9 ms·

Online voting should never be the goal. Computers make things easier and more scalable, but that's not what you want for voting. You want a process that's as di

Online voting should never be the goal. Computers make things easier and more scalable, but that's not what you want for voting. You want a process that's as distributed as possible so the blast radius of any kind of interference with the voting process itself is as small as possible. It's way harder to change votes at large scale if they have been made on paper. Same with counting: I don't want a 32bit value somewhere counting votes. I want various people manually counting votes and have them observe process. Yes: All that is maybe more expensive than running some website or setting up magic machines, but that's a cost I'm more than willing to take.

chrisseaton 6y ago
Do you not also want something that is accessible?
- dividuum 6y ago
  Not sure how that computer related. In Germany all voting places are wheelchair accessible. Additionally for the blind, there’s a Stimmzettelschablonen that allows you to vote in secret. These issues can be solved without computers.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Accessible... to people not able to get to a voting location or postbox. > In Germany all voting places are wheelchair accessible. There are accessibility concerns beyond just wheelchairs you know...
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      My local elections have each voting location team do home visits on election day for people who physically can't get to a voting location due to disability, severe ilness, etc - in the last elections it was used by the people home-isolating due to Covid. There aren't that many people like that, it takes some funding and effort to make an exception for them, but it is manageable.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > Accessible... to people not able to get to a voting location or postbox. A person doesn't have to be able to get to a post office themselves to cast an absentee ballot. They just have to be able to fill out the ballot and sign it. Someone else can mail it for them.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > They just have to be able to fill out the ballot and sign it. Someone else can mail it for them. Right, so they have to be able to reliably receive mail at a location fixed at least a little time in advance, and either send mail or give it to someone to send mail, and then it needs to reliably get to its destination. Not all of those things are always easy for all people's situations. As a practical example - see the difficulty that homeless people have voting in many cases. Voting online as an option would possibly solve them for some people.
        pdonis 6y ago
        Given the risks of online voting, I would rather put time and effort into making sure every voter who needs an absentee ballot can reliably receive one and reliably send it back. That seems like a better goal to shoot for.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dividuum 6y ago
      In Germany you can request to vote by mail. Additionally you can get instructions on Audio CD, in braille or large fonts. As I said, this can and is all solvable without complex technology.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        Would you be surprised if I told you some people struggle to send and receive mail?
        pmyteh 6y ago
        In Britain, we deal with this problem partly by allowing proxy voting, where you can expressly authorise someone else to vote (in person) on your behalf. I had to do this once when my wife had an unexpected business trip after the postal vote registration deadline had closed. It's obviously not ideal from a vote privacy point of view, but it does provide a useful solution to some of the corner cases preventing voting in person or by mail.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Bring back the Pony Express! Watch the Russians interfere with that!
hrktb 6y ago
I’d argue we want to make the process easier. The internal handling of votes should be harden as you explain, but helping more people to vote should be the goal. The reverse is also an attack on democracy, and we already see this at so many scales. Like setting voting stations at places easier to access for a specific portion of the population (right next to churches on sundays, next to police stations, hard to reach by public transport places, etc.). Reliable online voting would alleviate these kind of issues. Not saying it’s easy, but we should at least try.
- dividuum 6y ago
  Totally agree. I’ve voted in every election since I’m 18. So far all voting booths have been in walking distance. IIRC all have been on a Sunday, so it doesn’t conflict with work for most people.
- sam_lowry_ 6y ago
  If you want more people to vote, then just pass a law that mandates all citizens have to vote. That's how it is done in Belgium. Think of it. If your choice is ether vote or risk a fine, you'd rather go and vote. If you go and vote, you'll learn at least a bit about the choices you have to make in the ballot. P.S. While Belgium got mandatory voting right, it completely messed up electronic voting. I remember being an assessor in a polling station with electronic voting. People voted, then the head of the voting station took 3 1⁄2-inch floppy disks out of the machine, put them in an envelope and drove away to the district polling committee. There was not counting, no protocol to sign. Nothing. I was appalled.
  - godelski 6y ago
    > If your choice is ether vote or risk a fine This is ABSOLUTELY not what I want. I for one want voting to be extremely accessible. Everyone that wants to vote can. The goal isn't to make everyone vote but rather that everyone has the ability to vote. That you don't have to take time off to vote. That it is easy. Universally accessible, not universally mandated.
    - 6y ago
paulryanrogers 6y ago
Agreed. Though I'd add that a digital copy from a standard, open system--with receipts--can help as a secondary means to verify ones vote was included.
mNovak 6y ago
Couldn't largely distributed digital systems also be designed? I think we should all sit down and define what the requirements of a secure vote are, regardless of taken in person or otherwise. I see nothing inherently secure about physical paper as the voting medium. Whatever is written on that paper or how it's handled better also be provably secure somehow.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Paper is provably secure as long as every step happens in public (which also means no voting by mail).
  - jquery 6y ago
    Indeed. That is why I oppose mail in voting. It’s going to lead to civil unrest no matter who wins in November.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      My state has been voting by mail for over thirty years with no problems. Absentee ballots are not new. This FUD will be what leads to unrest, please stop spreading it.
      - jquery 6y ago
        We will likely have civil unrest. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s someone with access to much better data than me: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/09/04/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-warns-of-violence-or-civil-unrest-after-election/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/09/04/faceboo... Putting your head in the sand won’t make it go away. Mail-in is a bad fucking idea. Trump suggested a way for his supporters to make sure their vote was counted and Twitter took the tweets down as “election manipulation”. Umm, what? So do mail-in ballots allow double voting or not? Twitter has also said they will remove any Tweets by trump if he claims victory “too early”. So that’s where we are now, huh? If Democrats were so damn confident they could win fair and square, why introduce this wild card? Changing to mail-in at the 13th hour is not the same as continuing a 30-year tradition. Besides, as others have pointed out, it has led to nakedly corrupt elections in other states (Washington state in 2004). Whenever you introduce the possibility of people being able to ballot harvest or “lose ballots” and those same people are taught that they are stopping literally Hitler it’s no surprise they do what they do. This whole last-minute rush for mail-in ballots stinks to high heaven and even if you think your side will benefit from it, we all lose when trust in our democracy is undermined. So no, I won’t just kindly shut up and let Democrats steal the election. Or Republicans for that matter. We should all be observing the ballot counting process but this god damn mail-in process means we can’t audit the process. That should scare you. If it doesn’t, you are way too naive.
MuffinFlavored 6y ago
Why are you ok with literally none of that for things that handle credit reports, bank/investment accounts, 401ks? Where does this antiquated mindset of "omg, I need my votes counted by hand!" but "please transfer $1,000,000 using as many electronics as possible" I trust SSL more than I trust human counting?...
- simplify 6y ago
  None of those things have the requirement of anonymity. You can verify those numbers at any time, unlike a vote.
- ls612 6y ago
  The crucial difference is that with the banking system you only really need people to trust that their accounts are correctly tabulated. For voting you need people to trust that everyone’s votes are tabulated correctly. It’s an entirely different problem
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  The difference is that its much easier to resolve banking errors than... "election errors"
- dividuum 6y ago
  > Where does this antiquated mindset of "omg, I need my votes counted by hand!" Because that's a feature. You want something that's simple to understand and cannot be easily tampered with at a larger scale.
Balgair 6y ago
32-bit counters are also fallible. In a 2003 Belgian election, a cosmic ray changed to vote totals due to a bit flip: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/bit-flip https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/bit-f... As they go into, it's not easy to explain to the public or other election officials how this happened, or even what happened at all.
- dividuum 6y ago
  Excellent example and exactly the reason low-tech is the way to go. Thanks for the link.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    With high tech, you can (and should) have error correction. With low tech someone could easily misread handwriting. I believe low tech is preferable, but I don't think this is the reason, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

