Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election(npr.org)
npr.org
Seattle-area voters to vote by smartphone in district election
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/798126153/exclusive-seattle-area-voters-to-vote-by-smartphone-in-1st-for-u-s-elections
196 comments
The root of the problem this "voter convenience at any cost" approach is trying to solve is that positions that low maybe shouldn't be assigned by vote at all. Vote for presidents, legislators and mayors, but you have to stop doing elections at some point before reaching the office of vice janitor of the public library. Very low voter turnout is an indicator that you are close to that point.
And I'm not just talking election pragmatics here, I'm also convinced that lower offices will on average see less abuse if given to career bureaucrats than if given to people who invest the effort of running in an election for an uncertain chance to get - whatever they were hoping for. It's more likely to be worth the effort for the self-serving type.
And I'm not just talking election pragmatics here, I'm also convinced that lower offices will on average see less abuse if given to career bureaucrats than if given to people who invest the effort of running in an election for an uncertain chance to get - whatever they were hoping for. It's more likely to be worth the effort for the self-serving type.
Oh boy.
Thanks for links. I know, and have occasionally crossed swords with, most of the players mentioned.
Our conservation districts fund their own elections. They don't have the budget to pay to be on the normal ballot. The only fix would be for state government to appropriate the money. People like Toby Nixon have floated this reform at various times the last 20 years. Otherwise, there's no push.
Current WA SOS Wyman is ok, for a Republican. While she does nothing to expand the franchise, she does not share Sam Reed's, her predecessor and mentor, technophilia.
KC Exec Constantine absolutely knows better. He played a role in both of my efforts to protect the secret ballot (prohibit voter id from being printed on ballot) and delaying a major risky overhaul of KC Elections in 2008. Constantine is a wicked smart politician. So I wonder what his angle here is.
The automated signature verification has three show stopping flaws. High error rate, both positive and negative. Blackbox. Is another form of rent seeking by vendors; last time I checked, vender gets $0.10 per voter per election (not just per ballot cast).
I'm very proud of Seattle Times' editorial board on this issue. They learned, matured, adapted. I spoke with them 10+ years ago about election integrity. They were wicked smart, painfully polite & earnest, respectfully disagreed. One of my best interactions as an activist. While I disagree with Seattle Times on most everything (else), they are a worthy opponent.
I know nothing about the vendors mentioned, Tuck and Finney. I assume they're typical consulting bozos chasing sales and haven't really thought about the policies involved, and don't know enough to know they're bozos.
Gael Tarleton would make a great SOS.
Thanks for links. I know, and have occasionally crossed swords with, most of the players mentioned.
Our conservation districts fund their own elections. They don't have the budget to pay to be on the normal ballot. The only fix would be for state government to appropriate the money. People like Toby Nixon have floated this reform at various times the last 20 years. Otherwise, there's no push.
Current WA SOS Wyman is ok, for a Republican. While she does nothing to expand the franchise, she does not share Sam Reed's, her predecessor and mentor, technophilia.
KC Exec Constantine absolutely knows better. He played a role in both of my efforts to protect the secret ballot (prohibit voter id from being printed on ballot) and delaying a major risky overhaul of KC Elections in 2008. Constantine is a wicked smart politician. So I wonder what his angle here is.
The automated signature verification has three show stopping flaws. High error rate, both positive and negative. Blackbox. Is another form of rent seeking by vendors; last time I checked, vender gets $0.10 per voter per election (not just per ballot cast).
I'm very proud of Seattle Times' editorial board on this issue. They learned, matured, adapted. I spoke with them 10+ years ago about election integrity. They were wicked smart, painfully polite & earnest, respectfully disagreed. One of my best interactions as an activist. While I disagree with Seattle Times on most everything (else), they are a worthy opponent.
I know nothing about the vendors mentioned, Tuck and Finney. I assume they're typical consulting bozos chasing sales and haven't really thought about the policies involved, and don't know enough to know they're bozos.
Gael Tarleton would make a great SOS.
I hope by the length of my next sentence I'll be worthy of some small part of the praise you're giving the Seattle Times here :-)
It seems to me that the only difference between an exit poll and a voluntary disclosure checkbox which, if utilized by a statistically significant portion of the electorate, could be leveraged by official government commissions to audit election results where online voting is offered is that one these options is in the price range of the national parties and not publicly disclosed and the other strikes fear into the heart of everyone I've spoken to involved in election process.
Voluntary disclosure doesn't have to be a slippery slope and I firmly believe can and will lead to more fair and equitable access to the voting process and greater participation if it enabled online voting to be audited.
No one believes that large numbers of people will be blackmailed into disclosing their vote and if this or discrimination happens at scale then make it explicitly illegal. For those who aren't subject to these factors and are willing to participate in a census it would completely change how elections are run for the better.
It seems to me that the only difference between an exit poll and a voluntary disclosure checkbox which, if utilized by a statistically significant portion of the electorate, could be leveraged by official government commissions to audit election results where online voting is offered is that one these options is in the price range of the national parties and not publicly disclosed and the other strikes fear into the heart of everyone I've spoken to involved in election process.
Voluntary disclosure doesn't have to be a slippery slope and I firmly believe can and will lead to more fair and equitable access to the voting process and greater participation if it enabled online voting to be audited.
No one believes that large numbers of people will be blackmailed into disclosing their vote and if this or discrimination happens at scale then make it explicitly illegal. For those who aren't subject to these factors and are willing to participate in a census it would completely change how elections are run for the better.
Voluntary disclosure sounds as if it undoes the secret ballot.
Just a reminder: the secret ballot is secret to protect those, whose genuine vote would otherwise be manipulated (/forced/extorted/...)
Not every individual voter might need that level of protection for themselves.
But every individual voter requires this level of protection for the whole process.
Phrased differently: for some, anonymity in voting is nice. For others, it is necessary to get their genuine vote. For democracy to function, we need everyone's genuine vote.
Thus: we need voter anonimity that cannot be rescinded by the voter - nor by anyone else.
Just a reminder: the secret ballot is secret to protect those, whose genuine vote would otherwise be manipulated (/forced/extorted/...)
Not every individual voter might need that level of protection for themselves.
But every individual voter requires this level of protection for the whole process.
Phrased differently: for some, anonymity in voting is nice. For others, it is necessary to get their genuine vote. For democracy to function, we need everyone's genuine vote.
Thus: we need voter anonimity that cannot be rescinded by the voter - nor by anyone else.
>Just a reminder: the secret ballot is secret to protect those, whose genuine vote would otherwise be manipulated (/forced/extorted/...)
For mail-in voting (which is how the majority of people in King County vote), what makes the ballot secret? Can someone be forced or extorted to fill in the ballot in front of their persecutor?
>For democracy to function, we need everyone's genuine vote.
I'd honestly like to see anonymous voting in the house and Senate. This would vastly reduce the influence of political parties. Yes, it means that it's harder for constituents to track what their representative actually does, but the way modern politics works, "what their representative actually does" is essentially vote the party line on almost every vote.
For mail-in voting (which is how the majority of people in King County vote), what makes the ballot secret? Can someone be forced or extorted to fill in the ballot in front of their persecutor?
>For democracy to function, we need everyone's genuine vote.
I'd honestly like to see anonymous voting in the house and Senate. This would vastly reduce the influence of political parties. Yes, it means that it's harder for constituents to track what their representative actually does, but the way modern politics works, "what their representative actually does" is essentially vote the party line on almost every vote.
Source: I vote in King County (of which Seattle is a member city and probably uses the same process given the same elections office).
The Mail In Ballot procedure here uses a double-envelope system.
The inner envelope has the vote (with a matching identifier tab pulled off). It is supposed to contain only the vote.
The other envelope contains the inner envelope and this envelope is marked with the address of the voter, and a legally binding contract (signed by the voter and/or representative witnesses if they are unable).
My belief is that the validation process for these ballots includes multiple stages and probably blinding, wherein, the outer envelope is authenticated as a registered voter and that it contains something likely to be a vote (there's a small viewing circle). This would then be stripped and the trusted inner envelope, still sealed, added to a tabulation bin. Said tabulation bin would then be counter later in an anonomized manor.
The Mail In Ballot procedure here uses a double-envelope system.
The inner envelope has the vote (with a matching identifier tab pulled off). It is supposed to contain only the vote.
The other envelope contains the inner envelope and this envelope is marked with the address of the voter, and a legally binding contract (signed by the voter and/or representative witnesses if they are unable).
My belief is that the validation process for these ballots includes multiple stages and probably blinding, wherein, the outer envelope is authenticated as a registered voter and that it contains something likely to be a vote (there's a small viewing circle). This would then be stripped and the trusted inner envelope, still sealed, added to a tabulation bin. Said tabulation bin would then be counter later in an anonomized manor.
Again, this assumes a slippery slope. Organ donors abound. Should we be allowed to redact it on our driver's licenses for fear that we might be judged by our bosses and neighbors or compelled to donate or that it reveals our religious beliefs?
When someone says, "America isn't ready for online voting." I hear, "The interests who already buy and aggregate enough information to have the results ahead of time want to stay 1 step ahead of regulators."
When someone says, "America isn't ready for online voting." I hear, "The interests who already buy and aggregate enough information to have the results ahead of time want to stay 1 step ahead of regulators."
No one is going to pay you to tick the organ donor box, or threaten you or your family if you don't.
Both of those things have happened with voting in the past, which is why ballots are secret.
Both of those things have happened with voting in the past, which is why ballots are secret.
>No one is going to pay you to tick the organ donor box, or threaten you or your family if you don't.
Both of those things have happened with voting in the past, which is why ballots are secret.
It's perfectly legal to take a selfie at the ballot box showing that you voted a particular way. It's feasible that some party could anonymously pay, say, $20 for every selfie they are sent with the way of voting that they ask for. Sure, it's illegal but so would be doing the same thing if the ballot wasn't secret.
It's perfectly legal to take a selfie at the ballot box showing that you voted a particular way. It's feasible that some party could anonymously pay, say, $20 for every selfie they are sent with the way of voting that they ask for. Sure, it's illegal but so would be doing the same thing if the ballot wasn't secret.
You can take the selfie and then void your ballot. Person who paid you won't know.
If you tick a disclosure box and void your ballot, then that can be tracked.
If you tick a disclosure box and void your ballot, then that can be tracked.
World governments and wealthy private interests are right now paying huge sums of money to interfere with election results.
That's happening right now. Not in the past. That's why we need enough people who aren't in danger to volunteer their data.
That's happening right now. Not in the past. That's why we need enough people who aren't in danger to volunteer their data.
> No one is going to pay you to tick the organ donor box
> World governments and wealthy private interests are right now paying huge sums of money
You are describing a different problem than the one the parent comment is describing. The latter is lobbying, which can be prevented through legal restrictions and auditing to make sure those restrictions are being adhered to.
The former is outright vote-buying. People who are looking for money can, and will sell their votes for money, goods, or jobs. This happens in less rigorous democracies like India today. This happened in the US as well with the old-time patronage machines in big cities. Even if you don't necessarily need to sell your vote to get any job, you might lose a job offer to someone else who was willing to demonstrate that they voted "correctly".
The existence of one problem does not minimize the other, and we should seek to strike as many impurities from the process as possible, rather than trading one devil for another.
