|
While the US struggles with its archaic voting system, here's a thought.
Despite numerous supposedly foolproof electronic voting machines on the market, all made by otherwise respectable companies, none have proven to be unhackable; in fact, they're laughably simple to break. If we can't even make a secure standalone machine to collect votes, there's no hope that anyone will ever create a secure Internet voting system. Or is there?
I'm convinced that there is no reason this cannot be done, and that the technology exists today to accomplish it. So let's put our heads together here and toss around ideas, shoot them down one by one, and thin the herd until we come up with an architecture that is unbreakable made of the pieces left standing. I'm not talking about coding anything, just outlining a bullet-proof structure and methodology. The implementation details can be left for an article later.
Anyone game?
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Robert,
It exists already. As you said US have a very archaic system but that does not mean everyone has. Switzerland is a great example of internet voting. They are using it a lot. France is using it as well in major elections for its expats, etc...
But I guess nobody has written the article... You can do that piece 
Seulement, dans certains cas, n'est-ce pas, on n'entend guère que ce qu'on désire entendre et ce qui vous arrange le mieux... [^]
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the 80's I worked for a company that made ballot counting equipment. Yes, we were part of the 'hanging chad' community. The process at that time was distinctly non-trivial, and that was without the security implications of a fully-electronic counting process.
Today, you require a system that is hardened and closed to be secure, yet sufficiently transparent that it can be validated and operated by non-technical personnel. Trust me, boards of election are not made up of technical people. You will find yourself used for political ends, and technical decisions will be resolved by politics rather than merit.
The next complication is that the system must be incredibly flexible. Every state, and most counties/precincts/parishes within a state, has their own notion of proper election conduct. Your software must adhere to those notions, and in fact must demonstrably and verifiably enforce them.
Finally, the software must be implemented in such a fashion that, when it does fail, it fails in the least harmful manner possible. Harmful, in this case, means harm to you. The 2000 election decimated the election 'industry'. Lots of companies went under and lots of people lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
It's interesting as a thought experiment. Would I ever work in that industry again? Not on your life.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Create an article about that, we can add suggestions and discuss it in its own thread.
What are the requirements ?
- do we create an voting machine for the current US voting system or for an imaginary democratic system?
- what kind of paper trails should it have ?
- What kind of input? mechanical (punch)? touch-screen?, scribbling ?
- Counting, again, electronic, mechanical ?
Nihil obstat
|
|
|
|
|
Image Mickey Mouse, Kermit the frog and Bozo the clown all reaching across political boundaries to come up with a fool proof system of voting. Nah ain't gonna happen, they don't even want the job.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: Despite numerous supposedly foolproof electronic voting machines on the market,
The problem is not with creating a foolproof electronic voting system, it's with stopping fools from voting! 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
That's always been a problem, and probably always will be. All my life I've known significant numbers of people who never read a book or a newspaper, more recently never visit a news site on the Internet, yet are proud of the fact that they never miss voting! Crikey! If you choose - deliberately - to remain ignorant and uninformed, please don't foist your totally unqualified, empty opinions on the rest of us who care enough to study the issues!
Alas, my words fall on deaf ears...
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: The problem is not with creating a foolproof electronic voting system, it's with
stopping fools from voting! it's to get the fools to vote as intended
FTFY
People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.
|
|
|
|
|
You're asking about a good electronic voting system in the CP Lounge? Home of downvotophobia? Pit of despair of the vote-needy?
The 9 million of us aren't able to agree on a 1-5 voting system for which the prize is, erm, getting votes!
On a slightly more serious note - if we had ID cards that uniquely identified each individual within the country, it would be a lot easier to prevent fraud, as each person's vote could be identified
|
|
|
|
|
Every election time, this matter creeps up.
Every computer science professor gets on TV and says that electronic voting machines (EVMs) can be hacked.
There was one professor who wrote on this subject a few years back and was vehemently against EVMs because of security concerns.
Then he decided to work as a polling booth attendant in Maryland.
After that, he wrote an article saying that, what with all the manual procedures surrounding the voting, the EVMs were pretty OK.
And of course he is ignored nowadays.
PS. Not that certain EVM manufacturers aren't against rigging their machines to support the party that supports Big Business.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it has to be quite easy. I know each area has it's own rules and policies, etc. But building a framework in which different objects can be created by the election board (or given to said machine manufacturer from election board for integration). My job right now is integrating an insane amount of diverse data using a framework that I built and maintain. I'm sure it is already more complex than any voting requirements.
IMO there are 2 major industries that would have the experience building something so diverse and robust. #1 and foremost: Gambling machines. Built to be as least hackable as possible, and yet completely robust, full of fail safes and record keeping. #2 Financial software. Once again for the same 2 reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
I propose a new idea, Roger.
Found an EVM company, round up some talent on CP (all U.S. citizens without felony convictions, meaning voters). Offer payment in the form of equity, then, we have at it. Make the f***ing things. When all is said and done, build them, sell them, make it open source (not for corporate use) and make some money while preserving democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
I like the way you're thinking! 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
