nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Smart Voting

wizardman

In light of the poor presidential election turnout should we be also able to vote via smart phone and tablets? Through a secure login with a password etc.

Would the current establishment be against this? Personally I think they would as younger voters etc would vote if it's easier too. Do you think we will eventually be able to?

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

twinytwo

wizardman wrote: »

In light of the poor presidential election turnout should we be also able to vote via smart phone and tablets? Through a secure login with a password etc.

Would the current establishment be against this? Personally I think they would as younger voters etc would vote if it's easier too. Do you think we will eventually be able to?

Thoughts?

Nope way too easily manipulated/hacked etc

cython

Too difficult to guarantee the secrecy and thus integrity of the ballot using a smart device. The current decoupling of the verifying your identity (to the polling clerk), and the casting of your vote (just another polling card put into a box) is key to this, and hence even e-voting was done in a similar manner.

Indeed secure transaction processing mechanisms (as would be required for voting) often captures as much info as possible from the device, which flies in the face of that fundamental right and principle of a secret ballot.

freshpopcorn

wizardman wrote: »

In light of the poor presidential election turnout should we be also able to vote via smart phone and tablets? Through a secure login with a password etc.

Would the current establishment be against this? Personally I think they would as younger voters etc would vote if it's easier too. Do you think we will eventually be able to?

Thoughts?

I think it would be easy to hack the system/etc.
Also, I find those who are into voting tend to do it anyway.
I do know a few regular voters who didn't vote this time because they found the election to be a bit of a farce and it's nothing to do with Casey. Just Michael D running again and the parties supporting him. Even tough they backed him first time around. These people simply ad no intention of voting.

kneemos

Sites such as eBay, Amazon or your bank etc can maintain security, don't see why a voting site couldn't.

Rubberchikken

Totally against this. Insecure. No matter how much anyone tries to convince me otherwise, nothing is absolutely secure.

Plus if a person is so lazy that theu cant be bothered to get to the nearest polling station then finding ways to encourage this laziness/apathy shouldnt be allowed.

P_1

kneemos wrote: »

Sites such as eBay, Amazon or your bank etc can maintain security, don't see why a voting site couldn't.

Do you know how often accounts like that are hacked? I'm sorry there are just too many stupid people in the world for this to work without massive hacking taking place

Collie D

kneemos wrote: »

Sites such as eBay, Amazon or your bank etc can maintain security, don't see why a voting site couldn't.

But those systems don't have anonymity. You've a user name or account number to identify you. The same would be needed for voting via app which means your vote would not be secret.

Harry Palmr

What about telephone voting? register number with the electoral commission (a body in the planning stage right now) input password, Press 1 for...

NIMAN

Russians would love that.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Not a hope in hell. They can't even guarantee the security of electronic voting machines at polling booths.

It's hardly a huge chore to vote as it is at present. But people want easier and easier options in everything nowadays.

P_1

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What about telephone voting? register number with the electoral commission (a body in the planning stage right now) input password, Press 1 for...

Still not anonymous, currently system is tied in to your address. Polling card is sent out and your name is on the list that's ticked off at the polling station. All the ballot papers have no identifying characteristics so the vote is guaranteed to be anonymous.

Youd need a userid for your proposed phone system to work, something that can be leaked or hacked so the vote wouldn't be anonymous.

kneemos

Collie D wrote: »

But those systems don't have anonymity. You've a user name or account number to identify you. The same would be needed for voting via app which means your vote would not be secret.

Your polling number identifies your name and address at the moment.

cython

Collie D wrote: »

But those systems don't have anonymity. You've a user name or account number to identify you. The same would be needed for voting via app which means your vote would not be secret.

To be fair, it would be technically possible to have an authenticated system where there is no way to associate the vote with the person. Ironically, however, designing such a system would be probably more difficult than having a system that had users linked to their actions (e.g. you would need to track whether someone had voted, and probably only mark this in the same action as recording their vote lest it be updated errantly), and even with that as the design up front, logs, etc. could end up correlating them. Hell, certain database systems could be set up to record that two actions took place in the same transaction, and suddenly you have the person and their vote!

Certainly I'd never trust such a system, purely from having had to trawl log files for other systems and realising the info that's sometimes available without being intended!

cython

kneemos wrote: »

Your polling number identifies your name and address at the moment.

