4 ms·

Voting online would be trivial. I use "trivial" in the hacker sense to mean a problem that, while it might be difficult, large and lengthy, has already been th

Voting online would be trivial. I use "trivial" in the hacker sense to mean a problem that, while it might be difficult, large and lengthy, has already been thoroughly explored and a set of solutions and best practices is known, and should easily be accomplished by implementors of average or above skill levels. We do things similar to online voting all the time. When Superbowl or Lady Gaga tickets go on sale, many people flood limited database servers and have to be put in a queue. I can transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars with my smartphone - that's not a problem, but a vote which is worth nothing is going to be a target? When Census forms are sent out, a code is sent by physical mail to addresses - that code, when entered online, can be used to fill out the form. Or just fill out the paper form and drop it in the mail. Trivial either way. For that matter, thousands of organizations, not just Estonia, have binding internet votes every year. When you read about people waiting seven hours in line, it's not unforeseen problems or incompetence; it's malice. If you show me a story about people waiting seven hours in line, I'll show you a Democratic district in a state with Republican, partisan election officials. Every time. Those sorts of problems can't be solved by technology; they're people problems, not tech problems. Right now, internet voting is a people problem, not a tech problem. Internet voting might encourage more people to vote - and that's why Republicans are against it.

baddox 14y ago
> When you read about people waiting seven hours in line, it's not unforeseen problems or incompetence; it's malice. If you show me a story about people waiting seven hours in line, I'll show you a Democratic district in a state with Republican, partisan election officials. I'd love a citation on this, or at least a few anecdotal examples. Granted, it does fit with the general perception of party strategies (Democrats try to buy voters, Republicans try to prevent voters), but I'd still like to see some evidence.
cabalamat 14y ago
> Voting online would be trivial. I disagree. Online voting is highly non-trivial once you factor in that any voting system must be (1) verifiably accurate, and that (2) voting must be secret.
- foobarqux 14y ago
  In fact I would like to know if it is not clearly impossible since there appears to be no way to prevent coercion. edit: The article does mention coercion as being a problem.
- jellicle 14y ago
  Secret from whom? Requirement 2 does not actually exist in any significant form. The change from public voting to secret voting involved a change from a system where people generally came forward and shouted their vote in front of a roomful of people who would cheer or boo as appropriate, to a system where people deposited their ballot in am opaque box. That's the only change. Anyone who wishes to can vote non-secretly today, by shouting or waving their ballot around, by voting by mail, whatever they want. The "secret" ballot is a misnomer. In fact the shift was from "mandatory open ballot" to "optional open ballot". It is not and never has been "mandatory secret ballot". TL;DR: There's nothing LESS secret about voting online than voting by mail, which is already legal for anyone in any state to do.
  - cabalamat 14y ago
    > Secret from whom? Secret from everyone else except the voter. There should be no way that I can prove to anyone how I voted. The purpose of this is to make it impossible fro anyone to bribe or blackmail a voter into voting a particular way. > Anyone who wishes to can vote non-secretly today, by shouting or waving their ballot around This would probably be illegal in the UK. > by voting by mail That's true. Postal voting does prevent voting being secret.
polymatter 14y ago
And here is one such system (http://www.wombat-voting.com/ http://www.wombat-voting.com/) compatible with paper-based voting too. With the added feature that the voter can verify their vote was recorded correctly, making election fraud incredibly hard.
- spindritf 14y ago
  > And here is one such system (http://www.wombat-voting.com/ http://www.wombat-voting.com/) Yeah, but the very first step in it is "voter suppression": > 1.Identification > The voter enters the polling station and identifies himself/herself using an id card. The voting committee checks the voter appears in the registered voters list and has not voted yet. The committee tells the voter to proceed to the voting booth. And, on a more serious note, it is quite complicated compared to just dropping a piece of paper marked with a pen into a box.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Identification is "voter suppression"? Please explain. Are identity requirements also "driver suppression", "banking suppression", "2nd amendment suppression", etc?
    - spindritf 14y ago
      > Are identity requirements also "driver suppression" ... No, of course not, that's why I used quotes, and then qualified the next point with "on a more serious note".
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
        My bad, I misunderstood.
spindritf 14y ago
> We do things similar to online voting all the time. Name one. The huge difference between voting and all the other transactions online is that the ballot is supposed to be secret. A lot of security online relies on review. That's largely how credit card fraud is being dealt with. The other reason, why voting online or in any sort of electronic way is less secure and difficult to be made secure, is that electronic exploits scale well. Anyone can write a fake ballot but it's very difficult to do in numbers that can actually sway the elections. Once you break the electronic voting scheme, you can change thousands of votes at a time.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  I brought this up in a thread on election day. Unless I'm very misinformed there is no requirements in federal or state law of which I am aware that requires a secret ballot. It is more important to have a verifiable result than an anonymous one. Both would be optimal but introduces complexity. If donors to political campaigns cannot be anonymous for amounts exceeding some small value like $50 to promote transparency, seems trivial to ditch the tradition of secret ballot to promote participation.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
    A lack of secret ballot could easily be challenged by businesses that threaten or have 'layoffs' for those candidates or positions that workers vote for. I'm not as worried about the mob showing up and telling me 'vote this way or Jimmy here will say hi', but instead "candidate X will benefit your job. We're not sure you'll have your position if he's not voted in"
    - shawn-butler 14y ago
      There have been a few high-profile reports in this election cycle of people threatening layoffs with a secret ballot. They tinge it with, if these policies are enacted we will cut hours, not hire, etc to hedge. The Papa Johns CEO was fairly candid, I also think I read of a coal mine announcing layoffs the day after the election, etc. I'm fairly certain it is a violation of most state civil right laws and probably explicit state constitutional guarantees to discriminate in employment on the basis of political affiliation just as it is race, gender, etc. I know it is in the state in which I reside. So I think this is a red-herring.
doctorpangloss 14y ago
A vote which is worth nothing is going to be a target? A vote is worth a lot. In fact, the basic problem with all online voting schemes, at least according to a dissertation I reviewed, is that vote selling is too easy. No Internet-based voting system can prevent voter privilege trading (buying/selling) without removing its principle advantages, like voting anywhere at any time with minimum friction.
- jellicle 14y ago
  Since voting by mail is already available to anyone in any state, this widespread vote-selling should already occur, no? "Send my $100 and I'll send you my unmarked absentee ballot for the 2012 elections - you can fill it out and mail it in." But it doesn't happen. At all. Possibly because it's illegal.

