Electronic Voting Machines

Hey there! Long time no see, was just thinking about you last week and looked you up. Hope to see you around more.

Yeah, Fantasy Football drew me back and I got interested in some old conversations. Funny how after many years of absence, it's the same crowd. Kind of heartwarming in a way.

Cycloptichorn

Yeah, but it needs lots of work. I was away for years and just came back this year. We haven't touched it since this unfinished version launched but are working on a new platform (to be a host of these communities). I remember you had some interest in starting some back in the day, when we finally get the platform done I'll ping you to see if you are still interested.

Ok Robert, I want to make sure that I understand correctly your proposal. Tell me if any of these statements (and what I see are obvious security concerns) are correct.

1) I, as a voter, would be assigned a voter ID number which, much as a Social Security number, would be private number that would uniquely identify me. (I am sure you see where I am going with that).

2) The problem the voter ID number solves is giving an audit trail that can be checked in a way that is hopefully anonymous.

3) If I move to a new town. My voter ID number would be added to the new town voting rolls. This new voter ID would be public information, anyone can get a list of new voter ID numbers. It would be as easy to get as a list of people who have recently bought homes.

4) Information on the voting history of every voter would be publicly available. This would include which elections they voted in or not, and how they voted. It would be hidden behind a hopefully anonymous ID, but the complete voter history will be available publicly.

4) An abusive husband could coerce his wife to give her his number. Because the voting ledger is public, this would allow him to ensure that she voted the way he thinks she should vote. The same also act as a receipt for anyone who has bought votes from other people. (This is the reason we don't give a receipt for voting.)

Have I misunderstood anything?

You have a misunderstanding on #1, what all that is predicated on. There is no need for the voter ID number, you get a vote ID number (think transaction ID, not user ID) when you vote and the transaction ID and vote cast are in a public log this ID is not tied to the voter.

In Ohio, you give your name and precinct. The elections worker flips through a book until they have the page on which your name appears, with a facsimile of your signature. You sign as the elections worker watches, and then await the next available voting machine. Simple and no special ID is required.

OK, I did misunderstand.

What is the advantage of your proposed system over a system based on Optical Scanning?

Our voter registration book at the voting station doesn't have a facsimile of our signature. Not that we can see.

Not sure, I just spent a few minutes thinking about a system that can be as secure as paper balloting and haven't put much thought into it. I haven't heard of Optical Scanning for voting much but that sounds like an authentication/anonymity issue more than a comprehensive way to secure the voting process.

Whether or not a 100% tamper proof system is possible (and I doubt it is) the power inherent in political elections will not allow for (nor should it) the assurances of soft-ware engineers that a vote can't be rigged.

Everything doesn't have to be digital.

You don't have any assurances that the vote can't be rigged with a paper ballot either, you are simply less comfortable with digital things you don't understand but don't actually know if there is any more danger or not with electronic voting, it just feels that way as a black box you do not personally understand.

We do not need everything to be digital but we do not need to design voting systems to our lowest common denominators either.

Lots of us (myself included) who understand the "digital things" are very uncomfortable with electronic voting. With paper voting, a large scale fraud would be much more difficult to pull off, and far more difficult to conceal.

I am a fan of Optical Scanning technology. It allows the convenience of electronic counting, but also has the benefit of a paper trail.

One could imagine ways to cheat with Optical Scanning, but they would have to be done precinct by precinct involving a large number of people. With other forms of electronic voting you could cheat with a single hack with only a very few people being involved.

It's a matter of degree.

No system is tamper proof, but some backup in the event an attempt at fraud is alleged will make voters a lot less skittish.

The idea that people just have to give up their, legitimate, concerns about technology they don't understand and just get with the digital program because a few experts say they should is not going to fly.

I believe that most computer security experts are strongly opposed to electronic voting.

I think we can and should distinguish between computer security experts and software engineers. It seems the former are not heeded anywhere near as often as they should be.

Agreed.

I'm not actually pushing electronic voting, paper balloting doesn't have enough problems that it the potential improvements are necessary in my opinion.

I am countering what I see as an ignorant fear of electronic voting and saying that while there certainly is value in technological transparency that we should not be limited by default to or lowest technological common denominators.

Where do you get that idea? I can only guess that this notion is derived from the work of those who have found flaws with some specific systems but I'd expect that most security experts will be able to more accurately gauge the degree of security that both paper and electronic voting provide to strongly hold said opinion about electronic voting in general.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/national/reminder-your-electronic-voting-machine-super-hack/nsDcC/

I see the Digital Age as a major advancement for humanity, and I don't think we've seen much more than 25% of the benefits it offers, but like every technological advancement, it can't be shoved down the throats of the general populace.

Irrational fears (if they truly are such) still need to be addressed in ways other than: "That's irrational, we're doing it anyway."