Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/
Smart Voting
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
big advantage of e-voting and our PR systems is that all votes could be counted properly. I am amazed how few people understand how votes are counted and that the only vote you cast that is guaranteed to be counted is your #1. Beyond that there is a good chance your ballot is never looked at again.
You must go to different counts than me. Which is entirely a possibility
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
That single thing I put in bold makes your system illegal. That has been explained to you multiple times already but you're just ignoring it.
Thats actually a typo, you can only validate your own, my point was that everyone can validate their own, unlike today.
And I've stated that multiple times at this stage on the thread and I'm pretty sure you have read them.
Who has explained what to me multiple times that I've ignored?Okay. This is going nowhere. You're too dug in on being right. So can you answer my question on what exactly people are going to cast their votes on? Should be pretty easy to answer no?
Any device thats connected to the internet? I don't understand what the confusion is here tbh?
Btw, if you want to just play silly buggers, you are too dug in on me being wrong. Open your mind a bit to new ideas maybe.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Thats actually a typo, you can only validate your own, my point was that everyone can validate their own, unlike today.
And I've stated that multiple times at this stage on the thread and I'm pretty sure you have read them.
Who has explained what to me multiple times that I've ignored?
The requirement for secret ballot has been explained. If it's a typo then fair enough but you're still missing the fact that people could be coerced into voting a specific way and the forced to prove how they voted. Just because it's unlikely to happen in modern day Ireland doesn't mean we can dismiss it. There's a reason these things are required and it's because they've been issues in the past or in other countries.
The validity is in the chain of custody from start to finish (as well as some other aspects like serial numbers). It's common in lots of areas like financial and medical devices and (most importantly) is a proven system to date.Any device thats connected to the internet? I don't understand what the confusion is here tbh?
Btw, if you want to just play silly buggers, you are too dug in on me being wrong. Open your mind a bit to new ideas maybe.
But earlier you said the blockchain would be stored on every device that voted. So if I use a library PC what happens?
Has there even been a proof-of-concept go at this? They'd probably have an outline of the issue they encountered. I'm all for new ideas but they have to be fully formed. Not just notions.
I'm not going to go to the effort of making a list. I think you're just missing what exactly the issues are when they've been presented to you. Can you even just address the privacy/secrecy issue? What's to stop someone from being forced to vote in a certain way and prove it by revealing their unique ID or whatever you want to call it?I'm still waiting on the list of issues that I'm ignoring btw, you cant just throw out a statement like that and then not back it up when asked for details.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
You would get randomly assigned an address, you dont have to share that with anyone any more than you have to share your pin code.The voter must be given some copy of their key or else how do they verify? That's provision of the key is going to have to be guaranteed in some way or else a man-in-the middle style attack could just provide everyone with a key that corresponds to how they wanted to vote and then use your actual one to vote how they want (simple e.g. x5 people try to vote for Michael D, bad guy system cast one vote for him, return that key to the 5 but then cast x4 votes for someone else). So with your system after you've voted you end up with a unique key tied to your vote and your real-life identity. Am I missing something here? Now you have to show the coercer that key and they look up who you voted.
Better still is that you can give a false address and no one can prove thats not your address, with a pin code they can march you to an ATM to confirm.
BTW there is no link between your address and your real-life identify other than what you choose to store.
How is the man-in-the-middle accessing the system that gives out the keys?
They would want to be very sophisticated to launch an attack when the vote details would only be given out once voting starts. They would also have to somehow get access to the list of valid addresses in advance to give them to voters. This list would be generated just prior to the vote opening. Finally they would have to also hack into the network to somehow supply the key to the voters device.
I think its a flaw that you cant verify your own vote.In the current system the voter goes in and casts their vote and cannot prove who they voted to to any external person(s). That's a feature not a flaw.
There is no asset in this example, there is no key. You basically just give them a valid car parking space number.So using this example, if someone wants to steal your car (vote), they aren't going to demand you tell them what car is yours and then let you walk off. They'll take your key too and use the key on the car. If the key doesn't match the car they'll know immediately.
Where have I insisted that I have a perfect solution??I did mention earlier that my issue is that more that you're insisting this is a perfect solution and then getting argumentative when people point out flaws. As I stated already, I probably would have agreed with you if you said blockchain had potential but you're floating it as the answer.
People are arguing with me about the possibilities and I'm arguing back. Is that not what a discussion amounts to?
I'm not crying foul at all, I'm merely pointing out that we are essentially discussing a thought experiment and some of you are dismissing it as impossible because I don't have a 500 page dossier on how it would all work. If you expect me to have answers of the quality that someone would pay millions of euro for, then I'm afraid you are going to have to agree to pay me the mlllions of Euro first.Ironically you're now crying foul that nobody is willing to look at things from your point of view, while simultaneously dismissing the issues other people raise as non-issues, without putting the effort in to understand where they're coming from. Now we're in a situation where we've descended into a tit-for-tat about a specific situation and technology without first addressing the core question of if "smart voting" is something that would add value to our voting system.
In your own words you "Was being a bit of a dick"
I'm not here to answer your every question while you act the dick. If you are not willing to engage in an adult conversation about a topic, then either stop posting or I will just stop reading your posts.AndrewJRenko made an interesting comment about trials being run in the UK I'd like to hear more about.
I ignored that user months ago so haven't see anything he has posted in this thread.0
Advertisement