Comments on: Crowdsourcing Election Verification, part 2

By: Crowdsourcing Election Verification, part 3 « The Emergent Fool

Crowdsourcing Election Verification, part 3 « The Emergent Fool — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:29:53 +0000

[...] not even clear whether doing what I did in revealing the contents of my ballot textually would be illegal in Missouri or not. Or in Nevada where I voted for that [...]

By: rafefurst

rafefurst — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:31:17 +0000

If everyone were voting on the same electronic system, for instance, then yes there would be a single point of attack for a fraudster. However, it also makes it easier to prevent and easier to detect since you only have to scrutinize one place.

To be more precise, the centralized system is prone to certain forms of attack and failure, but against distributed, heterogeneous attack, it’s less vulnerable due to the ability of the system to defend a single stronghold and be vigilant with fewer resources and coordination required.

My contention is that the problem we are facing is a mismatch between the current goals of the system (elect who the people as a whole will to lead them) and design of the system. Granted the framers designed the system to achieve their goals, but times have changed and so have the needs and goals of the country. State autonomy is not as important for people as it was back then, as evidenced by the 70% approval rating nationwide for a national popular vote.

By: taoist

taoist — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:35:01 +0000

Well, that’s certainly true. But wouldn’t attack also include fraud, intimidation, and other election shenanigans?

By: rafefurst

rafefurst — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:43:00 +0000

Yes, exactly. But we’ve defined the problem as “weaker to attack” being a good thing in this case. Meaning that we don’t want a structurally biased reason for incumbents to stay in power. Electing the official that is the will of the people at large should be as frictionless as possible, esp. in the case where the official governs the people as a whole.

By: taoist

taoist — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 02:34:06 +0000

Ah, but by that logic, a national popular vote, being homogeneous, would also be less resilient, and weaker to attack, right?

By: rafefurst

rafefurst — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:11:39 +0000

I think the lesson of complex systems is that systems that are heterogeneous are more resilient and resistant to attack. Thus, it would be easier to implement political change with a national popular vote than the current federalist system.

By: taoist

taoist — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:11:19 +0000

Here’s the question though: is it easier to implement political change in 50 smaller locations, or one bigger location?

By: taoist

taoist — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:49:03 +0000

That is true. The weakness of distributed systems is when you want to apply something everywhere. Voting security is definitely one of those areas where we’ve technologically solved the problems, and yet haven’t found the political will to apply those solutions. Of course, as with any bureaucracy, this is also an area where the people who have the power to fix the system are currently the ones benefiting from its brokenness.

By: rafefurst

rafefurst — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:35:19 +0000

Yes, I agree that technologically it’s a solved problem, has been for many years. The real issue is that the problem is not about technology but rather the system in which the technology is embedded. While it looks easy to just put the right technology in place everywhere, the federalist system you love (amongst other things), makes that really difficult.

By: taoist

taoist — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:45:34 +0000

Along those lines, you might want to take a look at this:
http://taoist.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/reiterating-science-has-solved-most-voter-security-issues/
A technology that enables everyone to check that their vote is secure without revealing exactly what their vote is.