How Bitcoin Could Be Key To Online Voting

blottsie (3618811) writes If implemented correctly, the proliferation of online voting could solve one of the biggest problems in American democracy: low voter turnout. The 2014 midterms, for example, boasted the lowest voter turnout in 72 years. Making it easier to vote by moving the action from a polling station to your pocket could only increase turnout, especially in the primaries. Making online voting work is infinitely harder than it initially seems. However, in the past few years, there's been a renewed effort to solve the conundrum of online voting using a most unexpected tool: Bitcoin. The key idea is this: The main job in online voting is ensuring that the election system records someone’s vote the way they intended. Running votes over the blockchain, which is public, creates an auditable trail linking a person and their vote. Bitcoin-enabled voters don’t have to place their trust in Florida ballot counters trying to discern the difference a hanging chad and a dimpled chad—nor in black box online voting systems from private companies where what’s happening inside is a mystery. The proof is right there on the blockchain.

Comments

Secret Ballot?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have an auditable trail and a secret ballot.

Re:Secret Ballot?

[bigpat]

You can't have an auditable trail and a secret ballot.

I've been preaching this on Slashdot for years... electronic systems that let people track their own votes can be used by others to track those votes. Already there are entire industries around trying to figure out how people vote and manipulating the electorate, so it is a very real concern. But maybe it is time to ditch the secret ballot... at least for some things. Look at Open Town Meetings as an example. It is one of the most democratic and empowering form of governments in practice and it exists without a secret ballot for most matters. Only for elections of individuals to particular offices or for setting salaries do they usually do a secret ballot. But for general changes to the bylaws or voting on the overall budget the voting is quite open and anyone with a pen could record your vote.

We could move to more participatory government where ballot questions could be voted on electronically and we could record who votes for what as a matter of public record. Perhaps we retain the option of in-person secrecy. But secrecy leaves all sorts of room for ballot fraud if undemocratic forces get control of the election systems. In many places that seems to be the entire point of ballot secrecy... to make it impossible for the public to know if the election was stolen. So, perhaps the cost of ballot secrecy simply does not outweigh the benefits of people being accountable for their votes.

Re:Secret Ballot?

[RingDev]

Not that I'm in favor of this, but... that isn't exactly true.

You can have an audit trail and anonymity so long as the source of the audit trail is known only to the originator.

If each year I am assigned a token at random, and the assigning system tracks only that a token was assigned, then I can look at that token and see it's audit trail to ensure that my vote was recorded correctly.

Anyone else looking at the audit trail of that token would be able to see how that token was used, but not by who.

Not sure I'm on board with online voting, but I don't believe that the audit trail and anonymity are mutually exclusive.

-Rick

Re:Secret Ballot?

[Xelios]

Voter shows ID to election worker. Worker checks a box. Voter reaches into a giant lottery box full of generated IDs and uses that ID to vote. Later the voter can inspect the blockchain, find his ID and verify that his vote went to the right candidates.

I'm not saying it's a better system but I think there are ways to keep voter anonymity while also allowing the public to audit the result.

Re:Secret Ballot?

[Kobun]

The counter-argument goes that if the voter can pull out their generated ID tag to verify their vote after the fact, a standard-issue "thug" (representing any malicious party) can also use that ID to verify that the votes went to their preferred candidates. So it's not really anonymous at all.

Re:Secret Ballot?

[GuldKalle]

The problem is that you yourself can provide the token to, let's say, an employer forcing you to vote a certain way, an abusive spouse or someone who wants to buy your vote.
The current systems prevent that or make it hard to do in any systematic way. Even taking a picture of your ballot won't help, as you can always get it exchanged for a fresh one.

Re:Secret Ballot?

[dns_server]

While that sounds good there are people that still round up the opposition in to one area and shoot them.

It is unlikely to be a problem to you or me but encouraging a system that makes it possible is a bad thing for the world.

Re:Secret Ballot?

[cayenne8]

You know...someone that cannot be troubled to take the small amount of time and effort to register to vote, and go to the poll to vote, likely is also NOT the type of person to take any amount of time to study the issues or people up for election and therefore, not someone I'd actively encourage to make a vote.

No vote is better than an ill-informed / non-informed vote.

Re:Secret Ballot?

[Trailer Trash]

Voter shows ID to election worker.

RACIST!!!!

Re:Secret Ballot?

[Rich0]

So the employer can demand your token, and you give it up. Would you give up your personal email password? Facebook password? The actions of the employer are illegal. Why aren't you reporting him?

It would be your word against theirs. How would you prove that they asked for your ID? It isn't like anybody with half a brain would fire you on the spot if you refused. They'd just wait for you to make a mistake, or decide they don't need your services in six months.

