E-voting without fraud

[Travlyr]

Would it be possible to implement this voting format by November 2012?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izddjAp_N4I&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izddjAp_N4I&feature=youtu.be

[donnay]

BOOKMARK

[Travlyr]

2 views in 1/2 an hour? Well this is likely some of the most important information in your life... so a couple more views would be in order.

[kill the banks]

real busy right now but will check it out later ...

[cjm]

You don't want to shred the candidate list, you want to take that with you. If it's shredded, and each ballot is in a random order, they'll say you just marked the wrong candidate by accident. "I believe you intended to vote for Ron Paul, but box 3 on your form was not Ron Paul, it was Mitt Romney. You made a mistake." You can only show that it was Ron Paul by keeping the original candidate list.

You also still need poll watchers to independently count the number of voters. Receipt based verification schemes can verify that your vote went to your candidate if executed properly, but should your vote be 1/10th or 1/100th of the vote in your precinct? You need to verify that your vote went to the right candidate and that the total votes does not exceed the number of actual voters. If 8 out of 10 real voters vote for Ron Paul, but the official total shows 30 for Gingrich and 8 for Paul, you can get fooled if you don't know how many voters actually appeared to vote.

EDIT: Also, if the verification is done on the internet, you need to be able to see all the votes for your precinct so that they don't know which one you are trying to verify. If the verification plan is to let you type in the serial number from your receipt, you might get a response like, "You voted for Ron Paul" and that isn't sufficient. The official precinct total could be 1 vote for Ron Paul, but how do you know you're the only one? 5 people could get the same "You voted for Ron Paul" message and as long as they didn't know each other, they all might think the 1 vote in the official report was theirs. You need to get the full list without identifying which one you are trying to verify.

[KCIndy]

I don't have broadband access right now so I can't watch the video. Until I can, what's the basic summary/concept? Can anyone give me a brief synopsis?

[Travlyr]

Sure. Votes have been suspect since the beginnings of time 2012 BC. We now have the Internet. We have, for the first time in our lives, the opportunity to have honest elections. When you get the opportunity to view this, please do.

[Kingfisher]

bump

[NidStyles]

No thank you. Electronics are ridiculously easy to interfere with. Think 2000, 2004, and probably 2012.

[donnay]

I like the concept all the way to the point the paper was then pushed through and optical scanner to be counted. We have paper ballots with optical scanners and it has been proven that the memory cards used to tally the votes can be rigged. I am all for computers, but is it necessary to have everything on computers in the sense that we do not need the vote tally immediately. Going to hand count with independent oversight is something I would like to see for transparency.

Why not have it like Lotto tickets are set up, where you get a ticket with serial numbers on it. After the election, your town or city have a printed copy of all the serial numbers and the candidates name to show your vote has been counted. Maybe have them printed up on a website or in the newspaper so people can check their receipts to see if their vote counted?

[cjm]

No thank you. Electronics are ridiculously easy to interfere with. Think 2000, 2004, and probably 2012.

The problem with current black box voting systems is that there is no paper trail for auditing. There are many threads here this week talking about voter fraud and needing to see actual evidence of fraud, not just suspicious activity. If the black box system keeps a paper log and if you are given a receipt, can anonymously verify the vote, and observe the polls to get a head count, then the electronics cannot cover up the fraud. The potential for fraud with electronic voting is the same with paper voting, it's in the chain of custody. Whether one goes with paper ballots or electronic is not as important as having a receipt and the ability to anonymously validate the results.

[cjm]

...I am all for computers, but is it necessary to have everything on computers in the sense that we do not need the vote tally immediately.

This is where economic calculation comes in. It's not so much that the results are needed quickly, it's that you may prefer to do something else with the time you might be manually counting. If you have 13 people in your precinct, computers are overkill. If you have 3000 people in your precinct, and you might run 5-6 elections a year, the cost for computer systems might be worth it.


Why not have it like Lotto tickets are set up, where you get a ticket with serial numbers on it. After the election, your town or city have a printed copy of all the serial numbers and the candidates name to show your vote has been counted. Maybe have them printed up on a website or in the newspaper so people can check their receipts to see if their vote counted?

You still need to watch the polling place and get a physical head count. If only 25 people come through your precinct but the newspaper shows 223 votes, you wouldn't be able to detect the fraud unless you or someone you trusted counted the voters. This needs to be done with either paper or computer voting.

