Skip to main content

View Diary: Internet voting SHOULD terrify Republicans (374 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But there is a paper trail with the voting by (17+ / 0-)

    mail.

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:10:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You can make a paper trail by internet (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pilotshark, RUNDOWN, occupystephanie

      pretty easily I'd think. Just print out the ballot, and you have the exact same record as you do voting by mail (with the vulnerability coming before the mail arrives). I think the bigger issue is that it would take more work and involve more people to have enough fake voting by mail to turn an election (though watch some of the big money try at some point when they start getting more desperate), whereas the idea is that the internet voting could potentially involve a single person (or a few people) designing a program to almost instantly turn an election.

      I think there are ways to safeguard against that, but I'm not sure what the best way would be at the moment. I'd sure be interested in trying to figure it out though so that we can give people better opportunities to vote and get turnout up, especially on those off-presidential year elections.

      •  No, there is no way to verify the numbers. Giving (14+ / 0-)

        the voter a receipt is meaningless. What about on the other end, there is no means for verifying vote tallies.

        You are only thinking of fraud happening by the voters, what about the counting institution?

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:32:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep, that's the only thing that worries me. (5+ / 0-)

          Let's just all do what we do here in Oregon first, then work on any potential pitfalls to internet voting.

          "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress Chris Christie. But I repeat myself." ~ Mark Twain, (with a twist) ;o)

          by Terre on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:44:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There actually are ways to exchange information (10+ / 0-)

          back and forth in multiple steps. For instance, you could give a code from a ballot that was mailed to you. You could then answer various  questions and even submit a digital signature that would be in absolutely no way less secure than current paper ballots. I believe it would actually be more secure.

          I find it funny that people declare that there is no way and can never be any way to vote reliably online. I also find it funny that people have the illusion that there is so much reliability in the paper voting process.

          Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

          by tekno2600 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:55:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Once again, that only deals with fraud on the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pilotshark, TrueBlueDem

            part of the voter, not the counting institution.

            "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

            by ranger995 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:58:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There needs to be a tracking app (0+ / 0-)

              similar to UPS package tracking.

              You could follow your vote all the way to the tally numbers.

              Votes could be given a vote ID number, sequential with no missing numbers.

              When counting is done, they can check all the vote IDs to make sure all of them got counted.

              Yes, DailyKos DOES have puzzles! Visit us here Saturday nights @ 5:00 PDT (easier puzzles) and Sunday nights @ 5:00 PDT (more challenging) for a group solving. Even if you just pop in and comment while watching the fun, everybody is welcome. uid:21352

              by pucklady on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:08:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Mmmm...confidentiality (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT, nextstep, PsychoSavannah

                I like the "UPS tracking" intention but if every specific vote can be backtracked to every specific voter,  that's a tracking linkage that, if breached, represents a severe violation of the "secret ballot" promise.  

                I don't have the answer and I suspect it is not possible to maintain a secret ballot and also verify that my individual vote was included the final tally for my chosen candidate.

                The sequential number concept should be an fundamental requirement, though there are other methods to accomplish that.  My local voting precinct follows a similar procedure now that ensures the local tallies exactly match to the number of people who voted.  

            •  What voting system is without that flaw ? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mhazard, ichibon, tekno2600, antboy

              Paper ballots can be screwed with in the counting process .

              "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

              by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:13:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If you have fraud going on in the (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TKO333, twigg, 88kathy

              vote counting , it does not matter how the people voted .
              Any method of voting that goes into a fraud counting is the same .

              "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

              by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:17:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nonsense (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jrooth

                It's much harder to cheat on the counting if hardcopy ballots are kept to check counts against.  And therefore much easier if theyre not.  Which is of course why electronic voting machines with no paper trails are so dangerous.  The internet?  More so.

                •  A print out that is then counted is the same (0+ / 0-)

                  That's what I meant by printing out the internet vote at the place that tabulates votes in my comment above. It generates a hard copy that can then be counted if needed. There is no reason this would be any more vulnerable than other types of ballots to fraud by the counters.

                •  How about just watching and counting the (0+ / 0-)

                  hardcopy ballots?

                  I mean is it really all that hard? WTF is the problem with that?

                  The whole argument is really rather stupid if you ask me.

                  There is no need for all of this magic box crap that is rife with potential fraud and distrust.

                  Watch the ballots and count them publicly. The end.

                  Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                  by k9disc on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:51:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  How would it be any different (0+ / 0-)

              From the counting and verification system they have in place now?

              Who stands around in the polling location to physically observe the count?

              This is just about casting the actual vote at this point, not some "Hal 9000" doing it all.

              “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ... Voltaire

              by RUNDOWN on Mon May 12, 2014 at 11:36:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  'counting institutions' are already compromised (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tekno2600

              with the current system.  I have to laugh when I see so many 'progressives' falling all over themselves to defend the horrific voting system we have now (which the republicans are happy to work with).

