Use a gift card and mail to a PO box service that is engaged under a pseudonym and paid for in cash. Gift cards can be purchased at most grocery outlets, again for cash and anonymously. If you are REALLY paranoid use a VM'd OS that you subsequently wipe on your local library Wi-Fi, or at McDonald's or even Starbucks. For the extreme tinfoil helmet, you can buy for cash a very cheap used laptop that you can dispose of AFTER the transaction, preferably in pieces in several different trash bins behind local gr
Use a gift card and mail to a PO box service that is engaged under a pseudonym and paid for in cash.
Of course the whole "Internet voting equals Internet buying" analogy is fatally flawed. That's because the store does not care who you are as long as you pay so it's willing to accept a gift card you bought anonymously. In contrast the government wants to restrict voting rights to its constituency so it will never let you vote without first providing some form of identification.
I did (nearly) everything you said already. And it Did Not work.
ebay would not allow the Visa gift card to be accepted until I attached my address to the card through the visa site. The visa site would not allow me to register on this site through an obscured IP.
It is my belief that you cannot purchase online in a private manner without committing fraud. Not because privacy requires fraud, but simply because companies make money from your lack of privacy. For example, you said that I should used a pseudonym
Voting is meant to be anonymous; the process should be comprehensible to anyone, and anyone should be able to contribute to assuring that the ballot count is accurate. Paper based voting meets these requirements, and has the important bonus of being pretty resilient to tampering if enough citizens actually step up and help verify the results. The more you want to fraudulently influence a paper based vote, the more people you need to include in your scheme. Electronic voting on the other hand meets none of these requirements: anonymity is not guaranteed, the process is either sensitive to large scale fraud or hardened against fraud using encryption, making it completely intransparent to laymen. And auditing the count can only be done by experts, and even then fraud is pretty easy to miss.
I don't want my vote to be anonymous. The fraud at the ballot box is out of hand in the US, similar to that of many "third world" countries. With the new digital age the opportunities for fraud have been magnified to an incredible degree with the ability to change or eliminate thousands of votes electronically. I think if you want an anonymous vote you should be able to vote on paper and if not then a verifiable digital vote. Leave the option to the voter. I'll vote online only if it's not anonymous.
Anonymous voting is pretty important, but I'll join you in the concern that I've got no way to go back and make sure my vote was properly recorded despite the problems that causes for anonymous voting.
Gee, I fill out a paper ballot and put it into an electronic counting machine. If there's reason to suspect problems, or if the vote is really close, "they" will count all the paper ballots. The sealed ballot boxes will be handled well, with any opportunity for fraud observed by (at least) representatives of the two major parties. I'm pretty sure it's going to be counted correctly.
The fraud at the ballot box is out of hand in the US, similar to that of many "third world" countries.
Citation please. I agree that Voter ID might be useful, but I have yet to see credible evidence of enough voter fraud to sway any US election held in the last 20 years. IMO The logistics of in person voter fraud make it very difficult to materially affect a large election. NOW, computer fraud or dishonest vote counters is another matter entirely but not something Voter ID would fix.
Anonymous voting helps prevent vote buying and voter intimidation. If the buyer or intimidater cannot confirm you voted the
Must say you are a moron. Voting is meant to be anonymous.
And so Estonia's solution where people can vote online but override their vote on election day by casting a vote in person isn't a solution why? And that's just one of many possible technical solutions.
And the current practice of mail voting doesn't already eliminate ballot secrecy why?
To file an absentee ballot in this state, you fill out your ballot and put it in a blank envelope. You put that one in a larger envelope with your name on it, and mail that in a larger envelope.
When the ballot is received, someone files the envelopes with names on them. Someone keeps track of the envelopes until it's sure that the ballot is the right one for that person. Then people open the envelopes with names and throw the blank envelopes inside into a container, and when they're through they'll ge
You're missing the point. The complaint about electronic voting is that someone can compel someone to vote in a particular way when voting isn't in person because they can confirm that the vote was cast in the way that they want, which they can't do at a polling place. But this situation already exists with absentee ballots, when the person is filling out the ballot.
Meanwhile, in Estonian online voting, when you vote online, you can still later go to a polling place and change your vote. Meaning that the
Yeah, but is it really anonymous? Most states require a government issued ID in order to vote. The second that ID comes out into open air, you have to assume that all of the information on it has been given up.
At best, I would say that our current process is semi-anonymous. Given enough effort, your vote can be deduced.