> World governments and wealthy private interests are right now paying huge sums of money
You are describing a different problem than the one the parent comment is describing. The latter is lobbying, which can be prevented through legal restrictions and auditing to make sure those restrictions are being adhered to.
The former is outright vote-buying. People who are looking for money can, and will sell their votes for money, goods, or jobs. This happens in less rigorous democracies like India today. This happened in the US as well with the old-time patronage machines in big cities. Even if you don't necessarily need to sell your vote to get any job, you might lose a job offer to someone else who was willing to demonstrate that they voted "correctly".
The existence of one problem does not minimize the other, and we should seek to strike as many impurities from the process as possible, rather than trading one devil for another.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, only the cost and timeline for a grassroots effort to prevent disaster. If we leave this up to local parties to solve our great grandchildren will be having the same argument
Keep in mind, democracy functioned in America for about a century without secret ballots.
Forgive me, I don't know what you're advocating for here. I greatly appreciate that you're chewing on the policy, problem, tech.
For the USA, I no longer think polls are useful predictors, nor are exit polls useful audits or verification. For polling to work (be useful), like is done in Germany, requires the whole system to be designed as such.
Our gold standard is the Australian Ballot. Private voting, public counting. We weaken this system to extend the franchise, eg absentee ballots.
But the real kicker is our FPTP (winner takes all) election system. It's so brittle. The inevitable error rate intrinsic in any form of voting (casting ballots) coupled with durvergers law virtually ensures drama.
Said another way, my militant defense of the Australian Ballot, this recurring national spaz attack, would be mooted by switching to a more robust form of elections. Ranked choice and proportional representation have the most interest and support, though I prefer Approval Voting for a better balance of fairness and simplicity.
Back to your point about disclosure, if I follow you: I very much would like to see tech, POCs, research into time boxed privacy. Like maybe all election materials, including ballots, are released when an election is certified. Versus hidden and then destroyed a few weeks later. My motivation is to find other balances, equilibria, between people's privacy (and protection) against society's need for confidence in the results.
For the USA, I no longer think polls are useful predictors, nor are exit polls useful audits or verification. For polling to work (be useful), like is done in Germany, requires the whole system to be designed as such.
Our gold standard is the Australian Ballot. Private voting, public counting. We weaken this system to extend the franchise, eg absentee ballots.
But the real kicker is our FPTP (winner takes all) election system. It's so brittle. The inevitable error rate intrinsic in any form of voting (casting ballots) coupled with durvergers law virtually ensures drama.
Said another way, my militant defense of the Australian Ballot, this recurring national spaz attack, would be mooted by switching to a more robust form of elections. Ranked choice and proportional representation have the most interest and support, though I prefer Approval Voting for a better balance of fairness and simplicity.
Back to your point about disclosure, if I follow you: I very much would like to see tech, POCs, research into time boxed privacy. Like maybe all election materials, including ballots, are released when an election is certified. Versus hidden and then destroyed a few weeks later. My motivation is to find other balances, equilibria, between people's privacy (and protection) against society's need for confidence in the results.
I agree with proportional representation applied within a bounding area of authority and letting representation by __area__ and/or __area of interest__ be by decided by the vote rather than distracting (which is subject to jerry mandering).
I prefer the "Path Voting" method (which I have to google for with wikipedia path voting every time, since I can't remember how to spell the inventor's name). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
"The Schulze method (/ˈʃʊltsə/) is an electoral system developed in 1997 by Markus Schulze that selects a single winner using votes that express preferences. The method can also be used to create a sorted list of winners. The Schulze method is also known as Schwartz Sequential dropping (SSD), cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping (CSSD), the beatpath method, beatpath winner, path voting, and path winner."
I prefer the "Path Voting" method (which I have to google for with wikipedia path voting every time, since I can't remember how to spell the inventor's name). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
"The Schulze method (/ˈʃʊltsə/) is an electoral system developed in 1997 by Markus Schulze that selects a single winner using votes that express preferences. The method can also be used to create a sorted list of winners. The Schulze method is also known as Schwartz Sequential dropping (SSD), cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping (CSSD), the beatpath method, beatpath winner, path voting, and path winner."
From one side of your mouth you're demanding perfect privacy and from the other side I'm sure you'll tell me its necessary because of the laws in the US for voting procedure and policy to be bottom up starting with localities, then states, then federal elections.
I think we both know perfect privacy is cost prohibitive at the local and state levels and largely a talking point that ends with the listener assuming it is impossible to achieve online voting with perfect privacy in our lifetime.
If we can't afford to change the way people vote then why not change the way we measure it so its not so cost prohibitive?
Between exit polls, aggregate voter data held by the national parties, private and public data sources it is already possible to accurately predict the outcome of most elections.
Its already being used by national parties as the foundation for when and where they choose to challenge election results and allocate resources.
There is no such thing as a, "Secret Ballot" with modern analytics. There are just those who can afford to find out how you vote and those who can't.
Those who can't in today's world includes regulators and the government themselves.
I think we both know perfect privacy is cost prohibitive at the local and state levels and largely a talking point that ends with the listener assuming it is impossible to achieve online voting with perfect privacy in our lifetime.
If we can't afford to change the way people vote then why not change the way we measure it so its not so cost prohibitive?
Between exit polls, aggregate voter data held by the national parties, private and public data sources it is already possible to accurately predict the outcome of most elections.
Its already being used by national parties as the foundation for when and where they choose to challenge election results and allocate resources.
There is no such thing as a, "Secret Ballot" with modern analytics. There are just those who can afford to find out how you vote and those who can't.
Those who can't in today's world includes regulators and the government themselves.
Well then.
I am explicitly not shutting you down. I shared my views and why. I encouraged you to do the same.
For instance, one cheap and obvious way to improve uitilityof exit polling would be to implement compulsory voting.
Also, please work on a campaign. To the best of my knowledge, modern campaigns don't rely much on polling. Most effort is put into GOTV (voter identification and balloting chasing).
Edit: Oops. I'm not familiar with Republican campaigns. In my area, their GOTV is less potent and they rely far more on advertising. So they might still be more reliant on polling. It's a good question for me to follow up.
Opinion polls are still useful in other ways. Depending on who's paying. Sanity checks. Push polling. Message crafting. Talking points, a la Voted San Fran's Favorite Pho Restaurant. Feeding corporate media's horserace narrative. Policy groups trying to gather intel on both opponents and allies. Consultants fleecing noob candidates. Arm waving because old school operators expect it.
YMMV.
I am explicitly not shutting you down. I shared my views and why. I encouraged you to do the same.
For instance, one cheap and obvious way to improve uitilityof exit polling would be to implement compulsory voting.
Also, please work on a campaign. To the best of my knowledge, modern campaigns don't rely much on polling. Most effort is put into GOTV (voter identification and balloting chasing).
Edit: Oops. I'm not familiar with Republican campaigns. In my area, their GOTV is less potent and they rely far more on advertising. So they might still be more reliant on polling. It's a good question for me to follow up.
Opinion polls are still useful in other ways. Depending on who's paying. Sanity checks. Push polling. Message crafting. Talking points, a la Voted San Fran's Favorite Pho Restaurant. Feeding corporate media's horserace narrative. Policy groups trying to gather intel on both opponents and allies. Consultants fleecing noob candidates. Arm waving because old school operators expect it.
YMMV.
At the danger of DOX'ing myself I'll just say I was a hair's breadth from closing the loop on full online voter registration in 2008 but apparently local offices are not REQUIRED to accept faxed registrations and might FORGET to change the toner or turn them on.
This is not my first brush with radical voting ideas and I'm not afraid to put them into practice when legal signs off :-p
These days I settle for election judging. Isn't that a scary thought?
You should google project Houdini, narwhal, and orca
This is not my first brush with radical voting ideas and I'm not afraid to put them into practice when legal signs off :-p
These days I settle for election judging. Isn't that a scary thought?
You should google project Houdini, narwhal, and orca
There should be an official list of elections that don't actually matter. Or perhaps those that do, since it would be far shorter.
I can't recall the last time there was an election in my precinct for any question whatsoever that was actually in play. These days I just give my wife my ballot to vote--it makes us both happier.
I can't recall the last time there was an election in my precinct for any question whatsoever that was actually in play. These days I just give my wife my ballot to vote--it makes us both happier.
Thank you for the clarification.
"the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent"
Sounds like nothing but a combination of thinly veiled voter suppression or technophobia, either of which should disqualify someone from public office in the eyes of an educated voter.
Sounds like nothing but a combination of thinly veiled voter suppression or technophobia, either of which should disqualify someone from public office in the eyes of an educated voter.
And this sounds like the opinion of someone who has spent literally zero time investigating how universal the consensus is among voting security professionals about how paper is still the best, most reliable, most secure technology with which to run elections.
This is fair enough, but the issue is that at least in the US, youre not actually replacing paper ballot voting in most cases.
The US currently has digital (often internet connected) polling booths, which bring all the security problems of mobile/net voting, and none of the benefits.
I would much rather have mobile voting, as opposed to the current widespread digital voting booths system. Ideally, of course, we'd want to go the paper ballot route for now.
The US currently has digital (often internet connected) polling booths, which bring all the security problems of mobile/net voting, and none of the benefits.
I would much rather have mobile voting, as opposed to the current widespread digital voting booths system. Ideally, of course, we'd want to go the paper ballot route for now.
Mobile voting is a nightmare idea. A very large portion of the population is far from tech savvy, but to have mobile voting as an option, the entire voting base has the know how to correctly place a mobile vote, or else a significant percentange of the population could get duped into using a fake voting app/site and not actually voting. Authenticating voters is also a significant technical problem, as the barriers to voting have to be thin, but not so thin that one malicious actor with up to date voter registration information for a precinct could own that precinct. This also seems to suffer the same problems as DRE (direct recording electronic) voting machines with regards to no way to ensure a voters vote is recorded correctly and accurately.
I have no confidence in any mobile voting scheme, and for an election, lack of public confidence in a process should be immediately disqualifying for said process.
I have no confidence in any mobile voting scheme, and for an election, lack of public confidence in a process should be immediately disqualifying for said process.
One verification avenue that comes to mind is matching fingerprints but that would only work for those who both can afford such a high-end phone and can take time off to go register their fingerprints with their voting office, or however that would be implemented. Maybe a future rollout like this could be done when biometrics like this are standard in cheap smartphones and biometric collection becomes a standard voluntary part of voter registration.
Maybe mail-in ballots could come with QR codes but this kind of defeats the idea of a mobile-only option.
Maybe we just need to accept that some voter fraud will happen like it already does (the standard for voting in-person is nothing but matching the name you tell them to a list of names, not even any ID required) and settle for something potentially exploitable like SMS's with links sent to phone numbers whose registered names/addresses correspond to a registered voter, where you then have to verify some information like past addresses or whatever. If we'd just force telecom companies to tighten up their security that would be a perfect solution, and as it is it's probably good enough using the existing rate of voter fraud as a bar. Stealing a phone number in the process of identity theft is something that happens and is easier than it should be but it still takes a while on the phone and someone making a full time job of it just to hope to catch that automated text probably wouldn't get that many, if the texts were sent at random times throughout a whole month or so.
Maybe mail-in ballots could come with QR codes but this kind of defeats the idea of a mobile-only option.