baddox 14y ago

> When you read about people waiting seven hours in line, it's not unforeseen problems or incompetence; it's malice. If you show me a story about people waiting seven hours in line, I'll show you a Democratic district in a state with Republican, partisan election officials. I'd love a citation on this, or at least a few anecdotal examples. Granted, it does fit with the general perception of party strategies (Democrats try to buy voters, Republicans try to prevent voters), but I'd still like to see some evidence.

cabalamat 14y ago

> Voting online would be trivial. I disagree. Online voting is highly non-trivial once you factor in that any voting system must be (1) verifiably accurate, and that (2) voting must be secret.

foobarqux 14y ago
In fact I would like to know if it is not clearly impossible since there appears to be no way to prevent coercion. edit: The article does mention coercion as being a problem.
jellicle 14y ago
Secret from whom? Requirement 2 does not actually exist in any significant form. The change from public voting to secret voting involved a change from a system where people generally came forward and shouted their vote in front of a roomful of people who would cheer or boo as appropriate, to a system where people deposited their ballot in am opaque box. That's the only change. Anyone who wishes to can vote non-secretly today, by shouting or waving their ballot around, by voting by mail, whatever they want. The "secret" ballot is a misnomer. In fact the shift was from "mandatory open ballot" to "optional open ballot". It is not and never has been "mandatory secret ballot". TL;DR: There's nothing LESS secret about voting online than voting by mail, which is already legal for anyone in any state to do.
- cabalamat 14y ago
  > Secret from whom? Secret from everyone else except the voter. There should be no way that I can prove to anyone how I voted. The purpose of this is to make it impossible fro anyone to bribe or blackmail a voter into voting a particular way. > Anyone who wishes to can vote non-secretly today, by shouting or waving their ballot around This would probably be illegal in the UK. > by voting by mail That's true. Postal voting does prevent voting being secret.