[donnay]

This is where economic calculation comes in. It's not so much that the results are needed quickly, it's that you may prefer to do something else with the time you might be manually counting. If you have 13 people in your precinct, computers are overkill. If you have 3000 people in your precinct, and you might run 5-6 elections a year, the cost for computer systems might be worth it.



You still need to watch the polling place and get a physical head count. If only 25 people come through your precinct but the newspaper shows 223 votes, you wouldn't be able to detect the fraud unless you or someone you trusted counted the voters. This needs to be done with either paper or computer voting.

Having a receipt is a good thing, that is why I like the OP's concept. That is also why I say we should have the voting set up like the Lotto, with serial numbered receipts with the candidates name, or propositions, initiatives, and referendums voted for, so all the information with serial numbers match up when the people look it up. Along with all the town and cities votes. There needs not only be transparency but redundancy too.

[row333au]

The problem with current black box voting systems is that there is no paper trail for auditing. There are many threads here this week talking about voter fraud and needing to see actual evidence of fraud, not just suspicious activity. If the black box system keeps a paper log and if you are given a receipt, can anonymously verify the vote, and observe the polls to get a head count, then the electronics cannot cover up the fraud. The potential for fraud with electronic voting is the same with paper voting, it's in the chain of custody. Whether one goes with paper ballots or electronic is not as important as having a receipt and the ability to anonymously validate the results.

This is really awesome explanation...fully agree

This is why the need for public scrutiny is more important than ever...

Public watchdog and advocates for fair elections should see the accuracy of sources, analysis and integrity of data from media and public information (code of conducts and ethics).

Eliminate the electronic voting and reverse back to writing, confirming voters by legitimate ID, and open for public counting and investigations for any wrong doings....


People should demand and push (don't take no for an answer) for:

- ID voting rule (recognizable driver's license, passports, defense ID, etch)
.... identify eligibility, responsibility and prevent multiple voting by marking ID and number of votes

- Purple dye ink (temporary, will disappear within days most; dye use in staining monies on robberies)
.... it will be marked over the top of hand (oppose to palm) whereby a UV blue light could be use to detect traces of dyes (making them ineligible to vote and be reported); prior from registering to determine and discourage multiple voting fraud being done

- Small printed paper with official sticker precinct mark (this is the ballot paper without identity for anonymity and privacy rights)
.... small piece of paper (practical and cheap); with check the box (one choice only) from the four candidate print, voters will then put in their voting paper in a ballot box done in front of the public and watchdog bodies of the community; it will be folded in 2 with having the back blank stamp as legit vote - the official sticker marking the ID of the voting poll and genuine ballot paper

- Open public audience (this is to ensure open counting to eliminate tampering and ballot box switch
.... the public should be there guarding the ballot box, and the voters to monitor the event (with the results) along with police, military residents, paramedic and firemen as integrity assurance of voting counts, prevent intimidation and interference; and soon after should be open for public scrutiny before official announcement of results


- People should demand for the attorney general to represent the people of America (under scrutiny and transparency) in persecuting mainstream media's unethical behaviour and corrupt act of criminal fraud to stop disinformation, propaganda and corruption in undermining the elections, thus accordingly fined and imprison base on involvement

[Pauls' Revere]

No thank you. Electronics are ridiculously easy to interfere with. Think 2000, 2004, and probably 2012.

Yes, which is why Im not fond of Americaelects.

[The Free Hornet]

Would it be possible to implement this voting format by November 2012?

Regarding the merits, I think as mentioned elsewhere, it might be nice if you could have a copy to prove you did not make a mistake, however, so long as people can take a picture with their cellphone - that might suffice. I like the idea of 100% transparency especially if it includes the name of everyone who voted and substantiation of their elegibility. It would be my preference that we had a poll tax. At least make it expensive to buy votes.

Lastly, this article summarizes the video and the picture kind of explains the concept:

http://verifiablevoting.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/img_2403.jpg?w=630 (http://evoting.bismark.se/verifiable-electronic-voting/)
http://evoting.bismark.se/verifiable-electronic-voting/

[KCIndy]

Finally got to watch the video! (And thanks, Free Hornet, for posting the article linked above!)

Personally, I like this idea. Yes, there may be a few kinks in the system, and there will always be a chance of some sort of electronic tampering, but let's face it: how secure is the system we have in place right now??

At the very least, if everyone has a voting receipt, it would be a lot easier to raise a fuss when County X declares there were only four votes for, say, Ron Paul, when sixty people all start waving receipts and saying, "Hey! I voted for Paul! WTF!??" :D

The big question is whether there would be enough enthusiasm among an ever-apathetic voter base to get something like this in place.