An Anonymous, Verifiable E-Voting Tech 236
Kilrah_il writes "After the recent news items about the obstacles facing E-voting systems, many of us feel it is not yet time for this technology. A recent TED talk by David Bismark unveiled a proposal for a new E-voting technology that is both anonymous and verifiable. I am not a cryptography expert, but it does seem interesting and possibly doable."
how much does it cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
and how much better is it than marking a circle with a pen and having someone scan the ballot into a machine? most of the issues with e-voting have been that people are too dumb to see what they are doing
Re:how much does it cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, E-voting is the classic solution in search of a problem.
Re:how much does it cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem: Politicians who desire the ability to freely pillage and back-stab the population have to worry about winning elections.
Solution: E-voting.
Re:how much does it cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
and how much better is it than marking a circle with a pen and having someone scan the ballot into a machine?
In an ideal system, anybody should be able to independantly verify the following (which currently can't be done in a simple paper based ballot)
Unfortunately I can't RTFA to see how many of these ideals the proposed system achieves, as it seems to be a video rather than a text based article.
Re:Root problem (Score:5, Insightful)
another requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
You must NOT be able to prove your vote was counted correctly for a specific candidate. That leads to bribes/threats (i.e. your boss can ask to see the proof. if you want to assume that's illegal, think of all the other people who may "ask" to see it or offer something if you volunteer)
There are ways to do this and meet your requirements, but there is more to it than the 3 you listed.
Re:how much does it cost? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:how much does it cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how much does it cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem: Election workers don't feel like counting paper ballots by hand or feeding them one at a time through a scanner.
Solution: E-voting. I'll just print off an Excel report.
FTFY
The people who write and distribute RFPs for electronic voting systems are generally not interested in the outcome of the election, they are just a worker drone trying to utilize technology to make their job a bit more glamorous than counting papers.
Re:Poor backwards Indiana (Score:2, Insightful)
that sounds pretty good, but i think this crypto-thing would be better. people are working hard on the crypt to solve real problems [blackboxvoting.org]
what you describe is pretty good, as it tries to fix problems with throwing the paper votes, but this improves on that a bit.
it's features include
* at the end i can check that my vote is in the published database of votes, which newspapers, etc can verify is added right.
* I cannot prove to anybody else who i voted for (so they can't strong-arm me)
* officials can not throw the votes in the trash, or a river, or bury them, or delete them... if the votes aren't in the published database people will see that their vote is missing.
* they can not scan the votes, keep them in the database, but add it up wrong and publish a wrong total, and then throw the records out [commondreams.org]. if they add it up wrong newspapers, universities, or any old slashdotter can do the adding themselves and call bullshit.
Re:One of the reasons - fragile democracies (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but i do have issues when the people who count the votes have a political affiliation.
Problem is voter intent (Score:4, Insightful)
When we use media, we capture the voter intent perfectly. There is a chain of trust between the voter intent, and the record of the vote, because that record only passes through the voter.
Making a mark on a piece of paper, voting by mail like we do in Oregon, is cost effective, and verifiable, and trustworthy. Recounts are possible too.
I know my intent was correctly recorded, and if there is a issue with the counting, we can all go into a room, and visibly verify every vote, getting a correct tally.
With a machine, it's a vote by proxy. We fail to record the voter intent, because the electronics only record what the machine thought the intent was, not the intent itself.
Because of this, no electronic system makes sense. I like counting them electronically, with scanners and such. We can audit that, verify, recount.
I don't like a touch screen, because we fail to actually capture the intent, only the machine record of what it thought the intent was.
Re:how much does it cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, E-voting is the classic solution in search of a problem.
Unless you have a disability, in which case it is the classic "solution to a problem".
Where I went to vote, anyone who wished had the option of bringing an assistant. I recall doing this for my grandmother when her health was failing. She couldn't see well enough to read the ballot much less fill in a circle. So, I would read the ballot to her, and she would tell me what to mark.
I'm all for throwing money at math and CS (it keeps me employed), but I still think that E-voting is unnecessary. Just use paper. With paper, the ballots can be recounted in front of a group of representative for each side whenever there is a dispute. It's simple and crystal clear to the vast majority of voters. The only disadvantage is that it's slow, but so what? Voting is important, we can afford to slow down a little and do it carefully.
Re:Forget cost - what is the POINT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote buying. That's what's wrong with it.
ANYTHING that gives the voter the opportunity to walk out with confirmation of HOW they voted is a huge problem. In the system you describe, the voter could decide to not put their paper slip into the box, or to drop in a fake substitute (and no, you couldn't verify it was a real slip without making their vote non-anonymous in the process).