              •  I have to laugh at 'progressives' falling all over (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kestrel sparhawk

                themselves to just accept that changing the technology is always better.

                It's amazing that you can see something as simple as this:

                right now if there is a noted issue in the counting, there are actual ballots that can be counted.

                They need a similar check if it is done electronically. There has to be a way to verify the numbers.

                "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                by ranger995 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:04:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  that's why I said it can be printed out. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ranger995

                  Then you have a backup hard copy that can be counted if necessary to check. It's then no different than any other form of voting in which fraud by the people counting votes is possible, and better than the all-electronic voting machines that don't print out a hard copy of each vote.

              •  There certainly are a lot of problems (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ranger995, kestrel sparhawk

                with our current system. That doesn't mean the answer is to create an even more vulnerable system.

                "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

                by jrooth on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:06:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  That's not an online voting issue. That applies to (0+ / 0-)

              all voting. Nothing is immune from fraud, but there is nothing inherently worse about online voting.

              Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

              by tekno2600 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:38:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Except with one there are actual ballots and with (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jrooth

                another there are just numbers.

                "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                by ranger995 on Mon May 12, 2014 at 04:22:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually you can print a fake paper ballot and (0+ / 0-)

                  stuff a ballot box far easier than you can fake a digital code, especially if there is key exchange where to generate one code you have to know something about another code (like personal data that only the voter would know). The Russians loved paper ballots in Crimea, because they are low-tech and easy to fake. We could actually create digital voting nowadays that would be vastly more secure and auditable than anything in the past. But, I agree that there would have to be transparency in setting up a process that people understood and could trust. It can't just be black box voting, like most of today's touch screen machines.

                  Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

                  by tekno2600 on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:10:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  easy to disprove you (0+ / 0-)

            "I also find it funny that people have the illusion that there is so much reliability in the paper voting process."

            1-It is next to impossible to perpetuate MASS FRAUD with paper ballots. The paper ballots are relatively immutable and remain as evidence.

            2-A digital signature does not guarantee the security of the vote, only authentication of the voter.

            3- the only way to guarantee the vote would be to encrypt every individual vote with multiple keys

        •  Actually, it can be done (10+ / 0-)

          What you can do is associate each electronic ballot with a serial number. When the voter casts the ballot, the ballot number is generated and given to the voter. This is the only time the voter and the ballot are associated anywhere, and the only information that is saved on the system is the ballot number and choices made on that ballot.

          After the election, the electronic record (ballots, including ballot numbers, but no identifying information) is made public, and everyone can look up their own ballot to make sure it was registered properly, but since no one else knows who the ballot number is associated with, electoral secrecy is preserved.

          "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

          by Drobin on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:15:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And then your vote is exposed (0+ / 0-)

            to anyone (abusive husband, local mob boss, representative of Koch Bros. Vote Buyers inc. and so on) who can coerce you into handing over the ballot number you were given after voting.

            "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

            by jrooth on Mon May 12, 2014 at 02:13:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Same is true ... (0+ / 0-)

              for absentee ballots. Try again.

              Obi Ben Ghazi to House Republicans: "Use the Farce."

              by edg on Mon May 12, 2014 at 05:34:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  See my comments elsewhere about scale. (0+ / 0-)

                I agree there are problems with absentee balloting - and if you'll read Adam B's comments you'll see examples of serious abuse. But internet voting makes this far worse, for the same reason that there's far more hackers attacking Microsoft Windows than there are who attack IOS.

                "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

                by jrooth on Tue May 13, 2014 at 05:06:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Stalin had it right when he said (0+ / 0-)

          "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Mon May 12, 2014 at 12:40:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  we vote now on electronic machines that lack (0+ / 0-)

          a proper audit trail.  what's your point?

      •  Damn, you have to be able to audit.... (0+ / 0-)

        .......the paper receipt is not for you, it is for auditors, to compare to the electronic tally.

        I would think the security problem rests in the fact that the mechanism one uses to select a candidate can just as easily tally a vote (or 1 in 20 votes or 1 in 10 votes) for the intended candidate as easily as the unintended one. Especially if the code isn't public.

        It's no different than a mis-wired voting machine (which caused them to be discarded), or a closed-code touchscreen voting machine with no paper verification.

        Misconduct by the government is by definition NOT a government secret.

        by Doug in SF on Mon May 12, 2014 at 01:59:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, you can't. Not in any practical sense. (0+ / 0-)

        This fundamental ignorance of how things work, especially computers, databases, and the networks that bring them together, is more dangerous to our future well-being than climate change.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

        by Greyhound on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:13:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The way to improve voter turnout (0+ / 0-)

        Is to make it mandatory. otherwise pay a fee. A reverse poll tax.

    •  What paper trail is there when (0+ / 0-)

      voting by mail ?

      "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

      by indycam on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:40:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site