Smart Voting

Cookie_Monster

At the very least if we're not willing to accept the limitations present with smart voting currently we 100% should switch to smart counting. Machine counting of votes would be hugely quicker than the archaic mess it is now. Paper copies still retained if required, anything that's not clearly legible can still be human examined etc but this utter nonsense of counts going on for days is done away with.

prinzeugen

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

At the very least if we're not willing to accept the limitations present with smart voting currently we 100% should switch to smart counting. Machine counting of votes would be hugely quicker than the archaic mess it is now. Paper copies still retained if required, anything that's not clearly legible can still be human examined etc but this utter nonsense of counts going on for days is done away with.

What is "smart" about machines. Its a human vote counted by humans.


I would love to smack all these champions of "smart" technology in the face!


"Smart" = too lazy or we want to know what you are doing.


1984 is a novel, not an instruction manual!

Cookie_Monster

prinzeugen wrote: »

What is "smart" about machines. Its a human vote counted by humans.
I would love to smack all these champions of "smart" technology in the face!
"Smart" = too lazy or we want to know what you are doing.

Smart as in using technology to save time, effort and cash to produce the same result in a much more efficient manner.

1984 is a novel, not an instruction manual!

how is machine counting anything remotely resembling 1984?

Cookie_Monster

Pauliedragon wrote: »

Australia tried to do the 2016 census online and it was seen as maybe a step towards online voting. It turned out to be one the biggest embarassments in any governents history.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/disaster-australia-just-tried-to-take-its-census-online-and-the-site-crashed-2016-8

And NZ did it this year and it was fine, some minor issues but overall a success. Just because 1 nation ****s it up doesn't mean its not a good idea overall.

Ush1

Many of these arguments sound a lot like self driving car arguments.

Solution doesn't have to be perfect, just better than what we have.

AndrewJRenko

Ush1 wrote: »

Solution doesn't have to be perfect, just better than what we have.

And none of the solutions proposed so far are better than what we have, particularly around protections against vote selling and duress voting

dulpit

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

At the very least if we're not willing to accept the limitations present with smart voting currently we 100% should switch to smart counting. Machine counting of votes would be hugely quicker than the archaic mess it is now. Paper copies still retained if required, anything that's not clearly legible can still be human examined etc but this utter nonsense of counts going on for days is done away with.

It'd be quicker, but it'd lose the drama of count day. And I think a lot of people will take the slowness to keep the fun of the count. How dull would it be if the election finishes and then it's just announced who the winners are in an hour or so?

xckjoo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

At the very least if we're not willing to accept the limitations present with smart voting currently we 100% should switch to smart counting. Machine counting of votes would be hugely quicker than the archaic mess it is now. Paper copies still retained if required, anything that's not clearly legible can still be human examined etc but this utter nonsense of counts going on for days is done away with.

It would be made a bit more complicated with our transfer vote system but I'm sure it's technically doable. I wouldn't personally be in favor of it at the moment as we don't have a good track record of getting these things developed. Don't fancy another couple of million of tax money being flushed down the toilet with no return. Plus as dulpit said, the count is half the fun!

AndrewJRenko

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

At the very least if we're not willing to accept the limitations present with smart voting currently we 100% should switch to smart counting. Machine counting of votes would be hugely quicker than the archaic mess it is now. Paper copies still retained if required, anything that's not clearly legible can still be human examined etc but this utter nonsense of counts going on for days is done away with.

Is there really a business case for this? What particular benefit arises from a quicker count? How often do counts go on for days? The tiny number that do drag on are the ones where the lawyers are arguing every single vote, so tech isn't going to be the solution.

GreeBo

namloc1980 wrote: »

The number of voting papers given out of the book by the polling people is matched to the number of voting papers in the corresponding ballot box. If you stuffed it with your photocopied ballots that box would be immediately ringfenced in the count centre and investigated for fraud.

So what would happen to all the votes in the box...?

GreeBo

dulpit wrote: »

It'd be quicker, but it'd lose the drama of count day. And I think a lot of people will take the slowness to keep the fun of the count. How dull would it be if the election finishes and then it's just announced who the winners are in an hour or so?

and now we get to the actual argument...democracy for entertainment.

Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you Donald Trump.

GreeBo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Current system relies on humans being naturally suspicious and being able to oversee the whole process.

evoting means either you hide the entire process from the suspicious humans OR you remove secrecy.

As a human you could oversee they whole process, I'm not sure how you could go about afixing your own holographed signed seal on a ballot box, but there are about seven billion people on the planet who could make a good stab at recognising if multiple ballots were filled in by the same person.


Back in 1984 KenThompson showed that you could put a virus into a compiler that could add a back door into any program used with it.

There is no such thing as "trusted computing" (the actual phrase means putting complete trust in multinationals)
http://wiki.c2.com/?TheKenThompsonHack

Is it your belief that no computers are involved in the current process?
As I said earlier, what stops someone hacking into the registration computer today and unregistering anyone who is likely to vote against their man?

Sure you will probably notice mismatches between the contents of the box and whats supposed to be in the box...but then what? Do you just discount all those votes? Is that somehow seen as an "OK" solution?

dulpit

GreeBo wrote: »

and now we get to the actual argument...democracy for entertainment.

Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you Donald Trump.

Am I Donald Trump in this comment? I don't follow...

And my point is, if the only benefit is speed (as far as I can tell its the only benefit discussed here that would have an impact), then the argument is on that alone - I'd take a slower more entertaining count than speed. Because all other elements are already in place (i.e. security, confidence, etc)

Capt'n Midnight

GreeBo wrote: »

Is it your belief that no computers are involved in the current process?
As I said earlier, what stops someone hacking into the registration computer today and unregistering anyone who is likely to vote against their man?

https://www.vote.ie/register/

ask to see the Register of Electors at your local post office, Garda station, library or city or county council offices - to see if your name is on the Register.

A computer can't take you off the paper copy.

Sure you will probably notice mismatches between the contents of the box and whats supposed to be in the box...but then what? Do you just discount all those votes? Is that somehow seen as an "OK" solution?

At the very worst you'll know something has happened.

With evoting you have no visibility.

Capt'n Midnight

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Smart as in using technology to save time, effort and cash to produce the same result in a much more efficient manner.


how is machine counting anything remotely resembling 1984?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is there really a business case for this? What particular benefit arises from a quicker count? How often do counts go on for days? The tiny number that do drag on are the ones where the lawyers are arguing every single vote, so tech isn't going to be the solution.

The machines cost millions. And there is no guarantee that a machine secure today won't be vulnerable at the next election, in which case you'd have to replace them.

There is no need for speed. The new TD's won't be starting for ages after the election. So counts and recounts won't delay them

If you ignore the fact that our PR system doesn't lend itself to mechanical aids the words Pregnant chad sum up automated voting and lawyers.

xckjoo

I would like to see a bit of an overhaul of the register system. It seems like it could do with it.

Capt'n Midnight

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

And NZ did it this year and it was fine, some minor issues but overall a success. Just because 1 nation ****s it up doesn't mean its not a good idea overall.

The US f*cked up in a dozen states, I've posted above about how a judge ruled on it, and that's after the debacle of Chads in Florida that partially decided a presidential election many years ago , so it's not something that will get fixed soon.

I the Netherlands used the same machines we ditched.

I could go on , but it's a culture problem. Judging by the rake of problems election after election around the world there doesn't seem to be the will or budget anywhere to get these issues sorted. So even if technological fixes existed (and you can't fix a flawed concept) they won't be fixed.


Security on evoting machines is like the armour on warships. It's of no use.

The Yamato and Musashi battleships had 65cm of armour on the turret faces.
But since the development of effective missiles warships don't carry armour anymore. Even if you could make it better the other side will just use a bigger missile. (Technically speaking aircraft carriers have lightly armoured flight decks but while they will limit damage from crashes and accidents they won't save you from a direct hit, especially if it's one of those Chinese anti ship ballistic missile coming in at Mach 20 )



evoting machines have to be secure against attacks by nation states who have years to prepare.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2142428-hacking-a-us-electronic-voting-booth-takes-less-than-90-minutes/

DEF CON purchased thirty voting machines from eBay and government auctions for the event. Ninety minutes after participants were let loose the first machines started to fall, with vote rigging and Rickrolling coming soon afterwards.

