Sierra Leone Records World's First Blockchain-Powered Election (techcrunch.com) 72
The citizens of Sierra Leone went to the polls on March 7 but this time something was different: the country recorded votes at 70% of the polling to the blockchain using a technology that is the first of its kind in actual practice. The tech, created by Leonardo Gammar of Agora, anonymously stored votes in an immutable ledger, thereby offering instant access to the election results. TechCrunch reports: "Anonymized votes/ballots are being recorded on Agora's blockchain, which will be publicly available for any interested party to review, count and validate," said Gammar. "This is the first time a government election is using blockchain technology." "Sierra Leone wishes to create an environment of trust with the voters in a contentious election, especially looking at how the election will be publicly viewed post-election. By using blockchain as a means to immutably record ballots and results, the country hopes to create legitimacy around the election and reduce fall-out from opposition parties," he said.
Why is this interesting? While this is little more than a proof of concept -- it is not a complete voting record but instead captured a seemingly acceptable plurality of votes -- it's fascinating to see the technology be implemented in Sierra Leone, a country of about 7.4 million people. The goal ultimately is to reduce voting costs by cutting out paper ballots as well as reducing corruption in the voting process.
Why is this interesting? While this is little more than a proof of concept -- it is not a complete voting record but instead captured a seemingly acceptable plurality of votes -- it's fascinating to see the technology be implemented in Sierra Leone, a country of about 7.4 million people. The goal ultimately is to reduce voting costs by cutting out paper ballots as well as reducing corruption in the voting process.
Oh! That's great! (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, tell us how this is supposed to be better than a paper ballot.... idiots
Re: (Score:3)
Now, tell us how this is supposed to be better than a paper ballot.... idiots
It can be a good complement to paper ballot. I agree paper is the most reliable poll output, but that is only true on election day, because many eyes starred at it. Just wait for the next day and your trust in paper is weakened because someone could have meddled it overnight.
In an idea situation, each polling booth would validate paper and store result in a blockchain you can trust later.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, tell us how this is supposed to be better than a paper ballot.... idiots
I'll tell you, Chad. First, paper ballots can have questionable disputes as to whether they were filled out correctly, have "hanging chads" and other controversial issues. Are you old enough to remember the Gore-Bush Florida fiasco?
Blockchaining anonymized ballots, then making them publicly available for everyone to count, validate, etc. should stop officials destroying ballots before a recount, as in the primary involving Debbie Wasserman Schultz in 2017. BTW, Even digital ballots can be destroy
Re: (Score:2)
Going out on a limb here, but do you think the moderators modded you down for your tone and how little detail you actually added to the conversation?
Re: Oh! That's great! (Score:3)
It's still black-box voting. Paper is traceable by anyone.
Is it? Can I go and have someone pull out my ballot so I can make sure that it wasn't thrown out? Even if I can get it, can I make sure it was actually counted?
Fuck no.
Anonymized block chain ballots are a step in the right direction but, ideally, each ballot should be anonymous to everyone except the person who cast it. In other words, in an ideal system, I should get some sort of key after I cast my vote, which I can later use to verify that my vote is still part of the block chain, and is actually bein
Re: (Score:3)
Anonymized block chain ballots are a step in the right direction but, ideally, each ballot should be anonymous to everyone except the person who cast it. In other words, in an ideal system, I should get some sort of key after I cast my vote, which I can later use to verify that my vote is still part of the block chain, and is actually being counted towards the correct candidate.
I'm not sure that such a system can exist, where you both have a secret ballot and a conveniently verifiable ballot.
If you can verify it from your computer, then your boss can stand over you while you do so. Another option is to verify at a government office in private, but becomes so inconvenient that nobody will take advantage.
Even if it is both secret and verifiable, then you can tell at least one ballot was cast for your candidate. Can we ensure that all the other thousands or millions of ballots are
Re: Oh! That's great! (Score:3)
If you can verify it from your computer, then your boss can stand over you while you do so.
Sure, in the same sense that your boss can stand over you while you type in the password for your bitcoins wallet. But if he's forcing you to do either of those things it would be very illegal.
Even if it is both secret and verifiable, then you can tell at least one ballot was cast for your candidate. Can we ensure that all the other thousands or millions of ballots are correct, specifically that no invalid ballots have been added?
