Smart Voting

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

Government sets up a pool of blockchain addresses for each vote, one for every eligible person, you get randomly assigned one when you go to vote, either online or in a booth somewhere.

No record is kept of linking you to it (easy to determine this is in fact true by auditing the software), but you can verify your vote at any stage afterwards, no one else can change it after the fact (the point of blockchain) so your vote is cast in stone forever and only you can tie the address to you.

Discuss!

One issue might be how to keep the result of the vote secret until voting completes though the actual vote itself could be encrypted with the key only being released when voting closes.

Any solution that relies on software auditing is not secure. How do you ensure that the version of software that is audited is the version running on election day?



Do you also audit the operating system? And the database system? And the device driver? Do you audit every possible software component involved in making it happen?


And every three months, when the each of those components gets a new version release, do you go through that auditing again? And again? And again? Or do you stick with the old audited version which now has publicly identified security weaknesses?

Collie D

GreeBo wrote: »

Government sets up a pool of blockchain addresses for each vote, one for every eligible person, you get randomly assigned one when you go to vote, either online or in a booth somewhere.

No record is kept of linking you to it (easy to determine this is in fact true by auditing the software), but you can verify your vote at any stage afterwards, no one else can change it after the fact (the point of blockchain) so your vote is cast in stone forever and only you can tie the address to you.

Discuss!

One issue might be how to keep the result of the vote secret until voting completes though the actual vote itself could be encrypted with the key only being released when voting closes.

Why would you want it set in stone? Verifying your vote would mean a record of it is kept somewhere. If it can't be linked to you how would you be able to check it?

And what would the purpose of keeping a record be? If I remember correctly one of the objections to e-voting machines was what happened to the record. In that case - and correct me if I'm wrong - you didn't need to enter any PIN or code before voting so your vote wouldn't be linked to anything. A log in on a remote app or website would involve this so if people objected to the machines for that reason they'd be more likely to object to a login based system.

GreeBo

Collie D wrote: »

Why would you want it set in stone? Verifying your vote would mean a record of it is kept somewhere. If it can't be linked to you how would you be able to check it?

So that it can never be changed without my knowledge.

It can't be linked to me by anyone else, but I know my address so I can check it at any time.

Collie D wrote: »

And what would the purpose of keeping a record be? If I remember correctly one of the objections to e-voting machines was what happened to the record. In that case - and correct me if I'm wrong - you didn't need to enter any PIN or code before voting so your vote wouldn't be linked to anything. A log in on a remote app or website would involve this so if people objected to the machines for that reason they'd be more likely to object to a login based system.

There is no login, all the votes would be sitting on a blockchain for anyone to see, but there are no details other than the vote, you would have to know someones address to know their vote.

AndrewJRenko

doylefe wrote: »

I don't know that any of this is true. I therefore cannot trust the current system is free from interference.

Your personal ignorance of the system is your personal problem. Hang around your polling station at 10pm and tell the presiding office that you want to witness the sealing up. Get a count centre ticket for the next election and you can see it all happening in public, in front of hundreds of people, most of whom have very direct vested interests in ensuring that all of their votes are counted correctly.


Now compare that to some bits and bytes flying round, and tell me which is more transparent to more people?

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

So that it can never be changed without my knowledge.

It can't be linked to me by anyone else, but I know my address so I can check it at any time.

So I can definitely pay you €50 to vote for me, and you can check it in my presence afterwards and show me your vote.

Collie D

GreeBo wrote: »

So that it can never be changed without my knowledge.

It can't be linked to me by anyone else, but I know my address so I can check it at any time.



There is no login, all the votes would be sitting on a blockchain for anyone to see, but there are no details other than the vote, you would have to know someones address to know their vote.

But would it be impossible for someone to get that address? And how long would the record exist for?

bloodless_coup

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Your personal ignorance of the system is your personal problem. Hang around your polling station at 10pm and tell the presiding office that you want to witness the sealing up. Get a count centre ticket for the next election and you can see it all happening in public, in front of hundreds of people, most of whom have very direct vested interests in ensuring that all of their votes are counted correctly.


Now compare that to some bits and bytes flying round, and tell me which is more transparent to more people?

The Russians developed a system of opening seals, changing drug samples and re-sealing the original seals. How are we sure this is not happening here?

