4 ms·

When you disregard basic voting security, everything becomes super easy. Mail-in voting allows for vote buying, the only way to avoid this is by having a privat

by siffin 2y ago

When you disregard basic voting security, everything becomes super easy. Mail-in voting allows for vote buying, the only way to avoid this is by having a private in person voting booth so the person voting cannot prove to the outside world who they voted for. Even this isn't secure now, because everyone can just photograph their voting card within the booth.

ForHackernews 2y ago
Do you have any evidence this is happening? In order to swing an election, you'd have to buy a lot of votes. That's a lot of people to rat you out. You're proposing that secret vote-buying conspiracy is going on and thousands of people are all keeping their mouth shut in order to keep getting that... $10, $50, $100 bribe?
- siffin 2y ago
  I'm not proposing any of that. I'm just saying that voting isn't secure, and that has very real implications. See my other response for more detail.
EGG_CREAM 2y ago
After your very last sentence, I’m not even sure what your point is here. You just listed a bunch of reasons you don’t think mail in ballots are safe, and then ended with saying the alternative also isn’t safe from vote buying. Vote buying also does not appear to be a problem in the US electoral system, as another commented pointed out: in order to make a difference in the election, you’d have to buy enough votes that someone would be bound to tell on you.
- siffin 2y ago
  Yea no, I get that, it's just that voting was still secure up until smartphones were ubiquitous. Now it's not. It's not just about vote stealing per se, it's about any third party infraction of individual voting rights. It may not matter on a large scale, but it matters to individuals. Not only that, but it matters that bosses can't coerce workers into voting for someone, or an abusive spouse, or any third party who might have an interest in swaying an election. It often doesn't take much to sway an election. It becomes very problematic when a victim is unable to vote for someone who would stop abuse. For example, Russia decriminalizing spousal physical abuse. That same thing could happen anywhere, and then you'd have every asshole abuser at home forcing their family to vote for their choice. Not having secure voting is a real problem, and one that is now unsolved thanks to smartphones.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    Au contraire. With my remote voting, I can generate as many ballots as I want. If I want to make a dummy ballot that says I voted for any given candidate in order to fool someone it is easier than ever. Now instead of 1 physical ballot, I can generate multiple ballots, and do as I please with them.
    - siffin 2y ago
      That's a different security issue, not related to voter coercion. There are checks to ensure votes aren't fraudulent, that's actually very easy and already done. You can send as many ballots as you want, but they need to be legitimised against a person. That's not such an easy grift. I believe
dahart 2y ago
Hehe you disproved your own claim. Mail-in voting does not “allow” vote buying any more than any other method of voting. It’s simply not possible for the voting system itself to prevent vote buying, if that were actually a serious problem. But where’s the evidence that vote buying is a widespread problem in the US? Imagining that something is possible doesn’t mean it’s happening, nor make it likely, nor make it a serious problem to solve. And on the flip side, the more technology we add in the name of security, the easier it is to influence elections without people knowing and without having to buy votes. If you don’t want it to be possible for people to buy or sell votes, then you need to make sure every citizen is engaged and cares about casting their own vote, and you need to make sure the government has a stable and trustworthy system of checks and balances. And why not just make it illegal with massive fines to buy votes and post a huge bounty for anyone tattling on a vote buyer that gets prosecuted? It doesn’t seem that complicated to disincentivize vote buying in a way that eliminates any concerns about the method of voting. Oh, hey, look: vote buying is already illegal in the US. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597

by siffin 2y ago

ForHackernews 2y ago

Do you have any evidence this is happening? In order to swing an election, you'd have to buy a lot of votes. That's a lot of people to rat you out. You're proposing that secret vote-buying conspiracy is going on and thousands of people are all keeping their mouth shut in order to keep getting that... $10, $50, $100 bribe?

siffin 2y ago
I'm not proposing any of that. I'm just saying that voting isn't secure, and that has very real implications. See my other response for more detail.

EGG_CREAM 2y ago

After your very last sentence, I’m not even sure what your point is here. You just listed a bunch of reasons you don’t think mail in ballots are safe, and then ended with saying the alternative also isn’t safe from vote buying. Vote buying also does not appear to be a problem in the US electoral system, as another commented pointed out: in order to make a difference in the election, you’d have to buy enough votes that someone would be bound to tell on you.

siffin 2y ago
Yea no, I get that, it's just that voting was still secure up until smartphones were ubiquitous. Now it's not. It's not just about vote stealing per se, it's about any third party infraction of individual voting rights. It may not matter on a large scale, but it matters to individuals. Not only that, but it matters that bosses can't coerce workers into voting for someone, or an abusive spouse, or any third party who might have an interest in swaying an election. It often doesn't take much to sway an election. It becomes very problematic when a victim is unable to vote for someone who would stop abuse. For example, Russia decriminalizing spousal physical abuse. That same thing could happen anywhere, and then you'd have every asshole abuser at home forcing their family to vote for their choice. Not having secure voting is a real problem, and one that is now unsolved thanks to smartphones.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Au contraire. With my remote voting, I can generate as many ballots as I want. If I want to make a dummy ballot that says I voted for any given candidate in order to fool someone it is easier than ever. Now instead of 1 physical ballot, I can generate multiple ballots, and do as I please with them.
  - siffin 2y ago
    That's a different security issue, not related to voter coercion. There are checks to ensure votes aren't fraudulent, that's actually very easy and already done. You can send as many ballots as you want, but they need to be legitimised against a person. That's not such an easy grift. I believe

dahart 2y ago

Hehe you disproved your own claim. Mail-in voting does not “allow” vote buying any more than any other method of voting. It’s simply not possible for the voting system itself to prevent vote buying, if that were actually a serious problem. But where’s the evidence that vote buying is a widespread problem in the US? Imagining that something is possible doesn’t mean it’s happening, nor make it likely, nor make it a serious problem to solve. And on the flip side, the more technology we add in the name of security, the easier it is to influence elections without people knowing and without having to buy votes. If you don’t want it to be possible for people to buy or sell votes, then you need to make sure every citizen is engaged and cares about casting their own vote, and you need to make sure the government has a stable and trustworthy system of checks and balances. And why not just make it illegal with massive fines to buy votes and post a huge bounty for anyone tattling on a vote buyer that gets prosecuted? It doesn’t seem that complicated to disincentivize vote buying in a way that eliminates any concerns about the method of voting. Oh, hey, look: vote buying is already illegal in the US. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597