4 ms·

Sure you can, you just need an anonymous voting mechanism that's sufficiently naive. You use the verifiable process to restrict access to that anonymous mechani

by zahlman 8mo ago

Sure you can, you just need an anonymous voting mechanism that's sufficiently naive. You use the verifiable process to restrict access to that anonymous mechanism. In Canada, at both federal and provincial levels, you walk up to a desk and identify yourself, are crossed off a list, and handed a paper ballot. You go behind a screen, mark an X on the ballot, fold it up, take it back out to another desk, and put it in the box. It's extraordinarily simple. > At some point, you have to give someone access to a database and they can change that database. Well, that kind of fraud is a different issue from someone reading the database and figuring out who someone voted for (you just... don't record identities in the database).

Bender 8mo ago
There will never be a technical or operational process that excludes cheating. The only deterrence that seems to work on humans and even then only most of the time is severe capitol punishment and that will only be as effective as people believe it happens thus requiring live streaming of the removal of cheaters heads without censorship. The current legal process of each country would have to be by-passed or people would just sit in a cage for 30 years. Even in such cases there will be people that sacrifice themselves if they think that bribe money can go to their family but that is at least a start.
- SoftTalker 8mo ago
  Also cheating with paper ballots is much harder to scale and remain undetected than cheating by altering records in a database.
  - Bender 8mo ago
    remain undetected than cheating by altering records in a database. Absolutely. Any time something is centralized it becomes an irresistible target for unlimited numbers of bad actors and the bar to entry for remote anonymous access makes it a much easier target. Anonymous access to paper ballots means someone is going to be on at least a handful of cameras and has to bypass many security systems so if cheating happens it is because the people gathering the votes want it that way. Such cities or states should be excluded from the voting process.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- Ardon 8mo ago
  I agree with your point that attempts at cheating are inevitable, the rest is confusing though: We have a long and storied history of coming up with extremely disturbing capitol punishments performed in public, and yet those punishments coexisted with much higher rates of criminality then now. Stealing from the church in history carried some pretty gruesome deaths, and yet plenty of people still stole from the church, etc. People are chronically bad at transferring future risk to their current decision making. Any consequence that relies on people being able to model a future problem against their current desires/needs is always going to have a lot of transmission losses. You end up trying to make ever more horrible punishments to overcome the losses in transmission. I think the goal should be the smallest possible functioning consequence, which is possible by being close to the 'crime'. The very best way is when community can do it immediately. Like if someone does something fucked up, but then their buddies go 'that was fucked up dude', I am very confident this will prevent then from doing it again much more efficiently then a distant jail sentence. (among all the other ways too, there's never one clean action to take to solve problems on a societal level)
  - Bender 8mo ago
    [flagged]
dirasieb 8mo ago
> paper ballots and requiring IDs isn't that racist? i've heard it repeated but i'm not so sure
- some_random 8mo ago
  It's been a talking point specific to the voting system in the US, strangely no other country seems to think it's an issue and as soon as the topic changes no one in the US has an issue requiring IDs for things.
  - mkehrt 8mo ago
    Voting is a civil right. We need to have a system that allows everyone who is allowed to vote, to vote. Many people don't have IDs and it is an onerous process to get one. Any system that requires IDs for voting suppresses these people's civil rights.
    - zahlman 8mo ago
      > Many people don't have IDs and it is an onerous process to get one. I have seen this constantly claimed, and never reasonably evidenced. It's also hard to believe the kind of American exceptionalism that supposedly causes these problems that everyone else can easily solve, despite an environment that is clearly heavily politically invested in solving it (because that also avoids the appearance of racism). Meanwhile, American proponents of voter ID can readily find people including among the supposedly discriminated-against groups who will testify to the contrary.
      - squeaky-clean 8mo ago
        Under the text of the proposed SAVE Act, drivers licenses or state ID's wouldn't be enough to count as a voting ID. In Canada a drivers license is enough to vote.
      - CJefferson 8mo ago
        Solving it in other countries often involved a standard id that everyone uses for many things, so it becomes a standard party of life. Many people in the US, from what I can tell, don't want that.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
chrisandchris 8mo ago
> you walk up to a desk I think the day I _must_ walk go a desk to vote is the day I'll give up. Voting by mail is one of the best things occuring here (in Switzerland). You get the voting stuff by mail, make your crosses, put it back into the postal box and it's delivered for free (as in beer) to the government.
- zahlman 8mo ago
  It's completely normal here. People get federally mandated time off to go vote; 3 hours IIRC, which is way more than would ever ordinarily be necessary (and polling stations are open well past typical work hours). I typically walk a few minutes from home, and never experience a significant lineup. Relying on the postal service here would make it much worse, honestly.
- asksomeoneelse 8mo ago
  > it's delivered for free (as in beer) to the government Not everywhere though; it's up to the canton or municipality to implement this. It's literally the only reason I still buy stamps. Should be made a thing at the federal level imho.