Today, nearly all absentee voting will allow voting outside the view of poll employees. So the employer can fill out ballots for all employees, have them come in and sign them. Then the employer sends them in. Oh, and on election day, everyone has a double-shift with no breaks (no time to vote). At best, the voter can send in a second, spoiling one (or both) votes, but I've not seen any absentee system used in the US that would allow the voter to control his own vote in that situation. If the employer is so aggressive about ensuring votes for his preferred candidate, why aren't more doing this already?

They're too cheap to have 100% of their employee population standing around for two shifts with nothing to do on election day?

If you're going to make people fill out absentee ballots and then chain them in a dungeon, sure, you can abuse the current system. However, it is MUCH harder to do it today than in a system where people take home receipts. It is also unnecessary.

Just collect electronic votes with human-readable/machine-readable audit trails. The electronic tally can be used to provide instant results. The paper audit trail can be audited using random sampling to verify the integrity of the electronic tally. The paper trail would be printed behind a window so that the voter could see that it was recorded correctly, but it would not be modifiable or removable by the voter. Then you can use all the usual controls to prevent tampering with the paper.

Re:Secret Ballot?

[jfengel]

No vote is better than an ill-informed / non-informed vote.

Ya know, I'm not so sure about that. The whole premise of democracy is that we are, collectively, smarter than any of us individually. Somehow, the average of the guesses comes out as closer to the truth than any of the guesses. Uninformed voters on one side of the issue cancel out uninformed voters on the other side of the issue.

There's a lot of reason to be dubious about that, but to be frank, the vast majority of voters are very uninformed about practically every issue. Any significant topic requires years or decades of study to be really expert on. And most voters will go in with nothing more than they've read in the newspaper, or worse, on TV. Take any topic you actually know in detail; do you think that any reporter has ever understood it? Here on Slashdot we regularly complain about how science and technology are misrepresented and misunderstood. Do you really think that reporting on energy issues, the economy, or foreign affairs is any better?

I'm always glad for people to want to know more, but practically everybody goes into the voting booth with a massive case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, convinced that they know the topic far better than they actually do. The whole point of democracy is to try to take that into account. Usually, we're actually voting for people to represent us, and they often know it a bit better than we do (or at least, they have advisers who do), but in the end we're really just hoping that the representative on the side of the truth will have slightly more followers than the representative who has it wrong. Democracy is designed to expose a slight bias towards reality, even if few of the individuals involved can actually justify that bias.

I'd love to live in a meritocracy where only the best experts are making decisions... but who's going to pick those experts? I'd be happy if it were me, but I bet you wouldn't be. Democracy is the closest thing I've ever seen to a fair way to pick. And if so, it only works because everybody gets to take their best guess. I suspect that the ones who know enough to know that they don't know very much are better qualified to take their guess than those who don't even know that they don't know.

Especially when you've got a news media which gets its best viewership by telling them how smart they are and that all of the smart people agree with them. They're the most dangerous voters of them all, and they vote in droves. And I can't think of any fair way to keep them out of the polls. So everybody might as well go out and vote.

Anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't one of the key features of modern voting the ability not to have your vote connected to you? This is part of the reason why there's so much argument over "card check" voting systems for unionization, because it allows the union or the company to coerce workers into voting one way or the other, since their vote is not anonymous.

Conflating Issues

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's not a given that low voter turnout is a problem. We don't need more low-information voters (89% agree that DHMO should be banned) and we don't need to coerce those who do not vote to signal their non-consent to the system.

Blockchain technology could make voting more reliable, but that's a separate issue - don't confuse the two.

Re:Conflating Issues

[Shakrai]

We don't need more low-information voters (89% agree that DHMO should be banned)

Well yeah. If you breathe it you'll DIE! Only a Teabagger would be against Government regulation of a chemical that's so dangerous as to cause DEATH when inhaled. Why do you hate the children? How much did Big DHMO pay you for this astroturfing?

Uninterested people aren't worth it

[Kobun]

It's not worth going out of our way to make voting MORE accessible than it already is. There are multiple polling places in every city of any size across the nation. People who are so uninterested in the process that they can't either go to their local poll or drop an absentee ballot in the mail are VERY likely to have a misinformed, useless opinion.

There are any number of areas regarding voting that I'd rather see time spent on instead of being able to claim "There's an app for that".

Re:Uninterested people aren't worth it

[DaHat]

Bingo!

The assumption that low voter turnout is a bad thing always puzzles me, as it seems to suggest that it is better to have a larger number of uninformed people voting... rather than a smaller # of people who can at least be bothered to get up off their arse and do something.