Maybe we just need to accept that some voter fraud will happen like it already does (the standard for voting in-person is nothing but matching the name you tell them to a list of names, not even any ID required) and settle for something potentially exploitable like SMS's with links sent to phone numbers whose registered names/addresses correspond to a registered voter, where you then have to verify some information like past addresses or whatever. If we'd just force telecom companies to tighten up their security that would be a perfect solution, and as it is it's probably good enough using the existing rate of voter fraud as a bar. Stealing a phone number in the process of identity theft is something that happens and is easier than it should be but it still takes a while on the phone and someone making a full time job of it just to hope to catch that automated text probably wouldn't get that many, if the texts were sent at random times throughout a whole month or so.
In-person voter fraud isn't that difficult, and especially in Washington people get packets in the mail they can vote with by returning in the mail which would be pretty easy for someone to go swiping from mailboxes. Verifying identity online is not an impossible challenge and we can't just avoid improving anything forever.
It's a lot easier to hijack online voting infrastructure than it is to start digging through everyone's mailboxes at the correct time when they happen to actually be sending a ballot out.
The voting period in Washington is 18 days. So someone would have to either be constantly looking through my mail for the better part of three weeks, or have the best luck when it comes to predicting when I would actually send it out, and that's if they got the correct mailbox and I didn't, say, go to a post office or the ballot dropoff boxes. It would be hard to do even for an individual, and much harder to scale up.
The voting period in Washington is 18 days. So someone would have to either be constantly looking through my mail for the better part of three weeks, or have the best luck when it comes to predicting when I would actually send it out, and that's if they got the correct mailbox and I didn't, say, go to a post office or the ballot dropoff boxes. It would be hard to do even for an individual, and much harder to scale up.
To corrupt the vote, just offer some money for every empty ballot that gets sent to you to fill in and mail. There are a lot of people who would trade their ballot for a $20 bill.
Some of these $20 bills would get reported to FBI. The probability is tiny, but it grows exponentially with the number of participants.
Good luck scaling that far enough to make a difference, without at the same time broadcasting your intentions to everybody.
Just give a website address that displays a rotating physical address in Russia or China. Rely on the free PR from all the news stories about how terrible it is to scale with minimal "marketing" costs.
If you picked the right districts, it wouldn't even cost that much to tilt the votes in your favor. At $50/ballot you'd almost certainly get 11,000 extra votes in Michigan - enough to swing the state in the last election at a total cost of just over half a million dollars.
This ease of abuse is one of the many, many reasons that I support a single, national vote for president over per-state winner-take-all electoral college voting.
If you picked the right districts, it wouldn't even cost that much to tilt the votes in your favor. At $50/ballot you'd almost certainly get 11,000 extra votes in Michigan - enough to swing the state in the last election at a total cost of just over half a million dollars.
This ease of abuse is one of the many, many reasons that I support a single, national vote for president over per-state winner-take-all electoral college voting.
> In-person voter fraud isn't that difficult
It’s difficult to scale without getting caught.
It’s difficult to scale without getting caught.
Here is an educated voter who wrote some tech standards and knows a good deal about all this encryption stuff. WA Sec. of State is absolutely right here. We can't secure online systems even when most parties want to make them secure: all these data leaks prove that. When stakes are high, such as the ability to influence voting, this online system will be broken and backdoored before it sees the light.
I want to point out that voting in Washington state is incredibly easy. They mail you a ballot, and a packet with detailed information on every single candidate and issue, and then you can drop your ballot just about anywhere - supermarket, mailbox, probably the street (who knows). It's probably the best voting system, hands down.
I don't buy that a smartphone magically hits some convenience threshold that turns out voters.
I don't buy that a smartphone magically hits some convenience threshold that turns out voters.
> It's probably the best voting system, hands down.
The disadvantage to this system is the erosion of the secret ballot. Someone (e.g. an employer, spouse or friend) can now ask you for proof of your vote.
(I think absentee ballots should be voidable in person.)
The disadvantage to this system is the erosion of the secret ballot. Someone (e.g. an employer, spouse or friend) can now ask you for proof of your vote.
(I think absentee ballots should be voidable in person.)
I'm missing something... how does mailing your vote allow somebody to demand that vote be exposed? If my employer asks me how or if I voted in VA (in-person paper), I tell him to fuck off. If my employer asks me how or if I voted in WA (mail-in paper), I tell him to fuck off.
An abusive wife can force her husband to vote for X and mail the envelope in front of her. She couldn't do that if the husband was voting alone in a booth.
The problem of spouses beating spouses into voting differently (or parapalegics having their votes manipulated) is not on the same level of low voter turnout. Mailing in WA ensures much higher participation than the possible outlier manipulations that might happen (the number of calls about some ex-spouse having manipulated spousal votes is in the number of 0/yr for King County, WA). You get a tracking stub, by which you could contact the election board, if that was really an issue and...it's not.
In a state with in-person voting, if someone tells you they'll give you $50 to vote for their candidate, you can take the $50, go to the ballot box, and vote for the other person. They'll be none the wiser. In WA, on the other hand, they can watch you fill out your ballot and stick it in the mail before giving you the $50.
As a WA resident, our system is certainly nice. Is that risk worth it? Meh, it probably is.
As a WA resident, our system is certainly nice. Is that risk worth it? Meh, it probably is.
Pretty sure if someone is forcing you to vote for someone that's a crime in some local or federal code. You can also refuse to take 50$ and go vote in private?
Personally, I have never had this happen nor heard of it happening. Not to say it shouldn't be a concern, but I am reluctant to buy in to the idea based on a complete hypothetical.
Needless to say, someone demanding to see my vote counts as a felony still in our state. Maybe it occasionally happens? But it would take thousands of deliberate felonies to meaningfully change an election.
Needless to say, someone demanding to see my vote counts as a felony still in our state. Maybe it occasionally happens? But it would take thousands of deliberate felonies to meaningfully change an election.
> I have never had this happen nor heard of it happening
I've canvassed in New Jersey where one spouse was surprised by the other's party registration, and had two incidences where it broke into an argument in front of me.
> someone demanding to see my vote counts as a felony still in our state
The line between demanding or requiring and politely, but firmly, requesting is legally blurry and practically meaningless.
Agree this is an edge case problem. (I support mailed-in ballots.)
I've canvassed in New Jersey where one spouse was surprised by the other's party registration, and had two incidences where it broke into an argument in front of me.
> someone demanding to see my vote counts as a felony still in our state
The line between demanding or requiring and politely, but firmly, requesting is legally blurry and practically meaningless.
Agree this is an edge case problem. (I support mailed-in ballots.)
I thought party affiliation was public information?
Hypotheticals are valuable when forming policy, because they point directionally to incentives and potential counterfactuals. Nobody has yet had to take arms up against a potential tyrant in the US (claims of the southern states during the civil war aside) but one could argue that the reason such tyranny has never been attempted in the first place is due to the deterrent of the 2nd amendment. Just because we can't point to a concrete example which proves the necessity of the 2nd amendment to prevent such tyranny, doesn't mean it would be a good idea to repeal it on the grounds that we do not know if those hypotheticals would
actually manifest. Similarly, having policies for voting which prevent coercion seem sound despite the fact that it's currently unknowable if in the absence of those policies we'd see an electoral impact due to such coercion.
This election they're implementing the smartphone option for a local election has less than 1% participation rate. The goal is to show mobile option can boost voter turnout.
Huh, TIL the packet isn't normal. Growing up here, it seemed obvious.
I mean it would work for me. I typically vote by mail but if my phone popped a notification that was like "It's election day!" and let me vote it would be done less than 5m after the ping.
Voting without the information packet seems mind boggling to me. But then I realize that's how 99% of the world votes and I understand so much more now.
What has candidly started to scare me, after a good # of years voting with the packet (and I assure you I _research_ far beyond what the packet contains) is the fact that I'm often Still Clueless at the end.
A toy example is a recent tax levy for some hospital funding. While the packet contained some thousand-foot information on what it was for and amount/etc, there was NO breakdown as far as I could tell, even online, (certainly no objective/in depth/expert sourced) that actually tried to answer "what are the pros and cons? (this sometimes exists in the packet but often not for some of the more technical decisions) Is this a normal tax? Is the argument for or against disingenous? Are there better ways to source this revenue? Is there proper accountability and controls on utilization, and is the underlying legislation solid?
Take the following not as tooting my horn but to give a point of perspective: I have multiple degrees (including advanced) in applied math and CS, and spend an inordinate amount of my time reading about politics, law, and history. I still feel ill-equipped to vote on many of these topics. It sometimes amazes me that the system is as functional as it is now, if even a portion of decisions are made in this fashion.
A toy example is a recent tax levy for some hospital funding. While the packet contained some thousand-foot information on what it was for and amount/etc, there was NO breakdown as far as I could tell, even online, (certainly no objective/in depth/expert sourced) that actually tried to answer "what are the pros and cons? (this sometimes exists in the packet but often not for some of the more technical decisions) Is this a normal tax? Is the argument for or against disingenous? Are there better ways to source this revenue? Is there proper accountability and controls on utilization, and is the underlying legislation solid?
Take the following not as tooting my horn but to give a point of perspective: I have multiple degrees (including advanced) in applied math and CS, and spend an inordinate amount of my time reading about politics, law, and history. I still feel ill-equipped to vote on many of these topics. It sometimes amazes me that the system is as functional as it is now, if even a portion of decisions are made in this fashion.
This is why local news is incredibly important, their job is to decipher this for you. For national things like Presidential elections, I couldn't care less who my local newspaper endorses, but for local elections I care quite a lot. If you're in the Seattle area, try to support the Seattle Times or the Stranger; they have different political leanings and you may like one and hate the other, but they both do good work in researching candidates and ballot issues before coming up with endorsements.
When I lived in Seattle my voting process was basically "find the Stranger's recommendations, read through them, and very occasionally look deeper into one issue or office". This is definitely an important function of local news, they spend hours trying to make sense of this stuff and tease out hidden connections so you don't have to.
Don't just look at the Stranger. They are fully capable of making some bad, bad recommendations, often for very petty reasons.
I made my own petty decisions in voting, too.
Levies I don't mind so much (fire departments says they need more money? Sure, why not.). But yeah, even with the packet, it's amazing how often I go down the list and don't really care about any of the options (Both of these candidates seem well qualified and capable of representing my district? Does political party even matter for school board? Should we even be electing a Sheriff?)
Maybe it's actually a good thing? Our local elections do a good job of holding candidates accountable that they never err to far off the beaten path?
Maybe it's actually a good thing? Our local elections do a good job of holding candidates accountable that they never err to far off the beaten path?
I wonder if there's some kind of a wisdom-of-the-crowd effect going on. While votes are certainly undermined by political campaigns, I could see it still play an effect.
I love the way WA votes. I've lived in a half dozen US states, and it is by far the best experience. It makes it extremely easy to vote thoughtfully.
No need for a smartphone. The information packet + drop box / postal vote is fantastic.
No need for a smartphone. The information packet + drop box / postal vote is fantastic.
Yeah, it’s always bothered me—after growing up in CA with information packets—that, now living in TN, there are no such packets mailed to voters. I still don’t understand how anyone feels comfortable voting on anything or anyone at local, county, and state levels here (myself included). Finding impartial information and analysis on measures is extremely difficult (I hesitate to say impossible, but it pretty much is for an average voter). Trying to talk with anyone about ballot measures usually results in blank stares.
