3 ms·

How do you verify that the vote placed on the computer is actually counted for the correct party? If you can verify that, how do you protect the secrecy of the

How do you verify that the vote placed on the computer is actually counted for the correct party? If you can verify that, how do you protect the secrecy of the ballot?

patrickk 12y ago
Blockchain voting system could be a great solution: http://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/110/bitcongress-blockchain-based-voting-system http://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/110/bitcongress-blockch...
relix 12y ago
Here you go: http://www.vvk.ee/public/Verification_of_I-Votes.pdf http://www.vvk.ee/public/Verification_of_I-Votes.pdf More info: http://www.vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex/ http://www.vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex/
- throwaway9995 12y ago
  Based on the first link, it looks like the system does not solve the second concern (privacy of the ballot) at all. If the user can verify how his vote was counted (in the example, using a smartphone app), then someone applying pressure on the voter can force him to verify that he voted the "right" way. This is my problem with all these e-voting systems. They throw away hundreds of years of development in ballot security, assuming all those problems that have historically followed elections no longer apply.
  - relix 12y ago
    Using regular paper ballot, you can force the voter to take a picture of his vote before he puts it in the box. It's that simple to put pressure on someone voting by paper. Oh, you can get a new voting form after you mark and photographed the first one? The criminal can stand outside the voting booth to make sure you don't go out and in again. If you think papervoting is 100% secure you're naive. That's why e-voting doesn't need to be 100% secure, it just needs to be as secure as papervoting is now. The advantage with e-voting is that you can surpass the safety of papervoting. Using e-voting it's actually much harder to put pressure on any voting. If you had read how it actually works, you'd have noticed that you're able to verify your vote only for up to 30 minutes after placing it. You're also able to change your vote by re-voting - the last vote counts. There still is a paperbased voting a week after e-voting ends, and if you go and vote by paper, that one overrides any electronic vote you might have made. It shows a lack of respect that you try to put down a system you obviously haven't looked into and know nothing about. You hear "voting on the internet" and have a knee-jerk reaction that it's bad. Please in the future before you take a standpoint on any side of a discussion, research both sides, instead of throwing around opinions without merit. If everyone would have an informed opinion instead of just an opinion, society would be light-years ahead of where we are now.
opendais 12y ago
Paper audit log. If the election is contested in court, re-count by hand. Seems simple enough. The voter can validate their votes on the paper print out before handing it over. Of course I'm not sure this would be any better than the existing system since it adds costs.
- throwaway9995 12y ago
  The elections being discussed are performed over the internet, on the voters own computer. Where would the paper audit log be created, and how would you ensure it accurately reflects what the voter chose on his (possibly compromised) PC? Edit: See the answer by user relix in this thread. This system does not solve the two issues I raised. As with all of these systems, they have to choose between "secure (verifiable) ballot" and "secret ballot". Estonia has clearly chosen the former. The problem with that is that now people can be pressured to vote in certain ways, as they can prove after the fact how they voted. This has not been a big problem in first world countries for a long time - but I don't think that's because people have fundamentally changed, but rather that nobody tries it because the paper ballot system effectively stops such voter intimidation/manipulation.
  - opendais 12y ago
    1) It is called a printer. The voter prints his own ballot out. 2) Voter validates ballot visually on printer. If voter is unhappy with print out matching his ballot, he makes notes. 3) Voter mails print ballot in, regardless. Voting by mail is cheaper than voting in randomly selected first world location: http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/cheaper-popular-mail-ballots-worry-critics-7479 http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/cheaper-popular-mail-... So worst case scenario is you are paying for the internet system + the paper mail system. That is still probably cheaper than just a paper system. This system already exists and works without the issues you raise. So what if it is compromised? If the printout doesn't match, a voter can manually correct it. I'm uncertain why you would argue simultaneously: 1) Existing paper systems are good enough. 2) Existing paper systems used to verify internet ballots in the event of a dispute would not be good enough.

How do you verify that the vote placed on the computer is actually counted for the correct party? If you can verify that, how do you protect the secrecy of the ballot?

patrickk 12y ago

Blockchain voting system could be a great solution: http://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/110/bitcongress-blockchain-based-voting-system http://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/110/bitcongress-blockch...

relix 12y ago

Here you go: http://www.vvk.ee/public/Verification_of_I-Votes.pdf http://www.vvk.ee/public/Verification_of_I-Votes.pdf More info: http://www.vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex/ http://www.vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex/

throwaway9995 12y ago
Based on the first link, it looks like the system does not solve the second concern (privacy of the ballot) at all. If the user can verify how his vote was counted (in the example, using a smartphone app), then someone applying pressure on the voter can force him to verify that he voted the "right" way. This is my problem with all these e-voting systems. They throw away hundreds of years of development in ballot security, assuming all those problems that have historically followed elections no longer apply.
- relix 12y ago
  Using regular paper ballot, you can force the voter to take a picture of his vote before he puts it in the box. It's that simple to put pressure on someone voting by paper. Oh, you can get a new voting form after you mark and photographed the first one? The criminal can stand outside the voting booth to make sure you don't go out and in again. If you think papervoting is 100% secure you're naive. That's why e-voting doesn't need to be 100% secure, it just needs to be as secure as papervoting is now. The advantage with e-voting is that you can surpass the safety of papervoting. Using e-voting it's actually much harder to put pressure on any voting. If you had read how it actually works, you'd have noticed that you're able to verify your vote only for up to 30 minutes after placing it. You're also able to change your vote by re-voting - the last vote counts. There still is a paperbased voting a week after e-voting ends, and if you go and vote by paper, that one overrides any electronic vote you might have made. It shows a lack of respect that you try to put down a system you obviously haven't looked into and know nothing about. You hear "voting on the internet" and have a knee-jerk reaction that it's bad. Please in the future before you take a standpoint on any side of a discussion, research both sides, instead of throwing around opinions without merit. If everyone would have an informed opinion instead of just an opinion, society would be light-years ahead of where we are now.

opendais 12y ago

Paper audit log. If the election is contested in court, re-count by hand. Seems simple enough. The voter can validate their votes on the paper print out before handing it over. Of course I'm not sure this would be any better than the existing system since it adds costs.

throwaway9995 12y ago
The elections being discussed are performed over the internet, on the voters own computer. Where would the paper audit log be created, and how would you ensure it accurately reflects what the voter chose on his (possibly compromised) PC? Edit: See the answer by user relix in this thread. This system does not solve the two issues I raised. As with all of these systems, they have to choose between "secure (verifiable) ballot" and "secret ballot". Estonia has clearly chosen the former. The problem with that is that now people can be pressured to vote in certain ways, as they can prove after the fact how they voted. This has not been a big problem in first world countries for a long time - but I don't think that's because people have fundamentally changed, but rather that nobody tries it because the paper ballot system effectively stops such voter intimidation/manipulation.
- opendais 12y ago
  1) It is called a printer. The voter prints his own ballot out. 2) Voter validates ballot visually on printer. If voter is unhappy with print out matching his ballot, he makes notes. 3) Voter mails print ballot in, regardless. Voting by mail is cheaper than voting in randomly selected first world location: http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/cheaper-popular-mail-ballots-worry-critics-7479 http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/cheaper-popular-mail-... So worst case scenario is you are paying for the internet system + the paper mail system. That is still probably cheaper than just a paper system. This system already exists and works without the issues you raise. So what if it is compromised? If the printout doesn't match, a voter can manually correct it. I'm uncertain why you would argue simultaneously: 1) Existing paper systems are good enough. 2) Existing paper systems used to verify internet ballots in the event of a dispute would not be good enough.