Re:Uninterested people aren't worth it

[Shakrai]

Which is why political parties love these voters. Because they'll vote straight party line ticket every single time. They make an effort to identify these people and physically drag them to the polls if necessary.

Back in the day before New York got rid of our battleship gray lever machines it was easy as pie to identify these voters. "*click* *click* *click* *click* *click*" as they pulled the levers across their party line without even bothering to read the names of the candidates they were voting for. In and out in 5 seconds flat with 15+ offices on the ballot.

Re:Uninterested people aren't worth it

[ADRA]

Maybe the more apt question would be why people are so uninformed that simply withdraw all responsibility in governance. A few toss outs:
    - The system works, so why bother voting to change it
    - The systems is so corrupt, I've given up any hope of fixing things
    - I'm a small person, and I should have no say in how things are run
    - With all of two parties that are functionally essentially identical, who cares who I vote for, so I don't bother
    - I hate politics (I've personally knows many friends that would turn hostile that the thought of talking politics)
    - I work 80 hours a week in my salt factory job, and I'm literally brain dead, and I've lost all sense of smell... Squirrel!

I'm sure there are many more reasons. The point is, there are good reasons to vote, and BAD reasons to not vote. I'd say make voting mandatory, but add a category for no-vote and give a large list of reasons why you chose to not vote for a candidate/party/etc.. It'll inform both the government and the populace on how government has failed those that chose not to participate.

Re:Uninterested people aren't worth it

[tverbeek]

While it's true that low-interest voters tend to be low-information voters, there is also the problem that highly-interested voters are often highly misinformed voters. You have fundamentalist preachers frightening their congregations to vote in favor of bans on same-sex marriage by telling them horror stories about gay couples adopting babies to molest; or dogmatic political organizations telling their members to vote against a candidate because she's going to take their handguns and hunting rifles away, when all she said was that she'd look into restricting sales of assault weapons. Voters who haven't been mainlining bullshit propaganda crafted to "mobilize the base" can actually have a better grasp of the truth.

Sounds stupid ...

[gstoddart]

Running votes over the blockchain, which is public, creates an auditable trail linking a person and their vote.

I'm sorry, but what idiot has decided that having your vote be a matter of public record is a good idea?

From all of the news stories I've heard over the last year or so, I don't trust Bitcoin at all.

So WTF would I want this tied to voting for?

This sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. Bitcoin seems like it's barely usable as a currency, it has no place trying to prop up democracy.

No. Hell No. Bad Idea.

[Shakrai]

There is no way that you can conduct online voting and ensure that the voter is not being intimidated. Offsite voting is a necessary evil for certain people (the handicapped and those who are unavoidably out of town on election day) but it does not need to be expanded to cover everyone. Here in New York we very specifically keep those most likely to intimidate you out of the voting booth, i.e., your employer and union official. The people that can hold a financial gun to your head if you don't vote the way they want. With online voting (or offsite voting on paper, i.e., absentee ballots) there is no way to actually ensure that the voter doesn't have a gun (real or proverbial) aimed at their head when they click 'submit.' For this reason alone I will always oppose it and other measures (vote by mail) that take people out of the polling place.

The summary also makes the assumption that low voter turnout is a big problem. This is an oft-repeated claim but there's zero evidence to suggest that increased participation rates equate to better results. People choose not to vote for many reasons; apathy likely being the biggest one, followed closely by a generalized disgust with the available options. "None of the above" is a perfectly valid option in an election, whether exercised via the write-in for "Mickey Mouse" or by staying home on Election Day.

... and there's the problem

[MadCow42]

"creates an auditable trail linking a person and their vote"

Being able to verify how someone voted defeats the whole point. You need ANONYMOUS, but verifiable voting, if that's at all possible. Otherwise, you get into the whole issue of vote buying, intimidation, public shaming, etc.

Verifying a message vs. its contents

[tepples]

As your employer, I'd like to see your randomly drawn ID, you know, to verify that you really voted during the two hours you were off.

Here's the public part of a randomly drawn ID, plus a certificate signed by the election office. With the public part, you can verify that I voted but not for whom. For all you can tell, I voted for Mickey Mouse.

selling your vote versus the secret ballot

[goombah99]

The secret ballot has two purposes. one is it maintains your privacy and that's good for you. The other is it prevents selling your vote and that's good for the public. If I have a bitcoin ballot then I can easily transfer that coin to someone else to vote. thus I can sell my vote and the buyer knows for sure how it will be cast.

Re:Original comment still correct

[Archangel Michael]

And you are wrong. Once inserted into the blockchain, and since it is recored, it will be counted. Short of someone on the inside of the computer coded, secretly inserting miscounts (which become statistical anomalies) it would assure correct and accurate counts.