4 ms·

If there's no way to build secure software that tallies digits then why are we even here?

by stef25 5y ago

kuschku 5y ago
There is no way to build software that reliably handles anonymous data in a way that is understandable to the average citizen. Which is why e.g. Germany does all elections solely on paper, and still has early results just an hour after the polls close and final results the next morning.
unionpivo 5y ago
> If there's no way to build secure software that tallies digits then why are we even here? Making semi secure software that tallies digits somewhat correctly for the 90% of the time. And its mostly good enogh. But for important things like elections, making software secure and robust enough is a lot harder (and trusting that it was done so even more) than just using paper. Same way most of us are still wiping our ass with paper, even though there are some more technologically advanced toilets that probably clean you better.
baobabKoodaa 5y ago
If there was no requirement for vote secrecy, it would be easy. The conflicting requirements between verifiability of results and secrecy of the vote is what makes it hard. I wrote more about this here: https://www.attejuvonen.fi/thesis/ https://www.attejuvonen.fi/thesis/
- nograpes 5y ago
  I laughed out loud (and was pleasantly surprised) when I found out how much you understated your expertise. I have only read a small bit of your dissertation, but so far it is informative and interesting.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
It's not about tallying digits, it's about maintaining the secret ballot, and making it really hard to commit election fraud. (As opposed to voter fraud, which is an insignificant problem.) It's such a bad idea that Tom Scott has not one, but two videos on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI (Computerphile channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs (his channel, more recent) And also, if 20 people can handle ballots from 1000 people (no clue if that's realistic but it doesn't matter), then if you add another 1000 people. Well... since you added people and the resource you need to count is people it's a self scaling solution. Sure you might need larger facilities, but we're not exactly running out of schools (another thing tied to the population). The only reasons to make voting electronic are: * To make money * To commit election fraud which is why I said there are no "good" reasons. :)

If there's no way to build secure software that tallies digits then why are we even here?

by stef25 5y ago

If there's no way to build secure software that tallies digits then why are we even here?

There is no way to build software that reliably handles anonymous data in a way that is understandable to the average citizen. Which is why e.g. Germany does all elections solely on paper, and still has early results just an hour after the polls close and final results the next morning.

unionpivo 5y ago

> If there's no way to build secure software that tallies digits then why are we even here? Making semi secure software that tallies digits somewhat correctly for the 90% of the time. And its mostly good enogh. But for important things like elections, making software secure and robust enough is a lot harder (and trusting that it was done so even more) than just using paper. Same way most of us are still wiping our ass with paper, even though there are some more technologically advanced toilets that probably clean you better.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago

If there was no requirement for vote secrecy, it would be easy. The conflicting requirements between verifiability of results and secrecy of the vote is what makes it hard. I wrote more about this here: https://www.attejuvonen.fi/thesis/ https://www.attejuvonen.fi/thesis/

nograpes 5y ago
I laughed out loud (and was pleasantly surprised) when I found out how much you understated your expertise. I have only read a small bit of your dissertation, but so far it is informative and interesting.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

It's not about tallying digits, it's about maintaining the secret ballot, and making it really hard to commit election fraud. (As opposed to voter fraud, which is an insignificant problem.) It's such a bad idea that Tom Scott has not one, but two videos on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI (Computerphile channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs (his channel, more recent) And also, if 20 people can handle ballots from 1000 people (no clue if that's realistic but it doesn't matter), then if you add another 1000 people. Well... since you added people and the resource you need to count is people it's a self scaling solution. Sure you might need larger facilities, but we're not exactly running out of schools (another thing tied to the population). The only reasons to make voting electronic are: * To make money * To commit election fraud which is why I said there are no "good" reasons. :)