this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
261 points (86.6% liked)

People Twitter

5295 readers
1696 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s not accurate to say that electronic voting is inherently untrustworthy. That’s a subjective opinion rather than a fact.

There are countries that have successfully used electronic voting for a long time without significant issues. Since you’re European to begin with, take Estonia for example - their system is world class. Look it up.

Voter anonymity isn’t an issue exclusive to digital voting either. Standard voting systems also have to ensure that votes are cast anonymously while verifying the voter’s identity. With electronic voting, cryptography can be used to protect voter identity and maintain anonymity and it’s very effective.

You can also use advanced security measures like multi-factor authentication, biometric verification, and other technologies. There’s a metric shitload of ways to enhance security in electronic voting.

Electronic voting can be designed to be more secure and transparent than in-person. Blockchain can create tamper-proof records and paper audit trails for verification. Anything that can’t be verified can be excluded and investigated.

It’s ridiculous to dismiss electronic voting outright because the things you are worried about can already happen in traditional voting.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The problem with electronic is that by it's nature it can't do secrecy while preserving integrity.

That is just not possible, and if you can have your vote linked back to you in anyway after having cast it, then the system is bad.

And this is not getting into the whole black box problem, there is no way to verify that the system is actually running the code it should.

You are trusting a black box built by other people with their own political agendas, or who possibly has been influenced by other interests.

I am well aware of Estonia's voting system, I would never trust it if I had use it.

There is just too much money and power combined with voter secrecy involved in the election process that it can't be trusted to software.

[–] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And on the other hand.. if I vote can’t be linked back to anyone, then you have a whole other problem. So maybe voting in general is able to be manipulated no matter what.

Black box voting are designed to to be transparent and they are open source so the public can scrutinize.

Why don’t you trust Estonias voting system? You didn’t give a reason. Look up VVPAT.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

I don't trust the concept of electronic voting.

Sure, the voting software might be open source, great, that doesn't mean that the code is actually running on the voting system at the time of election.

With electronic voting it is increadibly easy to skew a result, you just change the code and make every vote for A be worth 1, and every vote for B be worth 0,7 or so, then take the number of votes missing from B and remove them from the total number of votes.

With paper ballots that is a big logistical challange.

Then we come to the point of voter secrecy, that is entirely impossible to accomplish while maintaining voter verification in an electronic voting system, both of these objectives are critical to a proper voting system, and but you can only do either one of them in sn electronic voting system.