Obviously, and that's necessary. However it never makes it anywhere near your ballot paper, so the vote you cast can't be linked to you.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

kneemos wrote: »

Your polling number identifies your name and address at the moment.

But it has no linkage at all to your voting choices.

facehugger99

The kind of people who don't bother voting are usually the kind of people I'm glad aren't voting.

kneemos

facehugger99 wrote: »

The kind of people who don't bother voting are usually the kind of people I'm glad aren't voting.

A lot of students or people working away don't get to vote.

Could never figure out why elections can't be held on a weekend anyway,even Saturday and Sunday.

Harry Palmr

Australia uses phone voting for the blind, presumably they've worked out how to make it work.

facehugger99

kneemos wrote: »

Could never figure out why elections can't be held on a weekend anyway,even Saturday and Sunday.

Because the teachers wouldn't get an extra day off work.

Capt'n Midnight

With e-voting you can either verify how you voted or you can't.

If you can verify how you voted then votes can be bought and sold.

if you can't verify how you voted, then the people in control of the evoting system can change your vote.

We are a small country but the banking bailout cost Billions, we also have an EU veto under certain conditions, we're looking for a place on the UN Security Council. There's lots of reasons why someone would like to nudge a close election.

http://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2030:_Voting_Software

There are lots of very smart people doing fascinating work on cryptographic voting protocols. We should be funding and encouraging them, and doing all our elections with paper ballots until everyone currently working in that field has retired.

Collie D

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Australia uses phone voting for the blind, presumably they've worked out how to make it work.

When they get a head of state that doesn't live half the planet away then we can take tips on democracy from them

kneemos

As regards fraud the current system leaves a lot opportunity also.

Atoms for Peace

Give me liberty convenience or death!

GarIT

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Australia uses phone voting for the blind, presumably they've worked out how to make it work.

If that is the case they have accepted the risk that 0.1% of votes may be altered, it's a huge difference from all of the votes.

cython

kneemos wrote: »

As regards fraud the current system leaves a lot opportunity also.

Not as much though. And again, fraud is not the sole concern. There is a constitutional provision that voting in elections is by secret ballot, and as highlighted already with voting through smart devices you can have secrecy or integrity, but almost certainly not both.

kneemos

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Give me liberty convenience or death!

I see it more as a representation issue. Politicians know who the serial voters are and pander to their every whim.
If everyone or most people vote they can't descriminate.

[Deleted User]

kneemos wrote: »

Sites such as eBay, Amazon or your bank etc can maintain security, don't see why a voting site couldn't.

Because there is no requirement for anonymity on Amazon or banking.

With Amazon or your bank, your transaction MUST be tied to your identity, which is fine. For voting, your transaction MUST NOT be tied to your identity. This is the secrecy of the ballot. This is why you cast your vote alone in a polling booth. If your vote is linked to your identity, this opens up duress voting, where an overbearing parent or partner or employer requires you to vote in a particular direction. It also opens up vote selling, where you can demonstrate how you voted to a 3rd party.

The conflicting requirements of protecting the secrecy of the ballot and yet proving that the votes cast are the votes counted cannot be met by any IT solution.

[Deleted User]

kneemos wrote: »

As regards fraud the current system leaves a lot opportunity also.

How?

namloc1980

kneemos wrote: »

Sites such as eBay, Amazon or your bank etc can maintain security, don't see why a voting site couldn't.

Sure they can maintain secrecy (except when they are hacked) but they know exactly who you are, what transaction you have processed, and in the case of an election know who you voted for.

GarIT

kneemos wrote: »

As regards fraud the current system leaves a lot opportunity also.

I don't really see how. The register isn't perfect and needs to be modernised.

But after that every name is checked off the list and then one polling card is issued. If there were ever more votes than polling cards an issue would be noticed. The current votes can't really be changed because the box is never alone with less than two people.

If it was just numbers in a database all votes could be altered in seconds once someone got into the systems.

And at least 10% of all major businesses that operate online have been hacked at some point. That isn't a risk worth taking on votes. And when a retailer gets hacked it's easy to notice because personal information gets out or money goes missing. People wouldn't notice anonymous votes changed.

As a software engineer and someone who has studied computer security I say Never.