[deleted]
I have zero idea what you're talking about. I have never in my life received in informational packet along with my ballot. Like there's a short short summary of ballot issues but nothing about any of the candidates.
Here's an example of what it looks like in WA.
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/elections/how-to-vo...
These pamphlets are made separately by each county, and large counties sometimes make different versions when there are many local elections or initiatives on the ballot (e.g. King County had 4 versions of this pamphlet, each covering a different set of municipal elections, the corresponding school districts etc).
You get them in the mail in advance of your ballot.
These pamphlets are made separately by each county, and large counties sometimes make different versions when there are many local elections or initiatives on the ballot (e.g. King County had 4 versions of this pamphlet, each covering a different set of municipal elections, the corresponding school districts etc).
You get them in the mail in advance of your ballot.
Just wait till they gamify electronic voting -
"Congratulations, you've just earned your Junior Progressive badge! Vote for two more progressive candidates to level up!"
"Congratulations, you've just earned your Junior Progressive badge! Vote for two more progressive candidates to level up!"
"they"?
What makes you certain progressives will control election infrastructure?
And the same officials who would set the text of the app currently oversee the descriptions of the issues on the ballot that each voter gets. Can you point to a single case of any progressive politician using their power to manipulate those descriptions?
I don't believe any politician has done so in the last 50 years, from either party. Do you have evidence that I'm wrong, or do you have any other evidence that the election infrastructure being so blatantly abused is at all plausible?
What makes you certain progressives will control election infrastructure?
And the same officials who would set the text of the app currently oversee the descriptions of the issues on the ballot that each voter gets. Can you point to a single case of any progressive politician using their power to manipulate those descriptions?
I don't believe any politician has done so in the last 50 years, from either party. Do you have evidence that I'm wrong, or do you have any other evidence that the election infrastructure being so blatantly abused is at all plausible?
> Can you point to a single case of any progressive politician using their power to manipulate those descriptions?
Pretty much every ballot initiative in the last 50 years of the state of Illinois. Search “Illinois Democratic machine” for the history of the abuses.
One recent ballot initiative I recall read “do you support improvements to water reclamation infrastructure of Cook County at the cost of $X bond issue”. It did not mention that the full text of the measure drastically increased the number and salaries of democratic party appointees in the water dept and they would get guaranteed life pensions at 80% of salary.
When a single party has most of the government positions, election corruption abounds.
Pretty much every ballot initiative in the last 50 years of the state of Illinois. Search “Illinois Democratic machine” for the history of the abuses.
One recent ballot initiative I recall read “do you support improvements to water reclamation infrastructure of Cook County at the cost of $X bond issue”. It did not mention that the full text of the measure drastically increased the number and salaries of democratic party appointees in the water dept and they would get guaranteed life pensions at 80% of salary.
When a single party has most of the government positions, election corruption abounds.
I wasn’t calling out progressives in particular, just using that as an example. Feel free to swap out progressive with Trumpster or libertarian. This isn’t a critique of political manipulation or abuse. It’s a comment on where we’re going as a society. We’ll gladly accept things like this for just a bit more convenience and dopamine.
How can you vote in less than 5 minutes? For president, sure, but state elections have dozens of people you've never heard of and non-partisan positions and ballot issues. It's only really possible to vote in less than 5 minutes if you're obsessed with state politics or if you're letting somebody else's thinking (either a newspaper or state party) substitute for your own. I think I'd rather you didn't vote.
I mean am I not allowed to follow the judgement or organizations I trust: namely the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, the local Democratic Party, (and some other local ones but it would give away where I'm from).
It seems presumptuous that I, a software dev who has no serious connection to the statehouse, could do better.
It seems presumptuous that I, a software dev who has no serious connection to the statehouse, could do better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI hopefully they don't prove Tom Scott right.
> King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones, says Bryan Finney, the CEO of Democracy Live, the Seattle-based voting company providing the technology.
If they mean that there is a public URL you go to, and then on the site only have to enter you birhdate and name to log in, and then you can vote--that can't be right. There's gotta be more than that.
My guess is that what has been lost in the stories is how you get the URL. I'm guessing that they either email you the URL or they send physical mail which includes a QR code with the URL, and the URL contains some sort of unique per voter identifier (hopefully randomly generated anew for each election). When you go to vote the site knows who you are supposed to be from that identifier in the URL, and the name/birthdate is just for a consistency check.
If they mean that there is a public URL you go to, and then on the site only have to enter you birhdate and name to log in, and then you can vote--that can't be right. There's gotta be more than that.
My guess is that what has been lost in the stories is how you get the URL. I'm guessing that they either email you the URL or they send physical mail which includes a QR code with the URL, and the URL contains some sort of unique per voter identifier (hopefully randomly generated anew for each election). When you go to vote the site knows who you are supposed to be from that identifier in the URL, and the name/birthdate is just for a consistency check.
> There's gotta be more than that.
I mean I agree but this is how in-person voting works right now. The only "secret" information is my polling place but anyone who knows my name can figure that out since the voter records are public and includes my address.
I mean I agree but this is how in-person voting works right now. The only "secret" information is my polling place but anyone who knows my name can figure that out since the voter records are public and includes my address.
In Washington state it wouldn't be quite that easy. You either have to show an acceptable photo ID to vote in person, or you have to sign a ballot declaration and then cast a provisional ballot which will be accepted if the signature on the declaration matches the signature on your registration record [1].
[1] https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.40.160
[1] https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.40.160
> If they mean that there is a public URL you go to, and then on the site only have to enter you birhdate and name to log in, and then you can vote--that can't be right. There's gotta be more than that.
Of course there is. You also need a User-Agent that says you're a phone. And you can't set the evil bit. ;D
Of course there is. You also need a User-Agent that says you're a phone. And you can't set the evil bit. ;D
There is no more than that. The only "extra" thing is that they ask you to draw a signature at the end.
I really do hope this goes nowhere, because this is just silly.
I really do hope this goes nowhere, because this is just silly.
In related news, Saudi Arabia hacked Bezos' phone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22122779
Could a similar hack be done on a larger scale, and used to alter votes before they are sent, without changing the electronic signature?
Lets assume no until proven otherwise. And if proven otherwise, lets assume it was an isolated incident, and it won't happen again after a "commitment to do better".
Lets also assume Mr. Tusk's firm can be trusted - after all, why not put a private middle-man between voters and elections? As Mr. Tusk correctly points out, the only plausible explanation to resistance is wanting to suppress voters.
Could a similar hack be done on a larger scale, and used to alter votes before they are sent, without changing the electronic signature?
Lets assume no until proven otherwise. And if proven otherwise, lets assume it was an isolated incident, and it won't happen again after a "commitment to do better".
Lets also assume Mr. Tusk's firm can be trusted - after all, why not put a private middle-man between voters and elections? As Mr. Tusk correctly points out, the only plausible explanation to resistance is wanting to suppress voters.
This doesn't even need hacking. You just go on facebook and find someones name and birthday and vote as them.
Actually the voter database is public record[0], and it includes birthdays. This means that it would be easy to have 100% turnout in the first few seconds of the polls being open.
[0]: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/vrdb/extract-requests.aspx
[0]: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/vrdb/extract-requests.aspx
I hope someone hacks the vote to make Mickey Mouse or some other stupid name win.
Phone voting is a cybersecurity nightmare.
Phone voting is a cybersecurity nightmare.
Why would someone need to do any "hacking", if the only thing needed to vote is name and date of birth. Someone could easily aggregate all that data and write a short python script to do all the voting on everyone else's behalf.
Not advocating for anyone to do so, as this is extremely illegal, but imo whoever signed off on this kind of online voting system is an even bigger criminal in my eyes.
EDIT: upon reading further comments, I discovered that voter registration records in WA are officially public, and they include names and DOB (among other things). I am speechless.
Not advocating for anyone to do so, as this is extremely illegal, but imo whoever signed off on this kind of online voting system is an even bigger criminal in my eyes.
EDIT: upon reading further comments, I discovered that voter registration records in WA are officially public, and they include names and DOB (among other things). I am speechless.
Under US law 'unauthorized access of a computer system' is hacking, so writing someone elses name and DOB would qualify as 'hacking' in the legal sense.
My bad, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying.
I was just trying to make a point that there is no usual "evil hackers trying to break into our systems" kind of situation. It's like stealing someone's car by simply entering the wide open door and turning the keys someone left in the ignition.
I was just trying to make a point that there is no usual "evil hackers trying to break into our systems" kind of situation. It's like stealing someone's car by simply entering the wide open door and turning the keys someone left in the ignition.
Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 votes that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.
Being that the main driver behind this seems to be voter turnout, I have some suggestions:
1) Stop making all these penny ante jobs elected positions. These people are bureaucrats. Let them apply for their jobs like every other bureaucrat. If 99% of voters are saying they de facto don't care, maybe you should take the message.
2) For jobs that do matter, make voting compulsory.
Bonus point: have elections on the weekends when people actually have time to vote. Very few people need two days to drive their buggy in from the farm anymore ffs.
1) Stop making all these penny ante jobs elected positions. These people are bureaucrats. Let them apply for their jobs like every other bureaucrat. If 99% of voters are saying they de facto don't care, maybe you should take the message.
2) For jobs that do matter, make voting compulsory.
Bonus point: have elections on the weekends when people actually have time to vote. Very few people need two days to drive their buggy in from the farm anymore ffs.
Compulsory voting only makes sense if you allow "I don't know" as an answer. There's no value in demanding an answer for me when I know I don't have an informed answer to give.
Compulsory voting tends to mean that you're required to put a ballot into a box. You can fill it out properly, draw a smiley face on it or leave it blank. Nobody's checking your work.
I like the pageantry and ceremony of paper ballots at specific voting locations followed by manual paper ballot counting. I know in principle it's easy to automate this away by introducing online voting and other things ... I think those things will further alienate people from their local communities and society at large.
Keep paper ballots because they are inefficient.
Keep paper ballots because they are inefficient.
The problem is then what do you do with low voter turnout? The article says that this election has in previous years resulted in <1% of eligible voters. That is clearly untenable.
>The problem is then what do you do with low voter turnout?
What's the problem with low voter turnout? If someone doesn't feel like voting, they should have that right. A non-vote is a vote of confidence that you are OK with any choice.
In fact, high voter turnout is usually indicative of major societal divisions or issues (case in point, the upcoming national election will probably have HIGH voter turnout as anti-Trump and pro-Trump people will turn out in droves).
> The article says that this election has in previous years resulted in <1% of eligible voters. That is clearly untenable.
Why is it untenable? What is the harm? The alternative is you force people to vote, and they'll vote by choosing a name randomly from a list.
What's the problem with low voter turnout? If someone doesn't feel like voting, they should have that right. A non-vote is a vote of confidence that you are OK with any choice.
In fact, high voter turnout is usually indicative of major societal divisions or issues (case in point, the upcoming national election will probably have HIGH voter turnout as anti-Trump and pro-Trump people will turn out in droves).
> The article says that this election has in previous years resulted in <1% of eligible voters. That is clearly untenable.
Why is it untenable? What is the harm? The alternative is you force people to vote, and they'll vote by choosing a name randomly from a list.
You're looking at it backwards. Democracy draws its power from the "consent of the governed", not from the complacency of the subjects. Remember the whole "taxation without representation" thing back when this democracy thing was getting started? Government is a tool of the people, and if the people chose to not engage in the process, the government has no legitimate claim by which it can act on the people's behalf.