Coillte_Bhoy

doylefe wrote: »

I don't know that any of this is true. I therefore cannot trust the current system is free from interference.

****ing hell, it's been explained to you. Are you pure thick or just **** stirring? Sit back a moment and actually think how many people would need to be involved to fiddle even one ballot box

AndrewJRenko

cython wrote: »

The RFA form is not intended for use as a change of address, or at least it is not fit for purpose, as it does not remove people from the register at their old address, especially if they have moved constituency. In fact I'd posit that people relying on this is part of why there are so many duplicated distributions of polling cards. There is a correction to the register form that can change your address if you are already on the draft register that is only in use for the 3 weeks in November.

It's the form used to get onto the draft register;


From http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-your-council/register-vote

Registering for Inclusion in the Draft Register of Electors
The Draft Register of Electors is published on the 1st November each year and is available for inspection in Libraries, Post Offices and Garda Stations. Any individual entered in the Draft Register will automatically be entered in the Register of Electors published the following February. To be included in the Draft Register, please check the conditions listed below and if you are eligible, then complete a RFA voter registration form and return it to the Franchise Section, Dublin City Council, Block 4, Floor 4, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8, before 25th November.

I wouldn't disagree with your views on the weakness relating to removing people from their old address, but the fact remains, it is the current form to get onto the register, and it doesn't require Garda verification.

RFOLEY1990

Rubberchikken wrote: »

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

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

No more insecure than going with a voting. Ten years of voting I've been asked to show id about three times

Coillte_Bhoy

doylefe wrote: »

The Russians developed a system of opening seals, changing drug samples and re-sealing the original seals. How are we sure this is not happening here?

Were there reps from all the political parties involved? Police etc overseeing every step of the process?

bloodless_coup

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

****ing hell, it's been explained to you. Are you pure thick or just **** stirring? Sit back a moment and actually think how many people would need to be involved to fiddle even one ballot box

I'm being obtuse, similar to how others are being obtuse in relation to using technology as a solution.

Capt'n Midnight

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ballot boxes are sealed in public view in the polling station, stored under Garda supervision overnight, and opened in public view in the count centre. It is pretty foolproof, and Ireland has an excellent record of electoral integrity.

The Ballot boxes are transparent so a stack of votes would be spotted, so stuffing them would be a logistical problem.

And there's the tallymen from different political parties watching over everything like hawks. So similar pattern or writing might be picked up. On an evoting system all of this evidence would be invisible.

The previous eVoting solution we bought actually required MORE manpower to operate than the manpower required for the counts. Each machine required a dedicated operator to enable voting for each voter. So it didn't save manpower at all.

Not to mention the €51m in hardware costs. And another €3.2m is storage costs. In the end they were sold off for just €70,000.

I like to watch politicians squirm on count day.

kneemos

RFOLEY1990 wrote: »

No more insecure than going with a voting. Ten years of voting I've been asked to show id about three times

Think they have a quota of twenty or something at each station.
To be asked at all is extremely unlikely.

cython

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's the form used to get onto the draft register;


From http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-your-council/register-vote



I wouldn't disagree with your views on the weakness relating to removing people from their old address, but the fact remains, it is the current form to get onto the register, and it doesn't require Garda verification.

And I would contend that if you have changed your address, you are not looking to get on the register, rather you are looking to correct it. Citizens Information says the below (my emphasis):

Correcting your details in the draft Register
If you need to add your name or change your entry in the draft Register, you can do this up to 25 November each year. You must fill in form RFA1 for the draft Register and send it to your local authority. This form is available to download at that time at checktheregister.ie. You can also get it from any post office, public library or local authority.

If you are applying because you have moved to a new address, you should include this information and your former address so that you can be removed from the register for that area.

The amended Register of Electors is published on 1 February each year and comes into force on 15 February.

In turn the RFA1 form says

The purpose of this form is to facilitate anyone wishing to make a ‘claim’ (ie a proposal) to have a correction made in the Draft Register. The form is for use in the period 1 November to 25 November each year, following the publication on 1 November of the Draft Register for the register coming into force on the following 15 February.

