Electoral System Reform Policy discussion

[Simon]

@AndrewDowning

As Tom Scott said, that’s a really expensive and insecure alternative to a pencil.

I’d be happy with that (well it’s not insecure).

• You can put validation into the machine to make sure the voter fills it out correctly - less user errors by mistake, and the person counting doesn’t have to make any guesses about the voters intent.
• Less cumbersome than long pieces of paper / more user friendly UI
• Randomised order for each voter is possible
• Accessibility features can be built-in
• Printed results are easier to be machine readable (OCR so it is human readable too), quicker to count.

@AndrewDowning

Really though, they won’t be open source

I know that the realities would probably be different to the Ideals, but if we have a Policy out on the Ideals, if the issue comes up then it is easier for us to point to it, get some media attention and say this is really what should be done to make it harder for them to put their evil plans into action.

@AndrewDowning

existing vote counting is still proprietary

We should make a point about that

@AndrewDowning

the software in the machines is really the software we think it is

If it is a glorified pencil, the user can just read the print out.

If it is an anonymous blockchain, the entire blockchain can be made available to the public where anyone can cross-check their voting receipt to see that it has been recorded correctly

@AndrewDowning

What does block chain add to a voting machine network

Block chain makes it almost cryptographically impossible to tamper with the results. I say almost because you can never say unbreakable when it comes to cryptography, but the logic is sound and if you were able to break blockchain crypto you probably wouldn’t waste your time on politics but rather make yourself insanely rich with crypto currencies. Bitcoin’s viability and value is built off Block Chain.

@AndrewDowning

much simpler arrangements of point to point crypto?

With point to point crypto, you tamper with one result and probably nobody would notice. With Blockchain, you tamper with 1 bit and the entire chain falls apart because nobody’s verification hash after that change will match anymore.

@AndrewDowning

How does it help voter confidence, if 99% of them can’t even understand how the security of this works?

I don’t think that matters as long as the idea can be communicated in simple terms (as I’ve done here) and they are able to actually check the data for themselves. The data is open so they could even check it with a trusted 3rd party who also has a copy of the blockchain to make sure there is no shenanigans on the AEC side returning the correct result only when they check it.

Also which has not been mentioned - Physical voting places need to stay to ensure that nobody is under duress in their vote and a chain of command being monitored by the scrutineers to make sure that everything is being done correctly, and this scrutiny process should happen even on a machine level.

@jedb

But for citizen initiated votes and other direct democracy measures that could happen a lot more often, convenience rises in importance.

As an extension, blockchain could make it to the home for less important issues, but make the vote need to be verified in a second method (i.e. email or SMS) before it’s accepted in case the device used to vote has been compromised. They would also need to physically visit a place or receive a random access code by mail (overseen by scrutineers) to make sure that the tokens are anonymised. I can not think of a single way to check an ID and then guarantee anonymity online without the overcoming possibility that a system has been compromised to secretly tie your ID to your access code. I’d love it if anyone had any idea on that problem.