chrisseaton 6y ago

Do you not also want something that is accessible?

dividuum 6y ago
Not sure how that computer related. In Germany all voting places are wheelchair accessible. Additionally for the blind, there’s a Stimmzettelschablonen that allows you to vote in secret. These issues can be solved without computers.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Accessible... to people not able to get to a voting location or postbox. > In Germany all voting places are wheelchair accessible. There are accessibility concerns beyond just wheelchairs you know...
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    My local elections have each voting location team do home visits on election day for people who physically can't get to a voting location due to disability, severe ilness, etc - in the last elections it was used by the people home-isolating due to Covid. There aren't that many people like that, it takes some funding and effort to make an exception for them, but it is manageable.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Accessible... to people not able to get to a voting location or postbox. A person doesn't have to be able to get to a post office themselves to cast an absentee ballot. They just have to be able to fill out the ballot and sign it. Someone else can mail it for them.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > They just have to be able to fill out the ballot and sign it. Someone else can mail it for them. Right, so they have to be able to reliably receive mail at a location fixed at least a little time in advance, and either send mail or give it to someone to send mail, and then it needs to reliably get to its destination. Not all of those things are always easy for all people's situations. As a practical example - see the difficulty that homeless people have voting in many cases. Voting online as an option would possibly solve them for some people.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        Given the risks of online voting, I would rather put time and effort into making sure every voter who needs an absentee ballot can reliably receive one and reliably send it back. That seems like a better goal to shoot for.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dividuum 6y ago
    In Germany you can request to vote by mail. Additionally you can get instructions on Audio CD, in braille or large fonts. As I said, this can and is all solvable without complex technology.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Would you be surprised if I told you some people struggle to send and receive mail?
      - pmyteh 6y ago
        In Britain, we deal with this problem partly by allowing proxy voting, where you can expressly authorise someone else to vote (in person) on your behalf. I had to do this once when my wife had an unexpected business trip after the postal vote registration deadline had closed. It's obviously not ideal from a vote privacy point of view, but it does provide a useful solution to some of the corner cases preventing voting in person or by mail.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

Bring back the Pony Express! Watch the Russians interfere with that!