The government doesn't ask for your consent, it assumes it, and the only method by which you can directly withhold consent is to refuse to participate in their political process. Low voter turnout is an indicator of an illegitimate government, which no longer has the consent of the people to continue governing them (At least in a democracy).
*Edit: If people chose to not vote (or engage in other political actions) the question should be "do we need this part of the government" not "how do we get more people to vote in this part of the government"
The government doesn't ask for your consent, it assumes it, and the only method by which you can directly withhold consent is to refuse to participate in their political process. Low voter turnout is an indicator of an illegitimate government, which no longer has the consent of the people to continue governing them (At least in a democracy).
*Edit: If people chose to not vote (or engage in other political actions) the question should be "do we need this part of the government" not "how do we get more people to vote in this part of the government"
>Democracy draws its power from the "consent of the governed"
OK. I believe I'm arguing for consent.
>not from the complacency of the subjects
That's a red-herring. It has nothing to do with anything.
>and if the people chose to not engage in the process, the government has no legitimate claim by which it can act on the people's behalf.
If they choose to not engage because they don't trust the system .. then sure, that's a problem. If they choose to not engage because they are fine with any outcome - I don't see the problem.
> Low voter turnout is an indicator of an illegitimate government
You can't just say things. Sometimes that may be the case. And sometimes it may not. Typically in western nations, low voter turnout stems from a comfortable, prosperous life.
>If people chose to not vote (or engage in other political actions) the question should be "do we need this part of the government" not "how do we get more people to vote in this part of the government"
Sure. And I'm not against either.
OK. I believe I'm arguing for consent.
>not from the complacency of the subjects
That's a red-herring. It has nothing to do with anything.
>and if the people chose to not engage in the process, the government has no legitimate claim by which it can act on the people's behalf.
If they choose to not engage because they don't trust the system .. then sure, that's a problem. If they choose to not engage because they are fine with any outcome - I don't see the problem.
> Low voter turnout is an indicator of an illegitimate government
You can't just say things. Sometimes that may be the case. And sometimes it may not. Typically in western nations, low voter turnout stems from a comfortable, prosperous life.
>If people chose to not vote (or engage in other political actions) the question should be "do we need this part of the government" not "how do we get more people to vote in this part of the government"
Sure. And I'm not against either.
I still don't get what this has to do with smart phones. The article says you log in through a web based portal. They made a mention of phone apps though. I don't understand why voting would only be accessible by phone and not a normal computer.
This is idiotic beyond belief. Unless you have a verifiable, re-countable paper trail, elections can be made to go whichever way the person running the elections wants them to go. It's as simple as that.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. I vote in WA and most people on the ballot seem profoundly unqualified for the positions they're running for. For me it basically boils down to picking the person with the most robust education credentials, unless they're a commie, in which case I pick the next best thing. It's pretty bad. If I were hiring for myself, I wouldn't hire most of these people.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. I vote in WA and most people on the ballot seem profoundly unqualified for the positions they're running for. For me it basically boils down to picking the person with the most robust education credentials, unless they're a commie, in which case I pick the next best thing. It's pretty bad. If I were hiring for myself, I wouldn't hire most of these people.
It sounded like a really silly verification system. Matching finger signatures on a smartphone with previous records?
Perhaps the voters should get a set of one-time codes along with a PIN from the voting office, and use that to validate their vote.
Perhaps the voters should get a set of one-time codes along with a PIN from the voting office, and use that to validate their vote.
Yeah the PIN would have been a smart choice. They already have mail-in ballots which means they could just as easily be given a PIN on the ballot they already receive.
Me and 10,000 of my bots would like to participate in this election.
I'm pretty sure there is a competing botnet that would be happy to override votes of your botnet. If online votes are counted only once, then what matters is which botnet is faster and has a better link to the voting servers. High Frequency Voting, in other words.
Haha, you’re right! So, as always, it boils down to an arms race between the two sides. So keep an eye on who's leasing office space near the voting server data centers.
Vote is the new app that makes voting easy. No more paper booklets full of legal mumbo jumbo. Just press the Vote button and Vote does the rest, done and done.
Vote automates your votes by choosing the best candidates for you using SocialAI technology.
Vote automates your votes by choosing the best candidates for you using SocialAI technology.
I guess you're being satirical, and maybe not everyone appreciates that, but you raise an interesting idea. Could AI (or rather, some simplistic machine learning algorithms) help to inform voters about which candidates share the same values as them, or what position on a ballot proposition they should take to be consistent with other views they have expressed?
Of course, that might end up putting a lot of power into the hands of the people making the algorithms, but if the training data and source code were transparent, and the output of the algorithm included a human-readable explanation for its recommendation, then it might actually be a better system than people voting the way they are told to by the only newspaper or TV station that they read/watch. (People should still then go to a ballot box and cast their vote on paper, though).
Here is a TED talk which introduces this idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyGWML6cI_k
Of course, that might end up putting a lot of power into the hands of the people making the algorithms, but if the training data and source code were transparent, and the output of the algorithm included a human-readable explanation for its recommendation, then it might actually be a better system than people voting the way they are told to by the only newspaper or TV station that they read/watch. (People should still then go to a ballot box and cast their vote on paper, though).
Here is a TED talk which introduces this idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyGWML6cI_k
That sounds super scary to me. I mean where do you get the information that informs expressions you might make on the internet? Is it those same newspapers and TV stations? Other places where you self-selected to go? If so, whats the difference between going with the source(s) vs going with your expressions?
I'll agree that voting should be on paper. I'm not ready to boil it all down to something like a dating app.
I'll agree that voting should be on paper. I'm not ready to boil it all down to something like a dating app.
If I was an evil dictator trying to win elections, this is exactly how I'd appeal to the clueless majority.
I think that everything except federal elections should be done by smartphone (or mail-in for those who don't have a smartphone).
There is minimal risk that Russia cares about who serves on your local school board.
There is minimal risk that Russia cares about who serves on your local school board.
Beyond the security implications (which are huge and ought to be a deal breaker on their own), this seems to have a huge problem in that it's not private.
Your abusive spouse/boss/dealer could tell you that they want to see you use the app to vote their way, and there's not much to prevent it.
While going to a local precinct is inconvenient, no one knows what you do once you walk in that booth. That's important to avoid coercion.
Your abusive spouse/boss/dealer could tell you that they want to see you use the app to vote their way, and there's not much to prevent it.
While going to a local precinct is inconvenient, no one knows what you do once you walk in that booth. That's important to avoid coercion.
While I'm in total agreement, and think that this is likely a bad idea, doesn't the same problem exist with mail-in voting? An abusive party can hover over your shoulder while filling it out, and then walk you to the mailbox.
Absolutely. IMO this exacerbates the existing problem.
That said, if the app supported changing your vote later on, it could be preferable to the mail-in solution.
That said, if the app supported changing your vote later on, it could be preferable to the mail-in solution.
There's no solving infrequent social problems with technology, only socio-politically. I'm sure it does happen to a few people, but it sounds extremely rare.
At least a mail-in ballot usually has a "receipt," (that serial number thing that's torn off at the top/bottom) although it does little to show or prove a vote was counted, especially with the subjectiveness of interpreting handwritten marks. The bigger problem is electronic voting has no real records making it far easier to manipulate because there's nothing permanent to recount.
I suggest that to solve the receipt issue, privacy, speed of counting and accuracy to the best degree available, it's best to:
0. Make voting day a national holiday.
1. Mail every voter a durable, physical RFID token (signed by a closely-held private key) that has an unique code that is not recorded who it is given to. If they haven't received one before voting in-person, they can receive a random token.
2. The voter is first checked to make sure they haven't yet voted by keeping a database of "has voted"... completely independent of actual votes.
3. The voter either drops-off the RFID in a container in a booth for their vote preference, or they mail it sealed in two envelopes (outer mailing info, inner vote preference).
4. Votes are counted both by weight and by RFID scanning (whole containers of votes are scanned in batch) for redundancy.
5. Voters can check online in real-time if their vote was counted by searching for the RFID code they used.
6. Recounts are a matter of mass-scanning large containers (with appropriate chain-of-custody) of votes.
7. Tokens are reused to reduce waste.
At least a mail-in ballot usually has a "receipt," (that serial number thing that's torn off at the top/bottom) although it does little to show or prove a vote was counted, especially with the subjectiveness of interpreting handwritten marks. The bigger problem is electronic voting has no real records making it far easier to manipulate because there's nothing permanent to recount.
I suggest that to solve the receipt issue, privacy, speed of counting and accuracy to the best degree available, it's best to:
0. Make voting day a national holiday.
1. Mail every voter a durable, physical RFID token (signed by a closely-held private key) that has an unique code that is not recorded who it is given to. If they haven't received one before voting in-person, they can receive a random token.
2. The voter is first checked to make sure they haven't yet voted by keeping a database of "has voted"... completely independent of actual votes.
3. The voter either drops-off the RFID in a container in a booth for their vote preference, or they mail it sealed in two envelopes (outer mailing info, inner vote preference).
4. Votes are counted both by weight and by RFID scanning (whole containers of votes are scanned in batch) for redundancy.
5. Voters can check online in real-time if their vote was counted by searching for the RFID code they used.
6. Recounts are a matter of mass-scanning large containers (with appropriate chain-of-custody) of votes.
7. Tokens are reused to reduce waste.
+1 for election day as a national holiday; I'd even go so far as to make voting mandatory (with support for blank protest ballots, health/circumstance exemptions, etc).
That said, while the RFID system you describe seems achievable (and clearly an improvement over closed-source easily-hackable voting machines), I think it misses an important component of a democratic process: voter trust. Even if the tech is fully auditable, requiring the average voter to trust an elite technological caste does reduce trust, compared to pen and paper, which are auditable by the vast majority of citizens.
Also, the RFID can't be the only mechanism; having a fixed address can be used for authorizing identity (as with mail-in ballots), but is not and should not be a requirement to vote.
At any rate, I agree that technology is no silver bullet; solutions should be sociopolitical first, and technology is merely a tool to that end. I do think there are worthwhile innovations to consider; if anything, I'd like to disrupt polling moreso than voting, which I think has a surprising political influence both during and between election cycles, and yet which we outsource to private media companies with their own biases and incentives. If we could crack the problem of distributed identity that is resistant to Sybil attacks, we could have ongoing/persistent voting, liquid voting, public choice economics, etc, enabling more fluid feedback loops with our representatives (and maybe someday, even "pass-through" representative direct democracy).
That said, while the RFID system you describe seems achievable (and clearly an improvement over closed-source easily-hackable voting machines), I think it misses an important component of a democratic process: voter trust. Even if the tech is fully auditable, requiring the average voter to trust an elite technological caste does reduce trust, compared to pen and paper, which are auditable by the vast majority of citizens.
Also, the RFID can't be the only mechanism; having a fixed address can be used for authorizing identity (as with mail-in ballots), but is not and should not be a requirement to vote.
At any rate, I agree that technology is no silver bullet; solutions should be sociopolitical first, and technology is merely a tool to that end. I do think there are worthwhile innovations to consider; if anything, I'd like to disrupt polling moreso than voting, which I think has a surprising political influence both during and between election cycles, and yet which we outsource to private media companies with their own biases and incentives. If we could crack the problem of distributed identity that is resistant to Sybil attacks, we could have ongoing/persistent voting, liquid voting, public choice economics, etc, enabling more fluid feedback loops with our representatives (and maybe someday, even "pass-through" representative direct democracy).