So by rights you should use RFA1, which is valid for slightly over 3 weeks each year, and outside of that you need Garda verification. Anyone relying on the bog standard RFA form is part of the problem, and considering it could be months (indeed over a year if they submit it after November!) before it gets them on the register with the correct address, it's a terrible way to go about it.

Collie D

kneemos wrote: »

Think they have a quota of twenty or something at each station.
To be asked at all is extremely unlikely.

Really? I've missed maybe two votes in 20 years due to being out of the country and I'm always asked for ID. Not sure if that means you're wrong or I have one of those faces.

AndrewJRenko

doylefe wrote: »

I'm being obtuse, similar to how others are being obtuse in relation to using technology as a solution.

Others aren't being obtuse. Others are pointing out the specific strenghts of the current system that you don't know about, and the specific weaknesses of your proposals that you haven't considered.


On the broader issue, do you really think that a boards poster is going to come up with a Sunday night solution that armies of academics and industry experts have wrestled with for 30 or 40 years?

RFOLEY1990 wrote: »

No more insecure than going with a voting. Ten years of voting I've been asked to show id about three times

It's a separate issue, not directly relevant to the question of online voting security.

kneemos wrote: »

Think they have a quota of twenty or something at each station.
To be asked at all is extremely unlikely.

I heard the Dublin Returning Officer say their quota was one in five people to be asked for ID.

cython

kneemos wrote: »

Think they have a quota of twenty or something at each station.
To be asked at all is extremely unlikely.

When I clerked a number of years ago it was something like you needed to be able to say you had IDed or could recognise something like 1 in 5 or 10 people. This was in a small town (circa 10k people), and I actually used to live in the neighbourhood that the station covered, so realistically much fewer than 1 in 5 people were IDed, but we were probably certain of > 3/5 people's identities.

bloodless_coup

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Others aren't being obtuse. Others are pointing out the specific strenghts of the current system that you don't know about, and the specific weaknesses of your proposals that you haven't considered.

I've considered all aspects of my proposal and I'm comfortable with the robustness across the board.

Gbear

How about don't link the voting machines to a network and count votes through removing the hard drives and plugging them into a central machine at the location where the counting is done. You'd have to break into wherever they're stored, sneak some code into the program that wouldn't be caught in testing or brazenly attempt to interfere with the machine on site on the day to hack them then.

In fact, the code could probably be really really simple then, making it hopefully less buggy and more difficult to disrupt, as well as not being absurdly expensive, but, of course, government cannot do things like this without somehow pissing loads of money away.

For auditing, have a random code on your eballot that you can keep, and then release a randomised sample of votes online for people to compare to their votes - ie you can't sell it because only, say, 10% of votes will actually be revealed.

Also, buying and selling votes is not something we should worry about IMO. There's lots of **** motivations that go into voting. I don't believe it will be significant enough a problem, even if it were feasible, or that it would unbalance the vote one way or the other.
Politicians already have legitimate means to buy votes. I'm not sure it would be cost-effective to actually pay people to vote one way or another in sufficient volume to skew elections, although that might depend on the vote (Dail votes would be more sensitive than, say, referenda)

Another thing would be doing both paper and evoting. Use the digital count to cross reference and ensure accuracy and also give a near instantaneous result, while the paper is counted to ensure legitimacy.
Even if evoting was to be implemented, I would imagine it would be best to have a transition period with both to give several elections to find out any possible systematic failures anyway.

Another option is that evoting might be a good tool but for a different job. You could have a Dail app that allows the government to get a broad picture of opinions in relation to policy decisions, through regular plebiscites, but not necessarily be bound by them. It would give a more fluid and up to date mandate to the government.

AndrewJRenko

doylefe wrote: »

I've considered all aspects of my proposal and I'm comfortable with the robustness across the board.

Well done you. Now if you'd like to move on, and start getting the rest of the country comfortable with your proposal, you might just succeed.


You should probably start with one of the large political parties. Or maybe with the Franchise Unit in Dept Housing. Or maybe with the academics in the various Departments of Politics. See how you get on with any of those and report back please.

Collie D

Gbear wrote: »

Even if evoting was to be implemented, I would imagine it would be best to have a transition period with both to give several elections to find out any possible systematic failures anyway.

While I agree that we can always learn from mistakes and try improve a process how would you decide which votes are "unimportant" enough to be used as trial runs?

