3 ms·

"Online voting" is a solution in search of a problem. A pencil and paper does the job better, cheaper, and more securely.

bootcampwhere 6y ago
HN users get dumber everyday. Have you had your brain turned off the last couple days?
BjoernKW 6y ago
Except when it doesn't. Take the current elections in the US as an example. Yes, the system's working and it has proven to be quite resilient but those shenanigans involving mail-in ballots and the uncertainty that came with that for example could've been avoided with a properly designed digital system. Most of those problems could of course be solved with a properly designed non-digital system, too.
- matt_s 6y ago
  Even a properly designed digital system will have flaws and if it is on a network it can be hacked at scale. Hacking paper ballots cannot be achieved at the scale necessary to sway a national election. Its similar to a story I read a while ago about flooding a lottery system with enough combinations of numbers to near guarantee some level of profit. The scale needed to fill out, submit, track, etc. 10's of thousands of tickets was ridiculous. There is no need to speed up the election process. If any human effort is to be spent, it should go towards rolling back the perceived need for constant updates. Its unhealthy.
alexmingoia 6y ago
The problem solved by cryptographic electronic voting is secure remote elections. Mailed ballots cannot be secured from tampering, since they cannot be observed. I voted remotely this selection, and I have no way to verify my ballot was counted correctly by my county registrar, or even received. Another minor problem cryptographic electronic voting solves is inaccurate vote counts. If we allow vote-by-mail we should allow cryptographic voting over the Internet. I agree in-person voting is the most secure, but we already use a less secure system.

bootcampwhere 6y ago

HN users get dumber everyday. Have you had your brain turned off the last couple days?

BjoernKW 6y ago

Except when it doesn't. Take the current elections in the US as an example. Yes, the system's working and it has proven to be quite resilient but those shenanigans involving mail-in ballots and the uncertainty that came with that for example could've been avoided with a properly designed digital system. Most of those problems could of course be solved with a properly designed non-digital system, too.

matt_s 6y ago
Even a properly designed digital system will have flaws and if it is on a network it can be hacked at scale. Hacking paper ballots cannot be achieved at the scale necessary to sway a national election. Its similar to a story I read a while ago about flooding a lottery system with enough combinations of numbers to near guarantee some level of profit. The scale needed to fill out, submit, track, etc. 10's of thousands of tickets was ridiculous. There is no need to speed up the election process. If any human effort is to be spent, it should go towards rolling back the perceived need for constant updates. Its unhealthy.

alexmingoia 6y ago

The problem solved by cryptographic electronic voting is secure remote elections. Mailed ballots cannot be secured from tampering, since they cannot be observed. I voted remotely this selection, and I have no way to verify my ballot was counted correctly by my county registrar, or even received. Another minor problem cryptographic electronic voting solves is inaccurate vote counts. If we allow vote-by-mail we should allow cryptographic voting over the Internet. I agree in-person voting is the most secure, but we already use a less secure system.