibility of at-scale voter intimidation or vote-buying. "Receipt-freeness" is a desirable property because it eliminates this risk. RLAs allow for aggregate verification while maintaining receipt-freeness.
  - singron 6y ago
    Receipts (paper records received after voting) are OK as long as they don't reveal who you voted for. Confusingly, sometimes this is called "receipt-free".
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

BurningFrog 6y ago

One very important thing most people forget: If you can verify that your vote was correctly counted, your vote can't be kept secret, and intimidation and vote buying becomes impossible to stop. > Whereas with paper I can't count the votes myself, I have to trust the authorities who did that. The way it works in my home country is that the paper ballots are handled in an inspectable way and anyone can observe the counting process. You can't check your vote, but you can control all the votes.

beaner 6y ago
> If you can verify that your vote was correctly counted, your vote can't be kept secret This is false. Votes (transactions) in Bitcoin are pseudonymous, meaning everyone can see what votes were placed, but nobody knows who was responsible for the specific votes. Only the owner knows, unless they choose to reveal to others.
- ses1984 6y ago
  Did you stop reading right at the end of the part you quoted?
  - beaner 6y ago
    Yes, not sure how it's related.
    - milkshakes 6y ago
      if you can verify your vote after it has been counted, you can be induced by a third party to vote for a specific candidate
      - beaner 6y ago
        Yeah, I think it wasn't clear to me as being the point said in the line in question. Guess I can see it now.
- 6y ago

suifbwish 6y ago

Do you really believe there are 3 million programmers in the US that understand blockchain?

pwg 6y ago

> Wouldn't a blockchain voting system help here No, because it violates this principle the GP pointed out: > This can only be true if most people voting understand the mechanism, can verify it themselves Most people, i.e., most voters, will not be able to understand the mathematics behind a blockchain system sufficiently to either "understand the mechanism" or to "verify it themselves". Most voters can understand the paper ballot counting system: 1) turn over next ballot 2) count filled ovals/check marks/whatever it is on this particular ballot sheet that signifies a "vote" 3) add count to running tally 4) return to step 1 Observers can also watch the individuals doing the counting, and believe that they (the observers) are accurately following along in the process. Blockchain does not provide for that transparency in the process of counting the votes.

ehnto 6y ago

The OP was trying to point out that whilst you and I may understand the mechanism in order to trust it, others can't, because they won't be able to understand why it's trustworthy. My friends don't understand crypto, so they can only ever trust it if they trust me (or the person telling them it's trustworthy). Imagine this, you rig a crypto-vote not through technical means, you just say you won even though the blockchain says you didn't. How many people in your country do you think will believe the experts over the politicians? My honest opinion about the US, is that the experts will lose. It doesn't matter if you're right if no one believes you, and currently people believe the paper vote because they can understand how it would be executed fairly. The fact is that currently, America's democracy is in danger because people are going to find it hard to trust even a paper vote during this election. No matter which way the vote swings, by planting the seed of doubt, the current administration has undermined the vote.

blackearl 6y ago

We can't even have nearly half the nation agree on mask wearing. People completely disregard what doctors and scientists think. What makes you believe they'll listen to some San Fran programmer??

danesparza 6y ago

It won't matter in presidential elections in the US. It's the electoral college that picks. It's in the constitution. States aren't even required to let the citizens pick -- we vote at our individual states pleasure.