I suspect a lot of people didn't care too much about the blasphemy referendum but doesn't it devalue it even further if we say we're using it as a test for bigger elections or referenda?

The whole point of the OP suggesting remote voting was to increase turnout. I think telling the electorate that "This one is just to check for bugs" would increase apathy

Atoms for Peace

Technological utupionism is a rather mean spirited spin off of neoliberalism.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249004663_The_Californian_Ideology/download

Gbear

Collie D wrote: »

While I agree that we can always learn from mistakes and try improve a process how would you decide which votes are "unimportant" enough to be used as trial runs?

I suspect a lot of people didn't care too much about the blasphemy referendum but doesn't it devalue it even further if we say we're using it as a test for bigger elections or referenda?

The whole point of the OP suggesting remote voting was to increase turnout. I think telling the electorate that "This one is just to check for bugs" would increase apathy

No, I'm saying you would do both paper and evoting. It wouldn't be any less secure or more frivolous.

You'd do something like get a printout with an identifier to link it to your evote on the database, and then slip it in the ballot box.

It would be important to build trust in the system and find issues with the process.

GreeBo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Ballot boxes are transparent so a stack of votes would be spotted, so stuffing them would be a logistical problem.

And there's the tallymen from different political parties watching over everything like hawks. So similar pattern or writing might be picked up. On an evoting system all of this evidence would be invisible.

Similar pattern of an X in a box?
In a number of jurisdictions it wouldn't take more than a box or two to heavily influence the vote, dail seats for example.

And you dont need to get hundreds of people in on it, just a small number at the right time, once the box has been switched for you box, everyone else down the chain will just take it as gospel that its valid.

Sure you see the boxes being tipped open onto tables in front of counters, I dont believe for a minute that someone is keeping track of what ballots came from what boxes.

Not to mention the €51m in hardware costs. And another €3.2m is storage costs. In the end they were sold off for just €70,000.

I like to watch politicians squirm on count day.

Just because something was implemented poorly the first time doesnt mean you stop doing it.
FWIW I wouldnt have machines at all, it kinda defeats the point for me, if I still *have* to go somewhere to vote.

Collie D wrote: »

But would it be impossible for someone to get that address? And how long would the record exist for?

The only way they would get it would be if you gave it to them.
Poor analogy, but think of it as a car park full of cars. You know which one is yours but nobody else does.

Coillte_Bhoy

Im not comfortable with the idea that we should maximise voter turnout. if you cant't inform yourself and be arsed to make the effort to go to your local polling booth, well then........

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

And you dont need to get hundreds of people in on it, just a small number at the right time, once the box has been switched for you box, everyone else down the chain will just take it as gospel that its valid.

So when are you going to switch the box? And how will your prepared votes know what punch pattern (the unique pattern of holes punched in each ballot paper as it is handed to you) is going to be used for the boxes that you're going to switch?

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure you see the boxes being tipped open onto tables in front of counters, I dont believe for a minute that someone is keeping track of what ballots came from what boxes.

Each box is counted separately. Is there any chance that you could get a basic understanding of how the current system works before you posit yourself as an expert with a great new solution?

Coillte_Bhoy

GreeBo wrote: »

Similar pattern of an X in a box?
In a number of jurisdictions it wouldn't take more than a box or two to heavily influence the vote, dail seats for example.

And you dont need to get hundreds of people in on it, just a small number at the right time, once the box has been switched for you box, everyone else down the chain will just take it as gospel that its valid.

Sure you see the boxes being tipped open onto tables in front of counters, I dont believe for a minute that someone is keeping track of what ballots came from what boxes.


Just because something was implemented poorly the first time doesnt mean you stop doing it.
FWIW I wouldnt have machines at all, it kinda defeats the point for me, if I still *have* to go somewhere to vote.



The only way they would get it would be if you gave it to them.
Poor analogy, but think of it as a car park full of cars. You know which one is yours but nobody else does.

