7 ms·

Why is the act of physically showing up so important? I think reducing friction can be a great way to get more people to vote.

tossandthrow 2y ago
Because you need to ensure that the vote is given without anyone interfering.
- mariusor 2y ago
  I think a better measure against this is not physical presence, but allowing one individual to exercise their vote any number of times until the ballot period ends. This means that a malevolent entity that wants to influence votes needs to sequester the voter(s) for the whole ballot period, which is vastly more difficult than putting a gun to someone's head for a single vote. Executing this at scale so the effect can be statistically significant is even more difficult, and if it's still possible the entity holding the ballot can be assumed to have more pressing issues to care about than fair ballots. :D
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
    I actually love this. I always cast my vote on election day because I want to have the most information. What if I vote early, then the person I voted for has a major scandal the day before the polls close? Being able to change one's vote would remove all the disincentive to voting early or whenever it's most convenient for you.
    - dmurray 2y ago
      If you're changing your vote based on which side was the latest to have a major "scandal", you're part of the problem.
      - actionfromafar 2y ago
        Generally yes, but it depends on what the scandal is.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      It works like this in Sweden.
      - thegabriele 2y ago
        For all Kinds of public elections? I would love to read more. Thanks
        actionfromafar 2y ago
        Yes, it seems so. https://www.val.se/att-rosta/var-rostar-jag/fortidsrosta.html# https://www.val.se/att-rosta/var-rostar-jag/fortidsrosta.htm...
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    This is a interesting idea. I reckon the individual voting period would have to be randomized to ensure that the malevolent entity doesn't just assemble everyone on the last day?
    - nilsherzig 2y ago
      It might be easy to extract this period from a potential victim, since the information would have to get delivered to them in some way. I think it would already help a lot, that there are some physical limitations on how many people you could gather at the same time.
  - jacobjjacob 2y ago
    Typically in the US, you can “spoil” your vote and get a replacement ballot, even after you mailed it. So this is already in effect in some ways
  - codedokode 2y ago
    Several years ago they used such system on election in Moscow, and there were claims (pretty plausible) that the government used second vote to change voter's vote to another candidate. There was noticeable difference between number of votes and number of voters. The system used two blockchains: a public one which recorded votes, but without linking to a voter, and a private one that linked voters to vote records in a public blockchain. So the voter couldn't see how many times he voted because this info was on a private blockchain. So when allowing to change a vote there are several issues: - how do you invalidate previous vote? You need some way to link those votes, that they belong to the same person which might lead to disclosing their identity - how do you prevent government from changing your vote by pretending that you voted the second time?
    - mariusor 2y ago
      Do you have some links to that? It sounds very interesting. > how do you invalidate previous vote? All the votes are public on the ledger, you can clearly see which ones belong to which voter entry. > how do you prevent government... The government does not have your private key, also if a hacked vote happens, you as a voter ask for an audit of the vote entries. I'm not saying there are no problems with electronic ballots, but I'm thinking that with enough time and elbow grease, they can be solved.
  - synecdoche 2y ago
    This relies on the voter to have enough autonomy to be able to independently access their online ID. It would be easy to circumvent by separating the voter from their ability to identify themselves online. Either by keeping their means of identication from them during the voting period or by being the gatekeeper to the computer where their online ID is stored, for example with a password. It also relies on the voter caring enough about their vote in the first place to be willing to attempt to do it, with whatever possible personal risk that entails.
    - mariusor 2y ago
      The id is a physical card, where the private key and the data attached to it can be accessed through NFC. Sensitive data can be accessed through specific applications, public data can be accessed through a simple NFC reader. And yes, if the government is corrupt in its entirety, from creating IDs to the ballot process itself and to sequestering citizens, then yes, you're fucked. But I don't see how that would be different for paper ballots or any other means of voting.
layer8 2y ago
For example, so that people aren’t forced by their spouses at home to vote a specific way.
- romwell 2y ago
  Great, so their spouses can just lock them in to prevent them from voting. Or simpler, leave them with the kids (nobody else to watch them). Disabled people must love this idea, too. And sick people. And elderly. I think we could take this a notch further, and put the voting bin on top of a rock you have to climb. Everyone sees people climbing the rock (ensures no vote staffing!), and once there, nobody can see who you vote for. One person at a time, obviously, and if anyone is overstaying their welcome, the next person can simply push them off the rock. It's actually a feature, not a bug, because it ensures that only really motivated people vote.