Seattle has long ago decided that advantages of remote voting outweigh the disadvantages. If your boss doesn't give you time off to go vote you are essentially being coerced not to vote anyway.
The only difference here is whether the post office or a TLS connection are more trustworthy to deliver your vote.
The only difference here is whether the post office or a TLS connection are more trustworthy to deliver your vote.
Not just TLS connection, but the whole stack of voting software vendor, OS vendor, and phone hardware.
Edit ("posting too fast"): For paper votes, no computers need be involved at all - they can be counted and summed by hand.
Edit ("posting too fast"): For paper votes, no computers need be involved at all - they can be counted and summed by hand.
That is already a factor. Even with paper ballots they eventually get entered into a computer for tallying. Which has a whole stack that must be trusted.
Also your phone's keyboard transmits predictive text data re: write in candidates.
Washington already has voting by mail, and the solution to this problem there is that you can vote by mail but also travel to a poll station on election day and that vote overrides your mail ballot. I assume the same would be true here.
I never thought about how you could be coerced into voting a specific way like that and it does seem to be a big problem to me. But is that already possible with mail-in voting?
Voter intimidation at a local or institutional level is absolutely massive but giving people the _choice_ of voting in various ways hopefully negates the bad. I'd love to understand the data and anecdotal stories on this as well if any is available. I suspect that those in such abusive situations don't even get to vote whatsoever because they're physically captive / bound, but that is 100% conjecture on my part. Nobody advocating for this voting technology wants to encourage any form of intimidation and distortion of individuals' wills like you've described.
I think low voting participation is a much more serious issue than coerced votes. If 10% of people more voted, there is no chance in hell you get a 0.1% increase in coerced voting.
How is this different from voting by mail, then? e.g. basically everyone in Oregon votes by mail only.
... more relevant than Oregon: "Washington State votes by mail." [1]
[1] https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/faq_vote_by_mail.aspx
[1] https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/faq_vote_by_mail.aspx
>How is this different from voting by mail, then?
WA also has vote by mail, but this kind of online voting is very different.
To vote by mail, you have to receive the ballot at your address, physically mark your choices, and then mail it back in. The potential for fraud or abuse of this system is fairly limited.
To vote with this WA online voting system, you need to know the name and the date of birth, that's it. Aside from illegality of voting fraud, the potential for abuse is just humongous, all you need is just a dataset of names and DOB.
WA also has vote by mail, but this kind of online voting is very different.
To vote by mail, you have to receive the ballot at your address, physically mark your choices, and then mail it back in. The potential for fraud or abuse of this system is fairly limited.
To vote with this WA online voting system, you need to know the name and the date of birth, that's it. Aside from illegality of voting fraud, the potential for abuse is just humongous, all you need is just a dataset of names and DOB.
Why is this an app? Why not web?
Today I spent quite some time looking for the mobile app created by my town to allow people to anonymously denounce street harassment and catcalling when they see it. Then I found out it's just a website, and they call that "an app" for some reason.
It is web. They might call it an app or something, but it is web. I tried voting yesterday using their website on my laptop, everything was fine.
I don't understand why a bank's website is secure enough to transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I can't cast a single vote online.
Because one can buy you a nice yacht, but the other can buy control over the most powerful military in the world, the stakes are just significantly larger for an election.
The reward provides a sort of ceiling on how much time and money can be spent on trying to break a system. Even if you could get access to a few billion dollars by somehow "hacking" a bank and get away with it, that means that you'd only be spending up to a few billion to do it, and you may spend a few years to plan, but not much more.
But trying to "hack an election"? I would be shocked if there weren't multiple countries spending billions of dollars across literally decades of time trying to find the best way to influence and hack elections in other countries.
Do you really think that ANY software is secure enough to withstand a team of a few thousand of some of the most talented developers money can buy working full time for decades on trying to break it? Because that's the kind of threats that elections face. And if that election happens at all on the internet, the adversaries can be literally anywhere in the world and still attack it.
There are also auxiliary reasons why electronic voting isn't ideal. It removes the ability for the average person to validate the security of their election themselves without a software engineering degree (in a paper election anyone can go watch the locked ballot box all day to ensure there is no tampering, and they can count along with everyone else at the end of the day). It introduces accessibility issues, it adds unnecessary bottlenecks and dependencies (there have been countless stories of there not being enough voting machines or them breaking down causing lines to get multiple hours long and in many cases prevent people from being able to vote before polls close. There's even evidence this has been done on purpose to sway elections by preventing people in some areas from voting as much as people in others), and it's really expensive!
And what are the benefits to electronic voting? slightly faster counting? (you can get results in minutes instead of hours...)
The reward provides a sort of ceiling on how much time and money can be spent on trying to break a system. Even if you could get access to a few billion dollars by somehow "hacking" a bank and get away with it, that means that you'd only be spending up to a few billion to do it, and you may spend a few years to plan, but not much more.
But trying to "hack an election"? I would be shocked if there weren't multiple countries spending billions of dollars across literally decades of time trying to find the best way to influence and hack elections in other countries.
Do you really think that ANY software is secure enough to withstand a team of a few thousand of some of the most talented developers money can buy working full time for decades on trying to break it? Because that's the kind of threats that elections face. And if that election happens at all on the internet, the adversaries can be literally anywhere in the world and still attack it.
There are also auxiliary reasons why electronic voting isn't ideal. It removes the ability for the average person to validate the security of their election themselves without a software engineering degree (in a paper election anyone can go watch the locked ballot box all day to ensure there is no tampering, and they can count along with everyone else at the end of the day). It introduces accessibility issues, it adds unnecessary bottlenecks and dependencies (there have been countless stories of there not being enough voting machines or them breaking down causing lines to get multiple hours long and in many cases prevent people from being able to vote before polls close. There's even evidence this has been done on purpose to sway elections by preventing people in some areas from voting as much as people in others), and it's really expensive!
And what are the benefits to electronic voting? slightly faster counting? (you can get results in minutes instead of hours...)
You have identified many problems that need to be addressed. I hope eventually the security problems will be worked out. It seems to me that online voting is a natural evolution and would certainly be more convenient for voters like myself used to doing everything online.
Because elections have strict secrecy requirements that bank transactions don't. Once you cast your ballot, it can longer be associated with you. So if someone hacks the election equipment to alter the ballots, there is no way for you to find out that your ballot was altered or to reverse the alteration. In contrast, fraudulent bank transactions are routinely discovered and reversed.
Because casting votes online makes it easy to start voting market where you get perks for voting in desired direction.
I could just as easily start a system right now where I'll send you $15 to get a absentee ballot, vote how I want, and take a picture of it with some kind of unique identifier (post it note with your username on it, for example) before mailing it in.
It's possible that a much lower price would even work too, since if you were going to vote my way anyway, you'd do it for free. So I only have to convince the voters on the other side (and hope the electoral college doesn't override my proxy votes).
It's possible that a much lower price would even work too, since if you were going to vote my way anyway, you'd do it for free. So I only have to convince the voters on the other side (and hope the electoral college doesn't override my proxy votes).
That technique leaves quite a lot of evidence around.
Not only do you need every voter you buy the vote from to never speak up about it, but you also need to somehow hide all the mailing of absentee ballots, hide where you mail them back from, and your money needs to be clean and untraceable to yourself. AND all of that needs to happen right around election time.
But hacking an electronic machine can be done by a few people making changes to a warehouse of voting machines by impersonating a janitor 2 years before the election. And that's not hypothetical, 100% of voting machines that have been in the hands of hackers have been exploited to change votes. I myself used to sneak into the room where they kept the voting machines in my high school when I was younger.
"online" voting is even easier to hack. You could attack the users by buying a botnet and have it submit or change the votes on the client machines before they cast them, you could attack the servers via things like evil maid attacks on the server hardware, "normal" exploits on their software to gain access to the systems, even just paying the sysadmin that maintains it a few hundred million dollars to look the other way for a few days.
Not only do you need every voter you buy the vote from to never speak up about it, but you also need to somehow hide all the mailing of absentee ballots, hide where you mail them back from, and your money needs to be clean and untraceable to yourself. AND all of that needs to happen right around election time.
But hacking an electronic machine can be done by a few people making changes to a warehouse of voting machines by impersonating a janitor 2 years before the election. And that's not hypothetical, 100% of voting machines that have been in the hands of hackers have been exploited to change votes. I myself used to sneak into the room where they kept the voting machines in my high school when I was younger.
"online" voting is even easier to hack. You could attack the users by buying a botnet and have it submit or change the votes on the client machines before they cast them, you could attack the servers via things like evil maid attacks on the server hardware, "normal" exploits on their software to gain access to the systems, even just paying the sysadmin that maintains it a few hundred million dollars to look the other way for a few days.
Which is exactly the reason why absentee voting should be an exception. Every single person who takes an absentee ballot purely out of convenience is hurting democracy, even if only very slightly. And it's not just plain out vote buying, there are also various forms of soft, even unintended coercion that encroach on a voter who votes outside of the enforced privacy of a booth. If it was possible to run statistics on this I'm quite sure that there would be statistical evidence of spouses voting more alike when voting at home than when voting alone in the booth.
What you describe is considered election fraud and is illegal in the US.
see 18 U.S. Code § 597: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597
see 18 U.S. Code § 597: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/597
Absentee ballot or any other real-world interaction dramatically increases price per vote and risks.
With electronic vote, both reward and verification can be done in untraceable way. Basically you could sell your credentials for Monero on some Onion site and vote will be done on your behalf. Low risk for both parties and plausable deniability for seller (OMG, I was hacked!!!).
With electronic vote, both reward and verification can be done in untraceable way. Basically you could sell your credentials for Monero on some Onion site and vote will be done on your behalf. Low risk for both parties and plausable deniability for seller (OMG, I was hacked!!!).
I have been playing with that idea, as some kind of activist political stunt but I am pretty sure my country has limitations in place to prevent/forbid the selling of vote.
Try it. They'll defraud you by overriding the vote in person.
Because just outside the voting booth there are actual people watching after your safety and making sure you aren't coming into the booth with a gun on your head or any other kinds of means of coercion. Also, each candidates can make sure the others aren't messing up with the process.
A bank has no way to know in real time if you are being forced to transfer hundred of thousands of dollars or not.
A bank has no way to know in real time if you are being forced to transfer hundred of thousands of dollars or not.
The security and privacy requirements are much tougher with voting. In banking, the people involved know who's doing what. Voting has to be completely private to prevent voter intimidation. Banking can be insured and transactions reversed. Elections can't.
If it's going to make you feel better, your bank's website isn't as secure as you think too; it's not bulletproof.
Why does everyone downvote this comment? Imagine this is master Yoda is asking a naive looking question to make you think.
USA is ruled by laws, not people. The laws can serve as a veil between those who set them and those who follow them. Online voting enables the SkyNet plot: laws are voted for online, but it's AI who casts them.
USA is ruled by laws, not people. The laws can serve as a veil between those who set them and those who follow them. Online voting enables the SkyNet plot: laws are voted for online, but it's AI who casts them.
As a mobile developer I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
As a security guy I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
As a citizen I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
As a Russian hacker I think this is a REALLY great idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
As a different citizen, I'm not too enthused about ballot secrecy. 100% of the security issues with online voting come from the ballot secrecy requirement, so it's hard to get worked up about this.