No, you can't, but you can count the total that were cast. If normal turnout is 60% of the eligible population and you count that in this particular election 93% of the population voted, that would set off off some alarm bells. Especially if it's not supported by observers at the polling booths.
Either way, the inabi
Re: (Score:3)
Can I go and have someone pull out my ballot so I can make sure that it wasn't thrown out? Even if I can get it, can I make sure it was actually counted?
After you throw your ballot in the container, you can stay in the polling station, and watch them take out all the ballots and verify they are counted properly.
You can't verify your personal ballot because any good ballot system is anonymous, but you can verify all of them.
Every single person would be able to verify that their vote has not been discarded, and do so from the comfort of their own home.
And the person who told you to vote a particular way can also verify you did your job from the comfort of their own home.
Re: (Score:1)
A better question is how someone can mess up a paper ballot. Really, even North Korea has a better paper ballot system than the fragmented system all over the US.
The United States is adjacent to a country that does things correctly - voters receive a paper ballot, they mark the entry on the paper, and drop it into the box. Of all the ballots cast, none of them were spoiled, rejected, had hanging chads, or had an
Re: (Score:1)
A better question is how someone can mess up a paper ballot. Really, even North Korea has a better paper ballot system than the fragmented system all over the US.
The United States is adjacent to a country that does things correctly - voters receive a paper ballot, they mark the entry on the paper, and drop it into the box. Of all the ballots cast, none of them were spoiled, rejected, had hanging chads, or had any other funny business. Plus there were scrutineers from the major parties making sure that there's no funny business going on either.
The only election that used a machine was the local election, and it's purpose was only to scan the ballot as they were completed.
It is baffling how we can mess up paper ballots so badly. I didn't know about North Korea, that surprises me. But Canada, yes, it does have a far better paper ballot system than anything in the US. I still think we should "Blockchain the vote", but you are right.
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea uses the "pre-printed" ballot method, where everyone's choices are pre-determined.
It's blatantly corrupt, but still not messed up because voters are certain that their votes are cast correctly.
And You Can't Manipulate Blockchain Data, Right? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
"Sierra Leone wishes to create an environment of trust with the voters in a contentious election, especially looking at how the election will be publicly viewed post-election. By using blockchain as a means to immutably record ballots and results, the country hopes to create legitimacy around the election and reduce fall-out from opposition parties"
It is right in the article. Immutably record ballots and results. Whether currency or votes, someone did say it.
Immutable - not capable of or susceptible to ch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Immutable - not capable of or susceptible to change.
So, once the bad information enters the system, there's no way to correct it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the blockchain can be manipulated, it hasn't been proven yet. And even with bitcoin not being worth what it was back in december, it is still worth enough to entice someone looking to make an easy buck to find a way to manipulate it.
I would say considering the stakes at play, if someone hasn't found a way to manipulate the bitcoin blockchain by now, it is likely pretty damn secure. That't the whole reason bitcoin "mining" takes up 10% of a particular city's power. The point of "mining" isn't generating c
Re: (Score:2)
No need to do that -- Bitcoin mining is progressively more difficult / slower the more bitcoin exist in the system. There's no need for a backdoor for the creators to syphon off coins after fact, they could very easily crank out a ton of coin on 'easy' mode before e
Re: (Score:2)
The creator(s) of Bitcoin mined the coins when it was easy/cheap. They have billions of USD worth of bitcoin. They don't need to cheat, they can just start cashing it out.
Re: (Score:2)
That's something I'm wondering about. In bitcoin, manipulation is made hard as long as no cooperating entity represents more than 50% of all mining. That only works because the process of minting a coin takes a not-trivial amount of CPU cycles.
When all of the machines are owned by the same entity and the proof of work is reduced to a level that allows all of the coins to be minted on election day, I'm not so sure it still works.
Re: (Score:1)
With Bitcoin, you're validating transactions. For this distributed ledger of voting, you are only recording each vote and hopefully not transferring votes between wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're recording different facts into the ledger, but that doesn't change the need for the ledger to be immutable.
Sounds like a great use for blockchain (Score:3, Informative)
Instant election results, that can be verified by everyone. If the voting machine spits out a randomized unique identifier the voter could then go in and view the blockchain and confirm their votes were cast as they actually selected.