So, they walk out the door, show their slip to "Guido", and poof - their vote has been bought.
The only time their vote gets screwed up is if a manual recount is done at that station, which in terms of % is low (by design - with an electronic system).
You need a solution where the original vote is cast on paper, and is scanned in (and retained) by the system... and the voter verifies their vote electronically on screen before walking off empty-handed.
MadCow.
Re:Forget cost - what is the POINT? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are important benefits. One that I would think the slashdot would like is the possibility of instant runoff balloting.
In this scheme
This possibility has huge upside for third party candidates who can now get a vote that is not, "thrown away".
But in the end, this is at odds with how I think DRE should work, in an object oriented fashion. one machine marks the ballot for you, another counts the ballot. So long as the marked ballot can be verified by eye, this is just another way (other than a pencil) of marking a paper ballot, so it has no more downside but can help blind people vote in private. It also reduces the possibility of hacking the voting machine since it can be constantly validated on election day.
Re:Forget cost - what is the POINT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do the words "Hanging Chad" mean anything to you?
Yes, it does. Also the Minnesota senate election in 2008. In both cases, because there was a physical record of each vote, there were clear ways of determining exactly what the vast majority of voters intended to do, even those who didn't do exactly what the counting machines expected. The problems in both those elections were because partisan jackasses were coming up with excuses for why votes for the other guy shouldn't count, or why something that may or may not have indicated a clear intent should count for their guy. Oh, and also the partisan jackasses who were charged with the solemn duty of running fair elections, who found ways to run it so that their guy would have a better chance of winning. Electronic votes wouldn't be immune to this sort of thing.
Here's the way to make things work if we're looking for free and fair elections:
1. Create a physical record of each vote that cannot be traced to the individual voter (which, btw, eliminates all concepts of a voting "receipt" that often crop up around here).
2. Make darn sure that the officials running the election are not partisan and have extremely high integrity. An excellent example of the sort of person we'd want in this role is Bill Gardner [wikipedia.org], who has been running elections in New Hampshire since 1976 and has the support of Democrats and Republicans.
3. Engage in random unannounced audits of voting results in particular precincts by outside organizations, such as news media, foreign election observers, or nonprofit watchdogs.
Foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting systems need to be understandable by the voter. This means KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. A computer expert should not be involved.
A counting machine based on PAPER can be physically verified and observed by anybody who can COUNT including the interested parties so all are confident of the result. Even a closed corrupt count could come to light if the paper record is preserved. A counting machine can be ignored during a recount; if there is nothing to count then there is no recount and even less deterrent since one can't validate the results. One can't even know if the machine is hacked while a counting machine can be compared against a paper count.
You have to be ignorant OR foolish to think that ANY computer system is better than a paper one under the same conditions. A totally open computer system can be hacked and all traces removed - you do realize that linux still gets patched for security holes right? A hacked compiler or linker can produce bad programs despite clean code. Foreign made hardware components are also suspect (doesn't he NSA have a chip fab plant of their own?) It would take multiple experts just to verify machine at 1 point in time; even then could easily miss a clever attack or a serious security hole. That is barring any tampering after 100% verification (which would only be in theory because you can't get to 100% just like you can't ever be 100% sure a program is bug free.)
The hanging chad problem was over hyped but it is a great example of a solution for a non-problem that complicated the paper system thereby creating a security flaw. It should be obvious that a simple system everybody could see was flawed took so long to be killed off was a problem and now we have people asking about a much much much more complex system and one which only a specialized few could identify flaws?? It defies reason.
Of course, its a somewhat moot issue since the system favors 2 parties which are for sale so any games between the zealots are just a distraction from the larger gaming of the public by the powerful.
Re:Forget cost - what is the POINT? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hanging chads are not a problem with paper voting. They are a problem with inappropriate technology. Why punch a bit of paper when you could simply use a pen to make an X in a box?
Re:another requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it is possible: after the voter has voted, he gets a receipt with a random number X on it, after the elections there is a tally sheet with a list of votes which basically says 'number X voted for candidate A'. From that tally anyone can count how many votes A got and check that their own vote was counted correctly. For plausible deniability after his vote, the voter can ask the ballot machine to print another hash receipt - a random hash receipt that would show up on the tally as voting for the candidate B (that the voter was payed to vote for) so that he can show that receipt to briber. Naturally before starting an election there would need to be a pool of hashes for all candidates - a set of fake initial votes, equal for all candidates so that there is a set of hashes to choose from if the first voter asks for a fake hash printout.