Um? if ballots aren't secret, then individual voters can be bribed to vote the "right" way or punished for voting the "wrong" way. Ballot secrecy is an absolute requirement.
As long as you're not in 1950s US and vote for a socialist, or vote against the communist party in any eastern European country for much of the 20th century, or against Putin or the CCP, or vote conservative and have aspirations in academia [1], then yes, there is an extremely limited range of times, countries, and opinions, for which non-secret voting wouldn't be absolutely catastrophic.
[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majo... -- "One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”"
[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majo... -- "One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”"
> King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones, says Bryan Finney, the CEO of Democracy Live, the Seattle-based voting company providing the technology.
Oh, really?
> Once voters have completed their ballots, they must verify their submissions and then submit a signature on the touch screen of their device.
Huh?
> Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail. ...
Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before.
All of this digital theater of the absurd in a desperate attempt to engage people in the political process:
> The board of supervisors election in the King Conservation District, for example, in past years has drawn less than 1% of the eligible population to the ballot box.
People don't vote because they don't care. Not because they can't make it to the poling place. They don't care because they don't see anything at stake.
There's no app for that.
Oh, really?
> Once voters have completed their ballots, they must verify their submissions and then submit a signature on the touch screen of their device.
Huh?
> Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail. ...
Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before.
All of this digital theater of the absurd in a desperate attempt to engage people in the political process:
> The board of supervisors election in the King Conservation District, for example, in past years has drawn less than 1% of the eligible population to the ballot box.
People don't vote because they don't care. Not because they can't make it to the poling place. They don't care because they don't see anything at stake.
There's no app for that.
Wholeheartedly disagree-- if casting a ballot was as easy as sending a text instead of receiving and then mailing a letter or going to a polling location, I would predict much higher participation. People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time. Votes only matter as groups!
So obviously you have to make it as braindead simple to vote as we have made everything else. What I do not see the purpose in, is complaining about or nay-saying these attempts. You're never going to convince someone that one vote is worth more than it is, which is what people really mean when they talk about 'engagement', because your vote on its own really just doesn't matter much and people intuitively get that.
Reducing the cost of voting to match the actual value of a single vote is the best move we have IMO.
So obviously you have to make it as braindead simple to vote as we have made everything else. What I do not see the purpose in, is complaining about or nay-saying these attempts. You're never going to convince someone that one vote is worth more than it is, which is what people really mean when they talk about 'engagement', because your vote on its own really just doesn't matter much and people intuitively get that.
Reducing the cost of voting to match the actual value of a single vote is the best move we have IMO.
> People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time.
If someone has that worldview I'm OK with them not voting.
I'm not sure that X% more participation would improve our collective decision making. In essence we'd be diluting the vote of those who care the most with those who think voting by mail is too hard.
If someone has that worldview I'm OK with them not voting.
I'm not sure that X% more participation would improve our collective decision making. In essence we'd be diluting the vote of those who care the most with those who think voting by mail is too hard.
This. The thing about "get out the vote" campaigns is, they're intended to draw out the least-involved, least-informed members of the electorate. Which in my book is a bad thing.
Voting is not the only civic duty - educating yourself on the issues at hand is also part of that civic duty. If someone doesn't want to vote because taking the legally-mandated time off to go to the polls or fill out their mail-in ballot is "too much work," I'm not sure they're living up to their end of the bargain as a citizen.
Exercising your right to vote doesn't mean you value it. Shouldn't we be asking how we can get people to value their vote enough to be engaged?
Irrespective of that, haven't we already witnessed the mass security issues that come with making voting machines digital? Do we really want to subject that flawed scenario to even more flaws by putting it out on the web? Do we never learn?
Voting is not the only civic duty - educating yourself on the issues at hand is also part of that civic duty. If someone doesn't want to vote because taking the legally-mandated time off to go to the polls or fill out their mail-in ballot is "too much work," I'm not sure they're living up to their end of the bargain as a citizen.
Exercising your right to vote doesn't mean you value it. Shouldn't we be asking how we can get people to value their vote enough to be engaged?
Irrespective of that, haven't we already witnessed the mass security issues that come with making voting machines digital? Do we really want to subject that flawed scenario to even more flaws by putting it out on the web? Do we never learn?
Some people believe, if a politician has $X to spend, they're more likely to spend it on things demographics with high turnout rates want than things demographics with low turnout rates want.
So for example, these people see the interests of people of retirement age represented much better than the interests of under-30s. They see this as part of the cause of rising college costs, and rising house prices transferring wealth from the young to the old.
By this model, every non-voter that starts voting is a step towards more even -and hence more just- representation. And if you're in a demographic with a below-average voting rate, the state better serving your needs.
Of course, that's a largely academic argument in the election of the board of supervisors for a conservation district, who probably don't have much influence on matters like house prices.
So for example, these people see the interests of people of retirement age represented much better than the interests of under-30s. They see this as part of the cause of rising college costs, and rising house prices transferring wealth from the young to the old.
By this model, every non-voter that starts voting is a step towards more even -and hence more just- representation. And if you're in a demographic with a below-average voting rate, the state better serving your needs.
Of course, that's a largely academic argument in the election of the board of supervisors for a conservation district, who probably don't have much influence on matters like house prices.
>In essence we'd be diluting the vote of those who care the most with those who think voting by mail is too hard.
I travel a lot. So much so that I am actually flying back to Iowa from the West Coast for 2 days in order to participate in the caucus, and flying out again for work the following day. While I am ok with purchasing a plane ticket to participate, it's understandable that others in my situation, particularly in less important states, would not be ok with incurring that cost. Being able to vote by phone would enable absentee voters who are not always around to participate in their home state's elections.
With that being said I understand I am a fringe case - but those who don't vote because "voting by mail is too hard" are likely a fringe case as well. I'd venture to guess those same people wouldn't vote because "they don't want another app on their phone".
I travel a lot. So much so that I am actually flying back to Iowa from the West Coast for 2 days in order to participate in the caucus, and flying out again for work the following day. While I am ok with purchasing a plane ticket to participate, it's understandable that others in my situation, particularly in less important states, would not be ok with incurring that cost. Being able to vote by phone would enable absentee voters who are not always around to participate in their home state's elections.
With that being said I understand I am a fringe case - but those who don't vote because "voting by mail is too hard" are likely a fringe case as well. I'd venture to guess those same people wouldn't vote because "they don't want another app on their phone".
> If someone has that worldview I'm OK with them not voting.
Then advocate for making it illegal for some people to vote.
Then advocate for making it illegal for some people to vote.
Digital voting is a short term win and a long term catastrophe. Maybe we get better representation for a few cycles but all the voter fraud tactics that exist in regular paper ballot voting will creep into the process and be greatly amplified by the fact it is digital.
Countries with political leaders willing to stoop to the tactics of dictators will have a field day.
Countries with political leaders willing to stoop to the tactics of dictators will have a field day.
Voter turnout is much higher than 1% on the November elections. Sure, reducing the effort of any given vote would help turnout; but also aligning this election with the general election would likely help (it also helps with the cost of elections).
If you making voting online easy, we could easily see >100% participation - and that's the concern.
"Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before."
Why the "while driving" bit? Your argument was solid until you added these 2 words. Now you're saying "If it doesn't work while I'm busy operating a motor vehicle, I'm against it!"
Why the "while driving" bit? Your argument was solid until you added these 2 words. Now you're saying "If it doesn't work while I'm busy operating a motor vehicle, I'm against it!"
It is a common (though illegal) use case, so definitely worth considering as a worst case scenario.
>> Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail. ...
> Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before.
How is "while driving" relevant? I think that even the most ardent proponent of reducing barriers to voting would find it acceptable to make it hard for people to vote while driving.
> Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before.
How is "while driving" relevant? I think that even the most ardent proponent of reducing barriers to voting would find it acceptable to make it hard for people to vote while driving.
Politics is theatre, I don’t think anything ever gets done. It just gives people a forum to complain and they can feel like they’re making a difference.
Although this appears to be something local so there’s a chance it’s not entirely useless.
Although this appears to be something local so there’s a chance it’s not entirely useless.
Absolutely amazing that almost all techies in this thread are against this. Of course there is major security risks, and problems that have to be solved, but it is MASSIVELY outweighed by the fact that mobile voting would mean almost 100% voter turn out overnight if done on a national level. What are we at right now, 60% on average, maybe? Our nation's policies would change immediately with such a massive swing in voter turnout, with adjustments towards forward-thinking, liberal policies.
Actually I'm more concerned about online voting meaning 142.3333% turnout.
Not that I'm scared of some malicious foreign hacker getting paid to break the voting system.
I'm just terrified of the human being getting paid to do the programming in the first place. Never trust them. -(Source: I live inside one of them.)
All this reminds me that I have to remember registering to volunteer at the voting booth for the local French elections in a couple weeks.
You know, those local elections where no one will agree on anything, except the results - who will have been (not that painfully) counted and recounted from good old paper ballots by volonteers who could have spent their Sunday night on hacker news like serious techies.
Not that I'm scared of some malicious foreign hacker getting paid to break the voting system.
I'm just terrified of the human being getting paid to do the programming in the first place. Never trust them. -(Source: I live inside one of them.)
All this reminds me that I have to remember registering to volunteer at the voting booth for the local French elections in a couple weeks.
You know, those local elections where no one will agree on anything, except the results - who will have been (not that painfully) counted and recounted from good old paper ballots by volonteers who could have spent their Sunday night on hacker news like serious techies.
> Of course there is major security risks, and problems that have to be solved, but it is MASSIVELY outweighed by the fact that mobile voting would mean almost 100% voter turn out overnight if done on a national level
Why not just allow everyone to vote online, with no registration? Just type in your full name and select a candidate, no email or password required. It'd guarantee 100% turnout - maybe even >100% turnout, if enough bots join the fun!
The problem with digital voting is that it cannot be made sufficiently secure. It's not a matter of "there are problems we haven't solved yet", but rather "there are problems that we provably cannot solve".
Why not just allow everyone to vote online, with no registration? Just type in your full name and select a candidate, no email or password required. It'd guarantee 100% turnout - maybe even >100% turnout, if enough bots join the fun!
The problem with digital voting is that it cannot be made sufficiently secure. It's not a matter of "there are problems we haven't solved yet", but rather "there are problems that we provably cannot solve".
Sorry, but explain to me how I'm able to submit my taxes securely every year online, or pay for my marketplace insurance securely every month, but voting on our own digital devices is somehow beyond reach of what we can technically fathom?
No one has an interest in impersonating you to pay your bills.
Someone might have an interest in impersonating you to steal your tax refund -- these scams do happen.
Impersonating a bunch of voters is potentially easier when you're just presenting yourself as a computer with an internet connection rather than a flesh-and-blood human body.
Someone might have an interest in impersonating you to steal your tax refund -- these scams do happen.
Impersonating a bunch of voters is potentially easier when you're just presenting yourself as a computer with an internet connection rather than a flesh-and-blood human body.
I'm not seeing how the verification process of making sure someone is "flesh and blood" behind their mobile app would be appreciably different than registering for a passport, for instance. A person would presumably have multiple levels of identification (state id, ssn, birth certificate) that they can send in electronically to register an account, that is then tied to a username/password/device. A "vote" would need a checkout of not only an existing account but also a new, untampered photo of your face with a piece of id, just like a real-life vote would work.