I am personally all for online voting. The reason is just this: The more people that are able to vote, the more democratic the system.
I think that REASONABLE anonymity can be achieved through
For the first 100 or so years, voting in the US was open ballot. The only reason it changed was because there was a civil war. Corruption and vote fraud was much less with an open ballot, and so long as you aren't in a situation with armed insurrection, is clearly superior to the secret ballot.
Once we go back to open ballots, fraud will drop, and online voting fraud will become irrelevant as well.
There are provably secure cyptographic methods to ensure that no one can figure out who you voted for, and that you can check, after the election, that your vote was counted appropriately. These systems even include a method for providing a faked screenshot to be sold to vote buyers. The fact that almost no one uses these systems is the real problem.
Really? Noone can figure out who you voted for and you can ensure your vote was counted properly? I thought it was one or the other.
Care to point me in the right direction?
Most of the voting systems by David Chaum. I assume others' systems as well. All of these systems work by similar methods. One common trick is that if N numbers are XOR'ed together, then any number can only be revealed by again XOR'ing with the other N-1. So your vote can be XOR'ed with something that hides the actual vote, but the combination of the two can be checked from a list. There are other methods as well. I would explain it all, but I am not a cryptographer.
There are other methods as well. I would explain it all, but I am not a cryptographer.
And that is the problem. To actually verify that these systems work as they claim you need PhD in cryptography which means 99.99% of the voters are left out in the cold. Plus having a working theory is one thing, letting voters make sure on election day that the implementation is not buggy and does not leak your votes to third-parties via a side-channel is another entirely [youtube.com].
Laymen cannot audit this system, nor is the process of assuring anonymity and an accurate count transparent or comprehensible to laymen. That means they cannot trust this system... which is kind of an important aspect of a ballot.
Laymen cannot audit this system, nor is the process of assuring anonymity and an accurate count transparent or comprehensible to laymen. That means they cannot trust this system... which is kind of an important aspect of a ballot.
In California I make inkspots on a piece of paper, then it is fed into a big machine. I get s sticker that says, "I voted!" Is that better?
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
Same goes for the power grid, and the Internet, and pharmaceuticals.
Sooner or later, we're going to have to trust the concept of trusting a reputation based web of trust. We can't personally understand MOST of the technology that supports our modern lives.
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
That's irrelevant. The interests of the people who build the cars are aligned with those of the people who use them, and if that proves not to be the case then there are liability laws that ensure that you can be compensated if your car is not built to spec. In contrast, the interests of small subsets of the population are typically not directly aligned with the rest when choosing a government.
In the UK, our elections run by putting a cross on a piece of paper, which then goes into a box. The boxes ar
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
If cars or airplanes of a specific make keep crashing laymen are going to know pretty quick and will buy from its competitors. Same thing for the power grid, and the Internet, and pharmaceuticals.
But if done well, laymen would not know that the election was stolen. And it's not like you can go to the competition. Not only has the government a monopoly on elections, you cannot even escape whatever decisions it takes (no moving abroad is a not an option for most people).
I think that countries need to switch to an open ballot because of the conflicts between the secret ballot and hybrid direct/representative democratic systems and electronic voting (which thanks to advances in cryptography becomes more viable every day). However the only reason the US didn't have huge trouble with an open ballot was the decreased motive for vote buying, since all voters in that time were white males - and usually from the upper classes at that (during much of that period, the white males al
For the first 100 or so years, voting in the US was open ballot. The only reason it changed was because there was a civil war. Corruption and vote fraud was much less with an open ballot, and so long as you aren't in a situation with armed insurrection, is clearly superior to the secret ballot.
Chile also had open ballots and was not in a state of civil war or armed insurrection. Yet, as soon as they switched to secret ballots [harvard.edu] the election results changed significantly.
You're forgetting whole cultures and communities where women don't have equal rights (no matter what the law says), and employers who have the will and the means to try and nudge the balance.
yes it will stupid. read up on Tammany Hall in NYC in the 1800's. people were marched to voting booths, overseers made sure they voted for the right people and then they were given gifts.
same here. low paid people will be hired or voters will simply have to provide screenshots of their votes to receive prizes
Secret ballot is assured in public unwatched (once you enter the curtained room - none can see how you vote) polling stations. It is not assured with an online login and vote, where threats an/or $$ can be used to witness how you vote under others eyes say at a workplace where the boss sees how every wirker votes and those that complain - just keep walking as you look for a new job. Never in America you say? No, it is ever ready to pounce and coerce workers.
Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ballot? (Score:-1)
No.
Is there any other questions??
Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ballo (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
Computer based voting of any kind is a bad idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
ARE there any other questions?
Re: (Score:3)
Use a gift card and mail to a PO box service that is engaged under a pseudonym and paid for in cash. Gift cards can be purchased at most grocery outlets, again for cash and anonymously. If you are REALLY paranoid use a VM'd OS that you subsequently wipe on your local library Wi-Fi, or at McDonald's or even Starbucks. For the extreme tinfoil helmet, you can buy for cash a very cheap used laptop that you can dispose of AFTER the transaction, preferably in pieces in several different trash bins behind local gr
Re: (Score:2)
Use a gift card and mail to a PO box service that is engaged under a pseudonym and paid for in cash.
Of course the whole "Internet voting equals Internet buying" analogy is fatally flawed. That's because the store does not care who you are as long as you pay so it's willing to accept a gift card you bought anonymously. In contrast the government wants to restrict voting rights to its constituency so it will never let you vote without first providing some form of identification.
Re: (Score:2)
You still need to give an address.... how hard is it to track down the purchaser if you have a physical address?
P.O. Box? Just find out who owns it or stake out the location and wait for the pick up.
Re: (Score:1)
I did (nearly) everything you said already. And it Did Not work.
ebay would not allow the Visa gift card to be accepted until I attached my address to the card through the visa site. The visa site would not allow me to register on this site through an obscured IP.
It is my belief that you cannot purchase online in a private manner without committing fraud. Not because privacy requires fraud, but simply because companies make money from your lack of privacy. For example, you said that I should used a pseudonym
Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ball (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Amen.
PS: an improperly fitted lock could let the bomber into the building, and *boom*.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want my vote to be anonymous. The fraud at the ballot box is out of hand in the US, similar to that of many "third world" countries. With the new digital age the opportunities for fraud have been magnified to an incredible degree with the ability to change or eliminate thousands of votes electronically. I think if you want an anonymous vote you should be able to vote on paper and if not then a verifiable digital vote. Leave the option to the voter. I'll vote online only if it's not anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you want an anonymous vote you should be able to vote on paper and if not then a verifiable digital vote. Leave the option to the voter.
Leaving the option to the voter is the same as leaving it to vote buyers and coercers.
One thing, no fucking chads.
Like Internet voting is the only solution to hanging chads. Guess what, in France we use paper and never had and never will get hanging chads!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, I fill out a paper ballot and put it into an electronic counting machine. If there's reason to suspect problems, or if the vote is really close, "they" will count all the paper ballots. The sealed ballot boxes will be handled well, with any opportunity for fraud observed by (at least) representatives of the two major parties. I'm pretty sure it's going to be counted correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
The fraud at the ballot box is out of hand in the US, similar to that of many "third world" countries.
Citation please. I agree that Voter ID might be useful, but I have yet to see credible evidence of enough voter fraud to sway any US election held in the last 20 years. IMO The logistics of in person voter fraud make it very difficult to materially affect a large election. NOW, computer fraud or dishonest vote counters is another matter entirely but not something Voter ID would fix.
Anonymous voting helps prevent vote buying and voter intimidation. If the buyer or intimidater cannot confirm you voted the
Re: (Score:2)
And so Estonia's solution where people can vote online but override their vote on election day by casting a vote in person isn't a solution why? And that's just one of many possible technical solutions.
And the current practice of mail voting doesn't already eliminate ballot secrecy why?
Re: (Score:2)
To file an absentee ballot in this state, you fill out your ballot and put it in a blank envelope. You put that one in a larger envelope with your name on it, and mail that in a larger envelope.
When the ballot is received, someone files the envelopes with names on them. Someone keeps track of the envelopes until it's sure that the ballot is the right one for that person. Then people open the envelopes with names and throw the blank envelopes inside into a container, and when they're through they'll ge
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. The complaint about electronic voting is that someone can compel someone to vote in a particular way when voting isn't in person because they can confirm that the vote was cast in the way that they want, which they can't do at a polling place. But this situation already exists with absentee ballots, when the person is filling out the ballot.
Meanwhile, in Estonian online voting, when you vote online, you can still later go to a polling place and change your vote. Meaning that the
Re: (Score:2)
Voting is meant to be anonymous.