One of the machines was still using Windows XP, and so an exploit that has been known since 2003 allowed people to get remote access through its Wi-Fi system. This meant that the votes could be changed from anywhere.

Other exploits involved prying open mechanical locks covering USB ports or spotting the uncovered USB ports on the back. One team then simply plugged in a mouse and keyboard to gain control of the machine.

Cookie_Monster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is there really a business case for this? What particular benefit arises from a quicker count? How often do counts go on for days? The tiny number that do drag on are the ones where the lawyers are arguing every single vote, so tech isn't going to be the solution.

Of course there is a business case, people have to be paid for the hours they spend counting, that can mostly be done away with.

dulpit wrote: »

It'd be quicker, but it'd lose the drama of count day.

Drama? You'd want to be pretty sad to see vote counting as drama. Most people just want to see the outcome sorted as quick as possible so the whole charade can move on.

NZ auto counts, results are known early the next day, quick and easy and things move on.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The machines cost millions.

Counting machines cost millions?? How do the banks afford them for counting notes? How do most other countries seem to easily afford them?

The US f*cked up in a dozen states, I've posted above about how a judge ruled on it, and that's after the debacle of Chads in Florida that partially decided a presidential election many years ago , so it's not something that will get fixed soon.

what does any of that post have to do with online censuses?

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

and now we get to the actual argument...democracy for entertainment.

It is not about 'entertainment'. It is about the open and transparent system being validated by those directly involved in the system.

GreeBo wrote: »

Is it your belief that no computers are involved in the current process?
As I said earlier, what stops someone hacking into the registration computer today and unregistering anyone who is likely to vote against their man?

For a start, the ability of anyone to check the register online at any time. Then there is the ability of those who manage the register to check their audit trail of any changes. Any significant change to numbers on the register would be noticed by those who manage the register.

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure you will probably notice mismatches between the contents of the box and whats supposed to be in the box...but then what? Do you just discount all those votes? Is that somehow seen as an "OK" solution?

This is another one of those things that maybe you should have sought answers to BEFORE you started coming up with a 'solution', not after. Though I guess the fact that nothing like this has ever happened in living memory afaik is a sign of the robustness of the current system.

xckjoo wrote: »

I would like to see a bit of an overhaul of the register system. It seems like it could do with it.

Certainly the process needs a bit of an overhaul, and the data quality/collection/validation needs lots of attention - that doesn't mean that we need a new 'system'.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Of course there is a business case, people have to be paid for the hours they spend counting, that can mostly be done away with.

You seem to be looking at just one side of the business case? What's the cost side - how many scanners are you going to need and where will they be located?


So how much does the counting actually cost? And how many of those staff hours/days will be needed anyway when people challenge the automated count results? Are we going to be paying on the double anyway?

ToddyDoody

I think we should allow e-voting for unimportant stuff like presidential elections, seanad elections etc.

Not so sure about general elections though.

AndrewJRenko

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I think we should allow e-voting for unimportant stuff like presidential elections, seanad elections etc.

Not so sure about general elections though.

There's little point in a major investment if it is only going to be used for 'unimportant stuff'.

ToddyDoody

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There's little point in a major investment if it is only going to be used for 'unimportant stuff'.

I'd say it'd save a fortune. If there was a proper way of verifying a voter's identity and security etc. (and there would be with the necessary will) I'd say all elections could be securely conducted online.

If it's now safe enough to make significant financial transactions online, it's safe enough to vote online, if it can be worked out sufficiently and have people come around to the idea.

AndrewJRenko

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I'd say it'd save a fortune. If there was a proper way of verifying a voter's identity and security etc. (and there would be with the necessary will) I'd say all elections could be securely conducted online.

If it's now safe enough to make significant financial transactions online, it's safe enough to vote online, if it can be worked out sufficiently and have people come around to the idea.

If you like to go back and read this thread where various posters have repeatedly pointed out the difference between voting systems and financial systems, and the unique challenges involved in keeping your vote anonymous, we could then have a productive discussion on the matter.