by zahlman 8mo ago

Bender 8mo ago

There will never be a technical or operational process that excludes cheating. The only deterrence that seems to work on humans and even then only most of the time is severe capitol punishment and that will only be as effective as people believe it happens thus requiring live streaming of the removal of cheaters heads without censorship. The current legal process of each country would have to be by-passed or people would just sit in a cage for 30 years. Even in such cases there will be people that sacrifice themselves if they think that bribe money can go to their family but that is at least a start.

SoftTalker 8mo ago
Also cheating with paper ballots is much harder to scale and remain undetected than cheating by altering records in a database.
- Bender 8mo ago
  remain undetected than cheating by altering records in a database. Absolutely. Any time something is centralized it becomes an irresistible target for unlimited numbers of bad actors and the bar to entry for remote anonymous access makes it a much easier target. Anonymous access to paper ballots means someone is going to be on at least a handful of cameras and has to bypass many security systems so if cheating happens it is because the people gathering the votes want it that way. Such cities or states should be excluded from the voting process.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
Ardon 8mo ago
I agree with your point that attempts at cheating are inevitable, the rest is confusing though: We have a long and storied history of coming up with extremely disturbing capitol punishments performed in public, and yet those punishments coexisted with much higher rates of criminality then now. Stealing from the church in history carried some pretty gruesome deaths, and yet plenty of people still stole from the church, etc. People are chronically bad at transferring future risk to their current decision making. Any consequence that relies on people being able to model a future problem against their current desires/needs is always going to have a lot of transmission losses. You end up trying to make ever more horrible punishments to overcome the losses in transmission. I think the goal should be the smallest possible functioning consequence, which is possible by being close to the 'crime'. The very best way is when community can do it immediately. Like if someone does something fucked up, but then their buddies go 'that was fucked up dude', I am very confident this will prevent then from doing it again much more efficiently then a distant jail sentence. (among all the other ways too, there's never one clean action to take to solve problems on a societal level)
- Bender 8mo ago
  [flagged]

dirasieb 8mo ago

> paper ballots and requiring IDs isn't that racist? i've heard it repeated but i'm not so sure

some_random 8mo ago
It's been a talking point specific to the voting system in the US, strangely no other country seems to think it's an issue and as soon as the topic changes no one in the US has an issue requiring IDs for things.
- mkehrt 8mo ago
  Voting is a civil right. We need to have a system that allows everyone who is allowed to vote, to vote. Many people don't have IDs and it is an onerous process to get one. Any system that requires IDs for voting suppresses these people's civil rights.
  - zahlman 8mo ago
    > Many people don't have IDs and it is an onerous process to get one. I have seen this constantly claimed, and never reasonably evidenced. It's also hard to believe the kind of American exceptionalism that supposedly causes these problems that everyone else can easily solve, despite an environment that is clearly heavily politically invested in solving it (because that also avoids the appearance of racism). Meanwhile, American proponents of voter ID can readily find people including among the supposedly discriminated-against groups who will testify to the contrary.
    - squeaky-clean 8mo ago
      Under the text of the proposed SAVE Act, drivers licenses or state ID's wouldn't be enough to count as a voting ID. In Canada a drivers license is enough to vote.
    - CJefferson 8mo ago
      Solving it in other countries often involved a standard id that everyone uses for many things, so it becomes a standard party of life. Many people in the US, from what I can tell, don't want that.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

chrisandchris 8mo ago

> you walk up to a desk I think the day I _must_ walk go a desk to vote is the day I'll give up. Voting by mail is one of the best things occuring here (in Switzerland). You get the voting stuff by mail, make your crosses, put it back into the postal box and it's delivered for free (as in beer) to the government.

zahlman 8mo ago
It's completely normal here. People get federally mandated time off to go vote; 3 hours IIRC, which is way more than would ever ordinarily be necessary (and polling stations are open well past typical work hours). I typically walk a few minutes from home, and never experience a significant lineup. Relying on the postal service here would make it much worse, honestly.
asksomeoneelse 8mo ago
> it's delivered for free (as in beer) to the government Not everywhere though; it's up to the canton or municipality to implement this. It's literally the only reason I still buy stamps. Should be made a thing at the federal level imho.