Yeah, but is it really anonymous? Most states require a government issued ID in order to vote. The second that ID comes out into open air, you have to assume that all of the information on it has been given up.
At best, I would say that our current process is semi-anonymous. Given enough effort, your vote can be deduced.
I am personally all for online voting. The reason is just this: The more people that are able to vote, the more democratic the system.
I think that REASONABLE anonymity can be achieved through
Re: (Score:3)
Once we go back to open ballots, fraud will drop, and online voting fraud will become irrelevant as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Care to point me in the right direction?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Noone can figure out who you voted for and you can ensure your vote was counted properly? I thought it was one or the other. Care to point me in the right direction?
Most of the voting systems by David Chaum. I assume others' systems as well. All of these systems work by similar methods. One common trick is that if N numbers are XOR'ed together, then any number can only be revealed by again XOR'ing with the other N-1. So your vote can be XOR'ed with something that hides the actual vote, but the combination of the two can be checked from a list. There are other methods as well. I would explain it all, but I am not a cryptographer.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other methods as well. I would explain it all, but I am not a cryptographer.
And that is the problem. To actually verify that these systems work as they claim you need PhD in cryptography which means 99.99% of the voters are left out in the cold. Plus having a working theory is one thing, letting voters make sure on election day that the implementation is not buggy and does not leak your votes to third-parties via a side-channel is another entirely [youtube.com].
Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ballo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Laymen cannot audit this system, nor is the process of assuring anonymity and an accurate count transparent or comprehensible to laymen. That means they cannot trust this system... which is kind of an important aspect of a ballot.
In California I make inkspots on a piece of paper, then it is fed into a big machine. I get s sticker that says, "I voted!" Is that better?
Re: (Score:2)
Is your piece of paper kept so that it can be counted again in case of problems? If so, that's a lot better than any purely electronic voting system.
Re: (Score:3)
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
Same goes for the power grid, and the Internet, and pharmaceuticals.
Sooner or later, we're going to have to trust the concept of trusting a reputation based web of trust. We can't personally understand MOST of the technology that supports our modern lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
That's irrelevant. The interests of the people who build the cars are aligned with those of the people who use them, and if that proves not to be the case then there are liability laws that ensure that you can be compensated if your car is not built to spec. In contrast, the interests of small subsets of the population are typically not directly aligned with the rest when choosing a government.
In the UK, our elections run by putting a cross on a piece of paper, which then goes into a box. The boxes ar
Re: (Score:2)
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
If cars or airplanes of a specific make keep crashing laymen are going to know pretty quick and will buy from its competitors. Same thing for the power grid, and the Internet, and pharmaceuticals.
But if done well, laymen would not know that the election was stolen. And it's not like you can go to the competition. Not only has the government a monopoly on elections, you cannot even escape whatever decisions it takes (no moving abroad is a not an option for most people).
Re: (Score:3)
I think that countries need to switch to an open ballot because of the conflicts between the secret ballot and hybrid direct/representative democratic systems and electronic voting (which thanks to advances in cryptography becomes more viable every day). However the only reason the US didn't have huge trouble with an open ballot was the decreased motive for vote buying, since all voters in that time were white males - and usually from the upper classes at that (during much of that period, the white males al
Re: (Score:2)
s/oligopoly/oligarchy/g
Re: (Score:2)
For the first 100 or so years, voting in the US was open ballot. The only reason it changed was because there was a civil war. Corruption and vote fraud was much less with an open ballot, and so long as you aren't in a situation with armed insurrection, is clearly superior to the secret ballot.
Chile also had open ballots and was not in a state of civil war or armed insurrection. Yet, as soon as they switched to secret ballots [harvard.edu] the election results changed significantly.
You're forgetting whole cultures and communities where women don't have equal rights (no matter what the law says), and employers who have the will and the means to try and nudge the balance.
Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ballo (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Koreans working for a few bucks internet cafes...
You think you can prevent that? With current technology?
All you really have to do is register 500,000 votes in a district with 60,000 registered voters. Invalidate the election. Hilarity ensues.
Re: (Score:2)
Secret ballot is assured in public unwatched (once you enter the curtained room - none can see how you vote) polling stations. It is not assured with an online login and vote, where threats an/or $$ can be used to witness how you vote under others eyes say at a workplace where the boss sees how every wirker votes and those that complain - just keep walking as you look for a new job.
Never in America you say? No, it is ever ready to pounce and coerce workers.