5 ms·

This is non-sensical. Right now, there are voting systems on computer and on paper. All of them are fraudulent. And auditing them are difficult if not imposs

This is non-sensical. Right now, there are voting systems on computer and on paper. All of them are fraudulent. And auditing them are difficult if not impossible. Time vs money. Blockchains provide a mechanism to audit and eliminate fraud. For example, by only allowing one vote per person. And allowing the person who voted, to confirm their vote was not changed or tampered with. Paper ballots guarantee nothing.

lukev 6y ago
You seem to be starting from the prior position that existing voting systems are fraudulent. This is not the case (at least for paper ones, I too am skeptical of purely electronic voting systems.) Both initial counting, recounting and auditing is quite straightforward. For example, Risk Limiting Audits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-limiting_audit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-limiting_audit) are easy to do and provide extremely high degrees of mathematical certainty that an election was not tampered with.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
One of the most common failings I see with technical people is the belief that technology should be applied to solve problems, even when those problems are pretty minimal and the application of technology could make them worse. In the US, electoral fraud is not an important issue. Fraud exists to some extent, as in every country, but the scale of it is so small that it’s not a thing worth solving. The application of an opaque and difficult to understand technology to the problem offers no appreciable benefits and comes with its own baggage. The same applies in the UK, which has piloted systems requiring voter ID. There is no appreciable benefit, and some obvious costs.
- easytiger 6y ago
  > The same applies in the UK, which has piloted systems requiring voter ID VoterID makes perfect sense and is used in some parts of the UK already for 20 years. How anyone can possibly object to it, especially given how many and varied options are acceptable, astounds me.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    It makes no sense, because it solves no problems and serves only to disenfranchise people. I can see no argument in support of it whatsoever.
    - easytiger 6y ago
      So it should be removed from Northern Ireland? France should stop doing it? Italy should just forget about it? Canada should pick a new system? Perhaps the Dutch have it all wrong too. Such unsupported conspiratorial vagueness about disenfranchisement, equally tired and transparent a duplicity, seeks only to assert I believe an underlying hope/fear that there is some systemic problem that might be unwound. For it makes no sense to shore up a system once designed in a world were communities knew each other better to remove any question of doubt from that component of the process. Are the people of Northern Ireland disenfranchised at the polls? France too? I think not
      - matthewmacleod 6y ago
        This unsupported argument that it had no problems is nonsense. You want to introduce a system that disenfranchises people? Then explain why it’s needed. That’s on you. And yes, voters in areas with ID laws are disenfranchised. Voter ID laws can routinely be observed to disproportionately affect people who are otherwise legitimately able to vote. You may, in some clear and well-scoped circumstances, be able to make an argument in support of them when they solve some problem. NI might even be an example of that. Since electoral fraud does not appear to be a problem in the rest of the UK, it does not seem possible to avoid a net negative impact.
        easytiger 6y ago
        > Since electoral fraud does not appear to be a problem in the rest of the UK Without VoterID it's literally impossible to know it's scope > introduce a system that disenfranchises people? It doesn't. Do you even know how the process works?
  - 6y ago
chillacy 6y ago
I don't see how a blockchain mechanism could prevent some of the fraud being alleged today (all on extremely shaky grounds) like bribing voters or people voting for others. Wouldn't national identity cards with 2fa be a requirement?

lukev 6y ago

You seem to be starting from the prior position that existing voting systems are fraudulent. This is not the case (at least for paper ones, I too am skeptical of purely electronic voting systems.) Both initial counting, recounting and auditing is quite straightforward. For example, Risk Limiting Audits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-limiting_audit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-limiting_audit) are easy to do and provide extremely high degrees of mathematical certainty that an election was not tampered with.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

One of the most common failings I see with technical people is the belief that technology should be applied to solve problems, even when those problems are pretty minimal and the application of technology could make them worse. In the US, electoral fraud is not an important issue. Fraud exists to some extent, as in every country, but the scale of it is so small that it’s not a thing worth solving. The application of an opaque and difficult to understand technology to the problem offers no appreciable benefits and comes with its own baggage. The same applies in the UK, which has piloted systems requiring voter ID. There is no appreciable benefit, and some obvious costs.

easytiger 6y ago
> The same applies in the UK, which has piloted systems requiring voter ID VoterID makes perfect sense and is used in some parts of the UK already for 20 years. How anyone can possibly object to it, especially given how many and varied options are acceptable, astounds me.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  It makes no sense, because it solves no problems and serves only to disenfranchise people. I can see no argument in support of it whatsoever.
  - easytiger 6y ago
    So it should be removed from Northern Ireland? France should stop doing it? Italy should just forget about it? Canada should pick a new system? Perhaps the Dutch have it all wrong too. Such unsupported conspiratorial vagueness about disenfranchisement, equally tired and transparent a duplicity, seeks only to assert I believe an underlying hope/fear that there is some systemic problem that might be unwound. For it makes no sense to shore up a system once designed in a world were communities knew each other better to remove any question of doubt from that component of the process. Are the people of Northern Ireland disenfranchised at the polls? France too? I think not
    - matthewmacleod 6y ago
      This unsupported argument that it had no problems is nonsense. You want to introduce a system that disenfranchises people? Then explain why it’s needed. That’s on you. And yes, voters in areas with ID laws are disenfranchised. Voter ID laws can routinely be observed to disproportionately affect people who are otherwise legitimately able to vote. You may, in some clear and well-scoped circumstances, be able to make an argument in support of them when they solve some problem. NI might even be an example of that. Since electoral fraud does not appear to be a problem in the rest of the UK, it does not seem possible to avoid a net negative impact.
      - easytiger 6y ago
        > Since electoral fraud does not appear to be a problem in the rest of the UK Without VoterID it's literally impossible to know it's scope > introduce a system that disenfranchises people? It doesn't. Do you even know how the process works?
- 6y ago

chillacy 6y ago

I don't see how a blockchain mechanism could prevent some of the fraud being alleged today (all on extremely shaky grounds) like bribing voters or people voting for others. Wouldn't national identity cards with 2fa be a requirement?