> Sorry, but explain to me how I'm able to submit my taxes securely every year online, or pay for my marketplace insurance securely every month, but voting on our own digital devices is somehow beyond reach of what we can technically fathom?
Because the threat models are completely different.
For starters, if you get your taxes wrong, or if someone fraudulently tries to file on your behalf, it's a reversible process. You can fix it after-the-fact.
Ballots have to be anonymous (secret ballot) and also non-verifiable (to prevent vote-selling). There's no redoing an election later on, or asking a person to confirm their previous vote.
Because the threat models are completely different.
For starters, if you get your taxes wrong, or if someone fraudulently tries to file on your behalf, it's a reversible process. You can fix it after-the-fact.
Ballots have to be anonymous (secret ballot) and also non-verifiable (to prevent vote-selling). There's no redoing an election later on, or asking a person to confirm their previous vote.
Good points, but it just means you have to move the verification process upfront like I lay out in another comment further up this chain.
Bottom line is that we have a literal army of software engineers in this country that are capable of figuring this stuff out if it was a priority to get voting to 100% turnout. We split the atom and landed on the moon, I'm pretty confident we can figure out mobile voting.
Bottom line is that we have a literal army of software engineers in this country that are capable of figuring this stuff out if it was a priority to get voting to 100% turnout. We split the atom and landed on the moon, I'm pretty confident we can figure out mobile voting.
I admire your confidence, but I always feel uneasy when I hear someone use the line: "We landed on the moon, so we can surely do <some other thing, which sounds not much harder to a non-expert>".
Next time you try to use it, consider how much credibility you'd give to this argument: "We had men land on the moon and return safely, so we can surely land men on the sun and return them safely".
Next time you try to use it, consider how much credibility you'd give to this argument: "We had men land on the moon and return safely, so we can surely land men on the sun and return them safely".
I am a software engineer. I just have the confidence in our community to believe we can use our skills to tackle hard problems in the world. My point is that other communities of engineers in the past didn't shy away from solving hard problems just because they were hard.
Simple, single fraudulent tax benefits one person, with everything in the record, and is easy to trace (bank account owned by someone else)
A single fraudulent vote doesn’t benefit anyone, but thousands of them benefit someone greatly, and it’s difficult to trace, as it looks the same as a regular vote.
A single fraudulent vote doesn’t benefit anyone, but thousands of them benefit someone greatly, and it’s difficult to trace, as it looks the same as a regular vote.
If you wrote this with a double intent, you would be a great politician, seriously. By the double intent I mean that on the surface level this clever speech looks good and convincing, but between the lines it delivers the opposite evil message.
The techies are against this because they know the technical side and understand how fragile this seemingly secure system is. This is the equivalent of 737 MAX story: the execs shout how solid the plane is, while engineers cry the opposite. They speak up because they are on the losing side: if this system gets implemented, it won't be them who will control the votes.
The "major security risks" are intentionally there. These are backdoors that allow the right people to control the votes.
We don't need 100% voter turn out. We only need voters who care. There are a lot of people who don't care and have no time or desire to learn about what they vote for. These careless voters are often easily manipulated by media and thus someone who controls the media would love all these people to vote.
The nation policies would indeed change immediately: it would be a rapid erosion of those rights we still have; and if "forward thinking" means repealing 2A, then no thanks, I'd rather use my backwards thinking here.
The techies are against this because they know the technical side and understand how fragile this seemingly secure system is. This is the equivalent of 737 MAX story: the execs shout how solid the plane is, while engineers cry the opposite. They speak up because they are on the losing side: if this system gets implemented, it won't be them who will control the votes.
The "major security risks" are intentionally there. These are backdoors that allow the right people to control the votes.
We don't need 100% voter turn out. We only need voters who care. There are a lot of people who don't care and have no time or desire to learn about what they vote for. These careless voters are often easily manipulated by media and thus someone who controls the media would love all these people to vote.
The nation policies would indeed change immediately: it would be a rapid erosion of those rights we still have; and if "forward thinking" means repealing 2A, then no thanks, I'd rather use my backwards thinking here.
Voting by mobile is extremely problematic and shocking.
1. No paper record.
2. No privacy.
A better way would be to use anonymous physical RFID pebbles that are placed in a container to indicate voting preference. Votes can be both weighed and scanned for counting redundancy very quickly.
Mail-in voting would consist of mailing back the pebble chit in an outside return envelope with an inner vote envelope designating the preference; the outer envelope is removed and mixed with many others before sorting.
Then later, no matter how a vote was cast, it's possible to find how a vote was counted (by the voter searching for the RFID code(s) they used) in real-time because all votes were mass-scanned in RFID containers... that is, there will be a number of large containers that contain all votes for a particular preference in a particular election. Subsequent elections reuse the RFIDs to eliminate waste. No hanging chads, no provisional ballots, no hacked voting machines and no voting by mobile.
1. No paper record.
2. No privacy.
A better way would be to use anonymous physical RFID pebbles that are placed in a container to indicate voting preference. Votes can be both weighed and scanned for counting redundancy very quickly.
Mail-in voting would consist of mailing back the pebble chit in an outside return envelope with an inner vote envelope designating the preference; the outer envelope is removed and mixed with many others before sorting.
Then later, no matter how a vote was cast, it's possible to find how a vote was counted (by the voter searching for the RFID code(s) they used) in real-time because all votes were mass-scanned in RFID containers... that is, there will be a number of large containers that contain all votes for a particular preference in a particular election. Subsequent elections reuse the RFIDs to eliminate waste. No hanging chads, no provisional ballots, no hacked voting machines and no voting by mobile.
Inner envelope would need to block RFID signals or votes could be lost based on preference.
Making a big case about voter turnout not being as great as other countries is a red herring. We have it really, really good in this country. So good that, practically speaking, it doesn't matter who gets elected because things will continue to stay good. I read low voter turnout as an implicit vote of confidence in the system as a whole. You can be sure that if [stuff] was actually hitting the fan then everyone would show up to vote (and try to vote twice) to fix the horrible mess the city/state/country is in (whether in reality or perception).
While I would agree there are definite issues with security, I really don't like the "print out the digital ballots" idea would rather see something block-chain based which is public and easy to audit.
And I think it's unavoidable that some sort of biometric or other proof of identity will be required (take a selfie in order to vote!) before "voting with your phone" become commonly accepted.
While I would agree there are definite issues with security, I really don't like the "print out the digital ballots" idea would rather see something block-chain based which is public and easy to audit.
And I think it's unavoidable that some sort of biometric or other proof of identity will be required (take a selfie in order to vote!) before "voting with your phone" become commonly accepted.
> I read low voter turnout as an implicit vote of confidence in the system as a whole.
Look at a map of voter turnout in Europe, and ask yourself is that REALLY credible.
It's more likely that US low turnout is because, for many voters in many elections, their vote is kinda meaningless. If you live in California or Texas your vote in a presidential election is meaningless, say, and probably also in a senate election. Depending on your district, your vote in a house election is probably also meaningless; most are not competitive.
As a general rule turnout is higher in countries using some form of proportional representation, as individual votes are far more likely to be impactful there (in a PR-STV system, for instance, it is pretty rare that all of a constituency's representatives are effectively decided before the election, whereas that's the case in the majority of US districts).
Other factors; most US states have rather short ballot opening hours compared to other democratic countries (In Ireland, say, we generally have voting from 7am-10pm or so), and the US population is more dispersed than most developed countries, making traveling to a polling station more difficult.
That said, voting by phone is an obviously unacceptable solution, as it destroys the secret ballot.
Look at a map of voter turnout in Europe, and ask yourself is that REALLY credible.
It's more likely that US low turnout is because, for many voters in many elections, their vote is kinda meaningless. If you live in California or Texas your vote in a presidential election is meaningless, say, and probably also in a senate election. Depending on your district, your vote in a house election is probably also meaningless; most are not competitive.
As a general rule turnout is higher in countries using some form of proportional representation, as individual votes are far more likely to be impactful there (in a PR-STV system, for instance, it is pretty rare that all of a constituency's representatives are effectively decided before the election, whereas that's the case in the majority of US districts).
Other factors; most US states have rather short ballot opening hours compared to other democratic countries (In Ireland, say, we generally have voting from 7am-10pm or so), and the US population is more dispersed than most developed countries, making traveling to a polling station more difficult.
That said, voting by phone is an obviously unacceptable solution, as it destroys the secret ballot.
> It's more likely that US low turnout is because, for many voters in many elections, their vote is kinda meaningless. If you live in California or Texas your vote in a presidential election is meaningless, say, and probably also in a senate election.
It's not like votes in state/municipal elections are higher, and in fact they are lower. (Governors' elections are very significant on meat-and-potatoes issues like transportation, etc., and routinely get 45-50% turnout.)
> Depending on your district, your vote in a house election is probably also meaningless; most are not competitive.
But why aren't they competitive? Because most people agree with the status quo. There is no point showing up to reaffirm the status who that you're happy with.
It's not like votes in state/municipal elections are higher, and in fact they are lower. (Governors' elections are very significant on meat-and-potatoes issues like transportation, etc., and routinely get 45-50% turnout.)
> Depending on your district, your vote in a house election is probably also meaningless; most are not competitive.
But why aren't they competitive? Because most people agree with the status quo. There is no point showing up to reaffirm the status who that you're happy with.
> I read low voter turnout as an implicit vote of confidence in the system as a whole.
So, then the folks in Sweden and Denmark are voting because they lack confidence in their government, whereas in Estonia and Latvia, all is fine?
So, then the folks in Sweden and Denmark are voting because they lack confidence in their government, whereas in Estonia and Latvia, all is fine?
I can't comment on confidence in the system working well reducing turnout but I suspect that high confidence in the system being so broken voting won't ever fix it reduces turnout.
Turnout can also be improved by voting on Sundays instead of work days. Yet they skipped that step and went right for electronic voting, that's nearly unanimously opposed by experts.
Even better: 11 day window for voting window, starting on a Friday and ending on a Monday. Two full weekends to vote, no excuses for not being able to make it. Some states already do this with "early voting" which starts up to two weeks before the actual election day.
And if you could pre-print your completed ballot to be scanned (once your identity if verified per local requirements) then the process could be very, very fast and efficient.
And if you could pre-print your completed ballot to be scanned (once your identity if verified per local requirements) then the process could be very, very fast and efficient.
> And if you could pre-print your completed ballot
Your printer will betray you by printing invisible identifying dots on your ballot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
Your printer will betray you by printing invisible identifying dots on your ballot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
How would that betray you? They're supposed to verify that this ballot belongs to you in the first place.
I'm confused - wouldn't that mean the vote isn't secret?
It won't go on record who you voted for, but someone at the office will have to confirm that you voted and enter in the vote. If mail-in ballots were completely anonymous, then someone could just print 10,000 copies and stuff the polls.
I thought we were talking about non-mail-in ballots, that you print at home, but submit personally.
OTOH, the WA Sec. of State opposes mobile/online elections due to security concerns, as does her upcoming political opponent [1] and FWIW the Seattle Times recently wrote an Editorial also opposing the practice. [2]
Bottom line, this hardly constitutes some trend that WA state is moving towards, just something set up by a county office that is otherwise drawing skepticism.
[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/secretary...
[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/resist-push-...