5 ms·

Short sighted and needlessly defeatist in my opinion. Some people would've had us ride horses forever because the first cars were dangerous.

wpietri 6y ago
As far as the computer security experts I've talked to, it's pretty much the consensus. Computers are very fragile, and have been my whole career. How many of us here make good money just keeping up with all the patches and fixes and defenses needed to make sure a modern system stays safe? Of course, some deep technological revolution might change that eventually. But in that case we still shouldn't rush to shift to a digital-only elections system. Why? Because it doesn't just have to work. Voters have to have confidence in the system. And that system isn't just technical, it's social. Everybody understands paper. Everybody understand marking paper. Everybody understands manually counting marks on paper and adding up numbers. Further, everybody has intuitions on how to protect and defend that process by making sure the right people are present. People do generally accept machine counting of paper ballots, because they don't see that as much different, and because they know a manual count can be done if there are problems. However technically clever and perfect some blockchain system is, it just doesn't have the simplicity and robustness in the face of attack or failure that we need. And it especially doesn't provide the social validation of what is essentially a social result.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  > Why? Because it doesn't just have to work. Voters have to have confidence in the system. And that system isn't just technical, it's social. I'd go even further and say that if voters believe in the system, it doesn't actually have to work. Belief in the system is the mechanism by which democracy provides stability. The election system actually working as advertised is only necessary to the extent that the system actually working is required to make people believe it works.
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  We might not be ready right this instant but that's not a reason to not research the problem and make attempts to move forward. Something just seems wrong about sticking to paper forever. In my lifetime I should be able to vote from my phone in the middle of the ocean with satellite internet.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    I understand you have a vaguely positive feeling toward the current signifiers of technical progress. But I have no idea why you think that weighs much compared with voter confidence in the democratic process that undergirds our society.
    - jimmaswell 6y ago
      Voter confidence in technology can improve over time and progress has to happen. Like I said, I understand if it can't happen today, but it should be on the roadmap.
      - wpietri 6y ago
        "Progress" does not in fact have to happen, and it's not at all clear to me that online voting constitutes progress.
        jimmaswell 6y ago
        The year is 2400AD. Tens of thousands of seasonal miners on Mars are disenfranchised because it takes too long to send a paper ballot back and forth. Pens and paper would no longer be manufactured were it not for paper ballots. Every legal function is carried out entirely electronically, including congressional sessions, except voting on paper. Neuralinks allow perfect biometric verification and haven't had a security breach in 200 years, but still aren't good enough for voting because progress does not in fact have to happen. If this situation sounds completely A-OK to you then I don't know what to say.
benchaney 6y ago
Hard disagree. Blockchain gives a few very narrow security benefits in a specific situation. None of them are relevant for the purpose of election integrity. Some people are quite cavalier about switching over to computerized voting system despite not understanding the consequences. Resisting this trend is to the benefit of society.
- rs999gti 6y ago
  > Resisting this trend is to the benefit of society. Explain.
  - benchaney 6y ago
    Elections are important to society. Those elections being safe and secure is important to society. Computerized voting methods that are fundamentally unsound undermine that. They are occasionally being adopted anyway because of lobbying (read corruption). Voting against these officials, and informing society about the dangers of voting machines makes this type of corruption more difficult.

wpietri 6y ago

As far as the computer security experts I've talked to, it's pretty much the consensus. Computers are very fragile, and have been my whole career. How many of us here make good money just keeping up with all the patches and fixes and defenses needed to make sure a modern system stays safe? Of course, some deep technological revolution might change that eventually. But in that case we still shouldn't rush to shift to a digital-only elections system. Why? Because it doesn't just have to work. Voters have to have confidence in the system. And that system isn't just technical, it's social. Everybody understands paper. Everybody understand marking paper. Everybody understands manually counting marks on paper and adding up numbers. Further, everybody has intuitions on how to protect and defend that process by making sure the right people are present. People do generally accept machine counting of paper ballots, because they don't see that as much different, and because they know a manual count can be done if there are problems. However technically clever and perfect some blockchain system is, it just doesn't have the simplicity and robustness in the face of attack or failure that we need. And it especially doesn't provide the social validation of what is essentially a social result.

bigbubba 6y ago
> Why? Because it doesn't just have to work. Voters have to have confidence in the system. And that system isn't just technical, it's social. I'd go even further and say that if voters believe in the system, it doesn't actually have to work. Belief in the system is the mechanism by which democracy provides stability. The election system actually working as advertised is only necessary to the extent that the system actually working is required to make people believe it works.
jimmaswell 6y ago
We might not be ready right this instant but that's not a reason to not research the problem and make attempts to move forward. Something just seems wrong about sticking to paper forever. In my lifetime I should be able to vote from my phone in the middle of the ocean with satellite internet.
- wpietri 6y ago
  I understand you have a vaguely positive feeling toward the current signifiers of technical progress. But I have no idea why you think that weighs much compared with voter confidence in the democratic process that undergirds our society.
  - jimmaswell 6y ago
    Voter confidence in technology can improve over time and progress has to happen. Like I said, I understand if it can't happen today, but it should be on the roadmap.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      "Progress" does not in fact have to happen, and it's not at all clear to me that online voting constitutes progress.
      - jimmaswell 6y ago
        The year is 2400AD. Tens of thousands of seasonal miners on Mars are disenfranchised because it takes too long to send a paper ballot back and forth. Pens and paper would no longer be manufactured were it not for paper ballots. Every legal function is carried out entirely electronically, including congressional sessions, except voting on paper. Neuralinks allow perfect biometric verification and haven't had a security breach in 200 years, but still aren't good enough for voting because progress does not in fact have to happen. If this situation sounds completely A-OK to you then I don't know what to say.

benchaney 6y ago

Hard disagree. Blockchain gives a few very narrow security benefits in a specific situation. None of them are relevant for the purpose of election integrity. Some people are quite cavalier about switching over to computerized voting system despite not understanding the consequences. Resisting this trend is to the benefit of society.

rs999gti 6y ago
> Resisting this trend is to the benefit of society. Explain.
- benchaney 6y ago
  Elections are important to society. Those elections being safe and secure is important to society. Computerized voting methods that are fundamentally unsound undermine that. They are occasionally being adopted anyway because of lobbying (read corruption). Voting against these officials, and informing society about the dangers of voting machines makes this type of corruption more difficult.