Never heard of tallymen no? Honestly, stop making a tit of yourself

AndrewJRenko

Gbear wrote: »

Also, buying and selling votes is not something we should worry about IMO. There's lots of **** motivations that go into voting. I don't believe it will be significant enough a problem, even if it were feasible, or that it would unbalance the vote one way or the other.
Politicians already have legitimate means to buy votes. I'm not sure it would be cost-effective to actually pay people to vote one way or another in sufficient volume to skew elections, although that might depend on the vote (Dail votes would be more sensitive than, say, referenda)

That's really not a sound basis for any electoral system. There are decades of experiences that contradict you.

Capt'n Midnight

GreeBo wrote: »

Government sets up a pool of blockchain addresses for each vote, one for every eligible person, you get randomly assigned one when you go to vote, either online or in a booth somewhere.

No record is kept of linking you to it (easy to determine this is in fact true by auditing the software), but you can verify your vote at any stage afterwards, no one else can change it after the fact (the point of blockchain) so your vote is cast in stone forever and only you can tie the address to you.

Discuss!

One issue might be how to keep the result of the vote secret until voting completes though the actual vote itself could be encrypted with the key only being released when voting closes.

Disgusted.

If you can verify your vote you can sell it or be forced to vote a certain way.
That's why we have SECRET ballots.

Also how do you keep the count secret while it's ongoing ?

Software audit ?

Wasn't it Diebold who were using files with a 16 bit checksum ?
(This means an attacker would have to generate up to 65,000 fake results to bet the checksum. Most people carry smartphones with multiple cores running at gigahertz speeds so this is trivial. )

The Dutch machines all had the same lock, anyone could order a replacement key. Other lock of physical security was ROMS that could be popped out and replaced. Memory sticks have been used too.

In short the WHOLE INDUSTRY has displayed a complete lack of understanding and or willingness to use any level of real world security.


For credit card readers there are even layers in the silicon to prevent physical tampering and reverse engineering. Not that people didn't figure out how to bypass it. Evoting machines just don't have the volume for dedicated chips.

GreeBo

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Im not comfortable with the idea that we should maximise voter turnout. if you cant't inform yourself and be arsed to make the effort to go to your local polling booth, well then........

So its democracy you are really against, not e-voting?

prinzeugen

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Im not comfortable with the idea that we should maximise voter turnout. if you cant't inform yourself and be arsed to make the effort to go to your local polling booth, well then........

Exactly. The system is not the problem its the people.

Unfortunately "smart" technology keeps getting mentioned as a solution to all the lazy fecks problems nowadays.

Smart this, smart that. What next? Getting AI to decide your vote based on your browsing habits? You would not even have to think about it!

GreeBo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Disgusted.

If you can verify your vote you can sell it or be forced to vote a certain way.
That's why we have SECRET ballots.

its no harder to force someone now.
I dont have to tell anyone my actual address, I can just pick one that matches what they told me to vote and they will be none the wiser.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also how do you keep the count secret while it's ongoing ?

I literally answered that in my post...did you not read to the end?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Software audit ?

Yes.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wasn't it Diebold who were using files with a 16 bit checksum ?
(This means an attacker would have to generate up to 65,000 fake results to bet the checksum. Most people carry smartphones with multiple cores running at gigahertz speeds so this is trivial. )

The Dutch machines all had the same lock, anyone could order a replacement key. Other lock of physical security was ROMS that could be popped out and replaced. Memory sticks have been used too.

Again, just because someone else mad a bags of something doesnt mean you halt progress.

I'm not sure what "machines" you are referring to, I'm not in favour of machines, Im in favour of voting electronically via the blockchain.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In short the WHOLE INDUSTRY has displayed a complete lack of understanding and or willingness to use any level of real world security.

Can you point out what aspect of my solution is lacking in security, assuming you can swallow your outrage for 5 minutes to actually read and reply to my post.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

For credit card readers there are even layers in the silicon to prevent physical tampering and reverse engineering. Not that people didn't figure out how to bypass it. Evoting machines just don't have the volume for dedicated chips.

Again with the machines...go re-read my post and come back to me.
Btw this is an excellent example of why having humans involved is a bad idea.
They are prone to emotional outbursts and are flakey at the best of times, they are imperfect and over complicated.

Code is just just, it does what it does, no more no less. The simpler it is the better.

Coillte_Bhoy

GreeBo wrote: »

So its democracy you are really against, not e-voting?