ToddyDoody

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you like to go back and read this thread where various posters have repeatedly pointed out the difference between voting systems and financial systems, and the unique challenges involved in keeping your vote anonymous, we could then have a productive discussion on the matter.

I'm just giving my opinion. If I were to bet on a horse I would bet on this one. Give it 30 years.

AndrewJRenko

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I'm just giving my opinion. If I were to bet on a horse I would bet on this one. Give it 30 years.

I was responding to your point when you referred to 'now', not to 30 years ahead.

If it's now safe enough to make significant financial transactions online, it's safe enough to vote online

Who knows what may come in the future. But for now, there is no technology for online voting that protects the anonymity of the vote AND ensures that vote counting can be audited AND protects against vote selling and duress voting.

Larbre34

Our previous electronic voting experiment has set the notion back about 30 years (bit like water charges). On top of that, the last 5 years of cyber interference stories in other countries, whether fact or fiction, has set it back 50 more.

If turnout is the problem, it can only be improved by civic awareness from a young age, reform of the franchise system, possible compulsory voting, but not by electronic means.

GreeBo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://www.vote.ie/register/

A computer can't take you off the paper copy.

And where does the paper copy come from?
Is it a giant tome passed down from generation to generation, or is it printed from somewhere?

At the very worst you'll know something has happened.

So great, the election has been rigged....but its somehow fine because there is an actual paper based paper trail? How does that help exactly?

With evoting you have no visibility.

Who says you have no visibility?

swampgas

GreeBo wrote: »

... snip ...

So, I'm guessing you're a software developer? And you seem to know a bit about security? Then I assume you're familiar with Bruce Schneier. (https://www.schneier.com/blog/about/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier)
Have you read any of his books on encryption and security? I have his Applied Cryptography sitting on a bookshelf within arm's reach here in my office. He's an excellent writer.

If you haven't read any of his books perhaps you have read some of his articles on evoting and electoral security?

For example:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/11/election_securi.html
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_electi_1.html

A quote from one of the above articles (my bold):

Elections serve two purposes. First, and most obvious, they are how we choose a winner. But second, and equally important, they convince the loser--and all the supporters--that he or she lost. To achieve the first purpose, the voting system must be fair and accurate. To achieve the second one, it must be shown to be fair and accurate.

One of the great advantages of the current system is that it is observable by anyone. No knowledge of IT, software, blockchain, yadda yadda is needed. It's just paper and pencil and completely transparent. Whatever the result, nobody is lying awake wondering if the voting machines were hacked.

I work in IT Security and I know I would be extremely reluctant to move away from the current system to anything electronic or based on software.

B0jangles

As someone with no background in IT security or election management, it appears to me that recording each vote by means of a mark on a paper ballot which is then physically counted is fundamentally harder to interfere with than any kind of electronic voting for the simple reason that a person who wants to interfere with enough ballot papers to change an election result has to have unobserved physical access to enough of them; has to either secretly replace them with other ballots or somehow separate out and remove the unwanted ballots without anyone noticing what they are doing.

Unless you are a dictator who already has control of the whole voting system and is happy to openly interfere with the process, this seems almost impossible to achieve.

Whereas with e-voting, there is no physical object needed for the count - interfering with the votes is only prevented by the quality of the security, and that security is only as good as the people who wrote it. Are the very best minds in IT security working on building E-voting machines?

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://www.vote.ie/register/

A computer can't take you off the paper copy.

And where does the paper copy come from?
Is it a giant tome passed down from generation to generation

If the number of deletions from the register does not correspond with the number of deletion forms processed by the council, the problem will be immediately obvious. They could then revert to backup or whatever.

GreeBo wrote: »

At the very worst you'll know something has happened.

So great, the election has been rigged....but its somehow fine because there is an actual paper based paper trail? How does that help exactly?

It helps because you know the process was corrupt. So government or the Courts can decide to rerun the election if required.

GreeBo wrote: »

With evoting you have no visibility.

Who says you have no visibility?

You have no visibility to confirm that vote entered is the vote recorded.

Or if you do have visibility, you can then sell your vote.