polymatter 14y ago

And here is one such system (http://www.wombat-voting.com/ http://www.wombat-voting.com/) compatible with paper-based voting too. With the added feature that the voter can verify their vote was recorded correctly, making election fraud incredibly hard.

spindritf 14y ago
> And here is one such system (http://www.wombat-voting.com/ http://www.wombat-voting.com/) Yeah, but the very first step in it is "voter suppression": > 1.Identification > The voter enters the polling station and identifies himself/herself using an id card. The voting committee checks the voter appears in the registered voters list and has not voted yet. The committee tells the voter to proceed to the voting booth. And, on a more serious note, it is quite complicated compared to just dropping a piece of paper marked with a pen into a box.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Identification is "voter suppression"? Please explain. Are identity requirements also "driver suppression", "banking suppression", "2nd amendment suppression", etc?
  - spindritf 14y ago
    > Are identity requirements also "driver suppression" ... No, of course not, that's why I used quotes, and then qualified the next point with "on a more serious note".
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      My bad, I misunderstood.

spindritf 14y ago

> We do things similar to online voting all the time. Name one. The huge difference between voting and all the other transactions online is that the ballot is supposed to be secret. A lot of security online relies on review. That's largely how credit card fraud is being dealt with. The other reason, why voting online or in any sort of electronic way is less secure and difficult to be made secure, is that electronic exploits scale well. Anyone can write a fake ballot but it's very difficult to do in numbers that can actually sway the elections. Once you break the electronic voting scheme, you can change thousands of votes at a time.

shawn-butler 14y ago
I brought this up in a thread on election day. Unless I'm very misinformed there is no requirements in federal or state law of which I am aware that requires a secret ballot. It is more important to have a verifiable result than an anonymous one. Both would be optimal but introduces complexity. If donors to political campaigns cannot be anonymous for amounts exceeding some small value like $50 to promote transparency, seems trivial to ditch the tradition of secret ballot to promote participation.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  A lack of secret ballot could easily be challenged by businesses that threaten or have 'layoffs' for those candidates or positions that workers vote for. I'm not as worried about the mob showing up and telling me 'vote this way or Jimmy here will say hi', but instead "candidate X will benefit your job. We're not sure you'll have your position if he's not voted in"
  - shawn-butler 14y ago
    There have been a few high-profile reports in this election cycle of people threatening layoffs with a secret ballot. They tinge it with, if these policies are enacted we will cut hours, not hire, etc to hedge. The Papa Johns CEO was fairly candid, I also think I read of a coal mine announcing layoffs the day after the election, etc. I'm fairly certain it is a violation of most state civil right laws and probably explicit state constitutional guarantees to discriminate in employment on the basis of political affiliation just as it is race, gender, etc. I know it is in the state in which I reside. So I think this is a red-herring.

doctorpangloss 14y ago

A vote which is worth nothing is going to be a target? A vote is worth a lot. In fact, the basic problem with all online voting schemes, at least according to a dissertation I reviewed, is that vote selling is too easy. No Internet-based voting system can prevent voter privilege trading (buying/selling) without removing its principle advantages, like voting anywhere at any time with minimum friction.

jellicle 14y ago
Since voting by mail is already available to anyone in any state, this widespread vote-selling should already occur, no? "Send my $100 and I'll send you my unmarked absentee ballot for the 2012 elections - you can fill it out and mail it in." But it doesn't happen. At all. Possibly because it's illegal.