Right, you really got my point there :rolleyes: I'd rather voting was confined to people who are at least informed about the issues of the day. So to that end i think the present system is fine. If the uninformed brain dead masses want to have their say let them go along to their local polling stations and at least make the effort. Am i being snobby? Absolutely.

prinzeugen

GreeBo wrote: »

Btw this is an excellent example of why having humans involved is a bad idea.
They are prone to emotional outbursts and are flakey at the best of times, they are imperfect and over complicated.

Code is just just, it does what it does, no more no less. The simpler it is the better.

So just use AI. "The computer elects Mr xxxx based on the browsing habits of the people of Dublin".

Thats why smart technology exists. Its not to make tasks easier. Its to aid lazy people (the younger generation in particular) complete basic tasks because they have never been shown, or can't be arsed.

AndrewJRenko

GreeBo wrote: »

its no harder to force someone now.

There is no way to force someone to vote in the current system. That's why we have individual polling booths.

Gbear

Gbear wrote: »

How about don't link the voting machines to a network and count votes through removing the hard drives and plugging them into a central machine at the location where the counting is done. You'd have to break into wherever they're stored, sneak some code into the program that wouldn't be caught in testing or brazenly attempt to interfere with the machine on site on the day to hack them then.

In fact, the code could probably be really really simple then, making it hopefully less buggy and more difficult to disrupt, as well as not being absurdly expensive, but, of course, government cannot do things like this without somehow pissing loads of money away.

For auditing, have a random code on your eballot that you can keep, and then release a randomised sample of votes online for people to compare to their votes - ie you can't sell it because only, say, 10% of votes will actually be revealed.

Also, buying and selling votes is not something we should worry about IMO. There's lots of **** motivations that go into voting. I don't believe it will be significant enough a problem, even if it were feasible, or that it would unbalance the vote one way or the other.
Politicians already have legitimate means to buy votes. I'm not sure it would be cost-effective to actually pay people to vote one way or another in sufficient volume to skew elections, although that might depend on the vote (Dail votes would be more sensitive than, say, referenda)

Another thing would be doing both paper and evoting. Use the digital count to cross reference and ensure accuracy and also give a near instantaneous result, while the paper is counted to ensure legitimacy.
Even if evoting was to be implemented, I would imagine it would be best to have a transition period with both to give several elections to find out any possible systematic failures anyway.

Another option is that evoting might be a good tool but for a different job. You could have a Dail app that allows the government to get a broad picture of opinions in relation to policy decisions, through regular plebiscites, but not necessarily be bound by them. It would give a more fluid and up to date mandate to the government.

Or we could just not do all of that.

vectorvictor

Gbear wrote: »

How about don't link the voting machines to a network and count votes through removing the hard drives and plugging them into a central machine at the location where the counting is done. You'd have to break into wherever they're stored, sneak some code into the program that wouldn't be caught in testing or brazenly attempt to interfere with the machine on site on the day to hack them then.

In fact, the code could probably be really really simple then, making it hopefully less buggy and more difficult to disrupt, as well as not being absurdly expensive, but, of course, government cannot do things like this without somehow pissing loads of money away.

For auditing, have a random code on your eballot that you can keep, and then release a randomised sample of votes online for people to compare to their votes - ie you can't sell it because only, say, 10% of votes will actually be revealed.

Also, buying and selling votes is not something we should worry about IMO. There's lots of **** motivations that go into voting. I don't believe it will be significant enough a problem, even if it were feasible, or that it would unbalance the vote one way or the other.
Politicians already have legitimate means to buy votes. I'm not sure it would be cost-effective to actually pay people to vote one way or another in sufficient volume to skew elections, although that might depend on the vote (Dail votes would be more sensitive than, say, referenda)

Another thing would be doing both paper and evoting. Use the digital count to cross reference and ensure accuracy and also give a near instantaneous result, while the paper is counted to ensure legitimacy.
Even if evoting was to be implemented, I would imagine it would be best to have a transition period with both to give several elections to find out any possible systematic failures anyway.

Another option is that evoting might be a good tool but for a different job. You could have a Dail app that allows the government to get a broad picture of opinions in relation to policy decisions, through regular plebiscites, but not necessarily be bound by them. It would give a more fluid and up to date mandate to the government.

Have you considered upgrading your Sky package?