tossandthrow 2y ago

Because you need to ensure that the vote is given without anyone interfering.

mariusor 2y ago
I think a better measure against this is not physical presence, but allowing one individual to exercise their vote any number of times until the ballot period ends. This means that a malevolent entity that wants to influence votes needs to sequester the voter(s) for the whole ballot period, which is vastly more difficult than putting a gun to someone's head for a single vote. Executing this at scale so the effect can be statistically significant is even more difficult, and if it's still possible the entity holding the ballot can be assumed to have more pressing issues to care about than fair ballots. :D
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
  I actually love this. I always cast my vote on election day because I want to have the most information. What if I vote early, then the person I voted for has a major scandal the day before the polls close? Being able to change one's vote would remove all the disincentive to voting early or whenever it's most convenient for you.
  - dmurray 2y ago
    If you're changing your vote based on which side was the latest to have a major "scandal", you're part of the problem.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      Generally yes, but it depends on what the scandal is.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    It works like this in Sweden.
    - thegabriele 2y ago
      For all Kinds of public elections? I would love to read more. Thanks
      - actionfromafar 2y ago
        Yes, it seems so. https://www.val.se/att-rosta/var-rostar-jag/fortidsrosta.html# https://www.val.se/att-rosta/var-rostar-jag/fortidsrosta.htm...
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  This is a interesting idea. I reckon the individual voting period would have to be randomized to ensure that the malevolent entity doesn't just assemble everyone on the last day?
  - nilsherzig 2y ago
    It might be easy to extract this period from a potential victim, since the information would have to get delivered to them in some way. I think it would already help a lot, that there are some physical limitations on how many people you could gather at the same time.
- jacobjjacob 2y ago
  Typically in the US, you can “spoil” your vote and get a replacement ballot, even after you mailed it. So this is already in effect in some ways
- codedokode 2y ago
  Several years ago they used such system on election in Moscow, and there were claims (pretty plausible) that the government used second vote to change voter's vote to another candidate. There was noticeable difference between number of votes and number of voters. The system used two blockchains: a public one which recorded votes, but without linking to a voter, and a private one that linked voters to vote records in a public blockchain. So the voter couldn't see how many times he voted because this info was on a private blockchain. So when allowing to change a vote there are several issues: - how do you invalidate previous vote? You need some way to link those votes, that they belong to the same person which might lead to disclosing their identity - how do you prevent government from changing your vote by pretending that you voted the second time?
  - mariusor 2y ago
    Do you have some links to that? It sounds very interesting. > how do you invalidate previous vote? All the votes are public on the ledger, you can clearly see which ones belong to which voter entry. > how do you prevent government... The government does not have your private key, also if a hacked vote happens, you as a voter ask for an audit of the vote entries. I'm not saying there are no problems with electronic ballots, but I'm thinking that with enough time and elbow grease, they can be solved.
- synecdoche 2y ago
  This relies on the voter to have enough autonomy to be able to independently access their online ID. It would be easy to circumvent by separating the voter from their ability to identify themselves online. Either by keeping their means of identication from them during the voting period or by being the gatekeeper to the computer where their online ID is stored, for example with a password. It also relies on the voter caring enough about their vote in the first place to be willing to attempt to do it, with whatever possible personal risk that entails.
  - mariusor 2y ago
    The id is a physical card, where the private key and the data attached to it can be accessed through NFC. Sensitive data can be accessed through specific applications, public data can be accessed through a simple NFC reader. And yes, if the government is corrupt in its entirety, from creating IDs to the ballot process itself and to sequestering citizens, then yes, you're fucked. But I don't see how that would be different for paper ballots or any other means of voting.

layer8 2y ago

For example, so that people aren’t forced by their spouses at home to vote a specific way.

romwell 2y ago
Great, so their spouses can just lock them in to prevent them from voting. Or simpler, leave them with the kids (nobody else to watch them). Disabled people must love this idea, too. And sick people. And elderly. I think we could take this a notch further, and put the voting bin on top of a rock you have to climb. Everyone sees people climbing the rock (ensures no vote staffing!), and once there, nobody can see who you vote for. One person at a time, obviously, and if anyone is overstaying their welcome, the next person can simply push them off the rock. It's actually a feature, not a bug, because it ensures that only really motivated people vote.