If the voting machines were setup like those used in the US where election workers checked your voter registration and that you hadn't already voted, and then you just walked up to any random available machine, cast your vote, and then it spit out a receipt with your unique id in a QR code and ascii format, there would be no way to link votes to voters other than snatching their receipt out of their hands as they left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like a great use for blockchain (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some places try to outlaw taking pictures of you with your filled out ballot before you turn it in because they don't want you to be able to prove you voted in a certain way in exchange for money.
This is situational ethics in action!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One approach to that is that your actual ballot is signed by an official key. BUT you can request receipts showing any vote you like that will be signed by a different key. If anyone tries to validate one of those ballots and they can't prove they're you, it's off to jail awaiting trial for them. Allow some variation on that theme so a journalist can spot check ballots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You force me to give you a receipt. So I give you the fake one I requested just for you that has the bogus signature and never actually counted. You verify it and get arrested on the spot. Bye Bye!
Or, more likely, you know there's no point in asking for a receipt since I can just give you an official fake one that you don't dare verify.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not, they currently trust one that gives you nothing but an "I voted" sticker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do know how the paper ballot system works. Your votes are recorded on a punch card which disappears into a box. You get an "I voted" sticker and you're on your way. Later, a lady with a bunch of balloons walks slowly by the security camera as your ballot gets swapped out and Putin wins again.
Re:Sounds like a great use for blockchain (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that's a real possibility. Also, timing based identification, PRNGs being predictable, and others that I'm not thinking of at the moment. "Drop your receipt when you pick up your timecard"!
Re: (Score:3)
There are two seemingly mutually exclusive requirements for an ideal voting system:
1) An inability to prove one's voting choices is necessary to ensure a safe and free election (i.e. one where people cannot be compelled to vote a particular way).
2) The ability to verify the accuracy of your vote and that it was counted towards the results is the best means by which to establish confidence in the system.
Blockchain may provide a path to marrying the two, but the system implemented in Sierra Leone is not yet i
Cheap Elections?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why the fuck would any government brag about cheap elections. I want a government to brag about good elections. Paper ballots, made by people and counted by people, with representatives from each person running for the election checking the vote counting process. I want voting to be on weekends to be more accessible to more people. I want lots of polling stations and short queues. I want a web site with all candidates listed, the substantiated scholastic record, the employment history and their political history on show, with promises of what they will work for on show and contractually signed with penalties for failing, don't make promises you can keep or wont even try to keep. I want all those who run for election tested, their IQ, their knowledge and their psychology including a test for psychopathy and that available online. Then elections will be guaranteed to be a whole lot more fair and you will have a much greater chance of getting what you are paying for. Voting is about people and not about machines.
Primary Sources (Score:2)
Agora's Github Repo [github.com]
Sierra Leone (Score:1)
Population:
6,163,195 (July 2017 est.)
Languages:
English (official, regular use limited to literate minority), Mende (principal vernacular in the south), Temne (principal vernacular in the north), Krio (English-based Creole, spoken by the descendants of freed Jamaican slaves who were settled in the Freetown area, a lingua franca and a first language for 10% of the population but understood by 95%)
Religions:
Muslim 78.6%, Christian 20.8%, other 0.3%, unspecified 0.2% (2013 est.)
Sanitation facility access:
improv
does not matter (Score:1)
Propaganda technology have never been stronger in history. Whats the point of recording honestly an opinion of brainwashed imbeciles?
Some questions (Score:3)
- Who runs the nodes of the blockchain?
- Agora's whitepaper says that you vote remotely from your phone. Is that the only mechanism for voting? Can the voting be done at a poll booth? If so, is there a voting machine which transfers the vote to the blockchain? What prevents the fraud from happening before the vote is transferred to the blockchain?
- Voting remotely means that secret ballot is not guaranteed. If someone threatens or bribes you to vote for a particular party/candidate & the voting is done at a booth, then they will never know who you actually voted for. However if voting is possible remotely, then this secret ballot is not guaranteed - this is the same for vote by phone or vote by mail or any such thing. The person threatening or bribing you can be by your side when you vote.
Perhaps cheating is even easier now (Score:2)