hrktb 6y ago

I’d argue we want to make the process easier. The internal handling of votes should be harden as you explain, but helping more people to vote should be the goal. The reverse is also an attack on democracy, and we already see this at so many scales. Like setting voting stations at places easier to access for a specific portion of the population (right next to churches on sundays, next to police stations, hard to reach by public transport places, etc.). Reliable online voting would alleviate these kind of issues. Not saying it’s easy, but we should at least try.

dividuum 6y ago
Totally agree. I’ve voted in every election since I’m 18. So far all voting booths have been in walking distance. IIRC all have been on a Sunday, so it doesn’t conflict with work for most people.
sam_lowry_ 6y ago
If you want more people to vote, then just pass a law that mandates all citizens have to vote. That's how it is done in Belgium. Think of it. If your choice is ether vote or risk a fine, you'd rather go and vote. If you go and vote, you'll learn at least a bit about the choices you have to make in the ballot. P.S. While Belgium got mandatory voting right, it completely messed up electronic voting. I remember being an assessor in a polling station with electronic voting. People voted, then the head of the voting station took 3 1⁄2-inch floppy disks out of the machine, put them in an envelope and drove away to the district polling committee. There was not counting, no protocol to sign. Nothing. I was appalled.
- godelski 6y ago
  > If your choice is ether vote or risk a fine This is ABSOLUTELY not what I want. I for one want voting to be extremely accessible. Everyone that wants to vote can. The goal isn't to make everyone vote but rather that everyone has the ability to vote. That you don't have to take time off to vote. That it is easy. Universally accessible, not universally mandated.
  - 6y ago

paulryanrogers 6y ago

Agreed. Though I'd add that a digital copy from a standard, open system--with receipts--can help as a secondary means to verify ones vote was included.

mNovak 6y ago

Couldn't largely distributed digital systems also be designed? I think we should all sit down and define what the requirements of a secure vote are, regardless of taken in person or otherwise. I see nothing inherently secure about physical paper as the voting medium. Whatever is written on that paper or how it's handled better also be provably secure somehow.

anoncake 6y ago
Paper is provably secure as long as every step happens in public (which also means no voting by mail).
- jquery 6y ago
  Indeed. That is why I oppose mail in voting. It’s going to lead to civil unrest no matter who wins in November.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    My state has been voting by mail for over thirty years with no problems. Absentee ballots are not new. This FUD will be what leads to unrest, please stop spreading it.
    - jquery 6y ago
      We will likely have civil unrest. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s someone with access to much better data than me: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/09/04/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-warns-of-violence-or-civil-unrest-after-election/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/09/04/faceboo... Putting your head in the sand won’t make it go away. Mail-in is a bad fucking idea. Trump suggested a way for his supporters to make sure their vote was counted and Twitter took the tweets down as “election manipulation”. Umm, what? So do mail-in ballots allow double voting or not? Twitter has also said they will remove any Tweets by trump if he claims victory “too early”. So that’s where we are now, huh? If Democrats were so damn confident they could win fair and square, why introduce this wild card? Changing to mail-in at the 13th hour is not the same as continuing a 30-year tradition. Besides, as others have pointed out, it has led to nakedly corrupt elections in other states (Washington state in 2004). Whenever you introduce the possibility of people being able to ballot harvest or “lose ballots” and those same people are taught that they are stopping literally Hitler it’s no surprise they do what they do. This whole last-minute rush for mail-in ballots stinks to high heaven and even if you think your side will benefit from it, we all lose when trust in our democracy is undermined. So no, I won’t just kindly shut up and let Democrats steal the election. Or Republicans for that matter. We should all be observing the ballot counting process but this god damn mail-in process means we can’t audit the process. That should scare you. If it doesn’t, you are way too naive.

MuffinFlavored 6y ago

Why are you ok with literally none of that for things that handle credit reports, bank/investment accounts, 401ks? Where does this antiquated mindset of "omg, I need my votes counted by hand!" but "please transfer $1,000,000 using as many electronics as possible" I trust SSL more than I trust human counting?...

simplify 6y ago
None of those things have the requirement of anonymity. You can verify those numbers at any time, unlike a vote.
ls612 6y ago
The crucial difference is that with the banking system you only really need people to trust that their accounts are correctly tabulated. For voting you need people to trust that everyone’s votes are tabulated correctly. It’s an entirely different problem
madeofpalk 6y ago
The difference is that its much easier to resolve banking errors than... "election errors"
dividuum 6y ago
> Where does this antiquated mindset of "omg, I need my votes counted by hand!" Because that's a feature. You want something that's simple to understand and cannot be easily tampered with at a larger scale.

Balgair 6y ago

32-bit counters are also fallible. In a 2003 Belgian election, a cosmic ray changed to vote totals due to a bit flip: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/bit-flip https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/bit-f... As they go into, it's not easy to explain to the public or other election officials how this happened, or even what happened at all.

dividuum 6y ago
Excellent example and exactly the reason low-tech is the way to go. Thanks for the link.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  With high tech, you can (and should) have error correction. With low tech someone could easily misread handwriting. I believe low tech is preferable, but I don't think this is the reason, unless I'm misunderstanding something.