Collie D

prinzeugen wrote: »

So just use AI. "The computer elects Mr xxxx based on the browsing habits of the people of Dublin".

If it was based on browsing habits I think Mr xxxx would be trounced by Mistress Triple X

SimonTemplar

wizardman wrote: »

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

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

Thoughts?

The problem with the low presidential downout was due to apathy and not the ease of voting. When people are interested, there is a decent townout as shown by the recent referendums.

the_syco

kneemos wrote: »

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

eBay was hacked at least once, Amazon accounts get hacked randomly, and the US voting machines weren't that much better. Russia hacked Ukraine's electronic voting machines and it's power network.

In short, if it's connected to the internet, or if someone decides to stuck a dongle into the air-gapped computer so that they could browse the internet, the system can get compromised.

Oh, and the Irish government usually go for the cheapest of the cheap, and end up with crap.

GreeBo

the_syco wrote: »

eBay was hacked at least once, Amazon accounts get hacked randomly, and the US voting machines weren't that much better. Russia hacked Ukraine's electronic voting machines and it's power network.

In short, if it's connected to the internet, or if someone decides to stuck a dongle into the air-gapped computer so that they could browse the internet, the system can get compromised.

Oh, and the Irish government usually go for the cheapest of the cheap, and end up with crap.

Thats why you dont have "a system".

GreeBo

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Right, you really got my point there :rolleyes: I'd rather voting was confined to people who are at least informed about the issues of the day. So to that end i think the present system is fine. If the uninformed brain dead masses want to have their say let them go along to their local polling stations and at least make the effort. Am i being snobby? Absolutely.

So why not have one voting booth on the top of a mountain somewhere so only the *really* informed people can vote.

BTW, being informed or otherwise doesn't mean you did/did not vote.
I think you are conflating two different things there.

If someone couldnt be arsed voting they are unlikely to suddenly start just because its easier.

However those that wanted to vote but couldnt would now be able to....yunno, exactly the people you said you wanted to vote.

AndrewJRenko

SimonTemplar wrote: »

The problem with the low presidential downout was due to apathy and not the ease of voting. When people are interested, there is a decent townout as shown by the recent referendums.

This ^^^^^^


The knee-jerk reaction to turnout concerns is 'let's build a new system'.


The better solution would be to look at why people are disengaging from politics, why people are losing trust in politicians - fix those issues.

xckjoo

The registration system needs an overhaul but the voting itself is fine. They should probably check ID more but the voting itself is clear and straightforward. Anybody remember all the hanging Chad and similar nonsense from George W Bush's election? Attempting to do a complete overhaul on a complex system like that is a recipe for disaster.

Capt'n Midnight

doylefe wrote: »

I don't know that any of this is true. I therefore cannot trust the current system is free from interference.

In which case you certainly cannot trust evoting because EVERYTHING is hidden from view.

endacl

How about just opening up hundreds of convenient locations all around the country. Keep them open for 14-16 hours on an appointed day.

All people would have to do is stick a mark on a piece of paper using a pencil. We could even supply the piece of paper and pencil, so voters wouldn't really have to go to any more trouble than turning up. Shouldn't take more than a minute to vote.

Jack Moore

Ok
Loads of people signed up for home to vote
They are now on the register
They live in far away
The acually number of voters is down only 300k
Considering that it’s a race between an idiot and a fool I’m surprised soo many turned up

prinzeugen

endacl wrote: »

How about just opening up hundreds of convenient locations all around the country. Keep them open for 14-16 hours on an appointed day.

All people would have to do is stick a mark on a piece of paper using a pencil. We could even supply the piece of paper and pencil, so voters wouldn't really have to go to any more trouble than turning up. Shouldn't take more than a minute to vote.

Yes! And we could advertise the election day months in advance so people could get to these stations.

And we could send a card to the person with all the details on.

No need to scan pics on phones. No need to register online multiple times, no need to have an internet connection. No need for a national ID card.


Simple plans are always the best! Regardless of how old fashioned a bit paper and pencil sounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13lVvAANQss

AndrewJRenko

vectorvictor wrote: »

Tokenisation my friend. Your rethoric doesn't pay attention to what is technologically possible.

Please advise how tokenisation would protect against vote selling and duress voting