I don't know man, my take, the unibomber was right technology is fucked. I work in information security all these metrics you're suggesting can be manipulated in the source code. No access to the internet, use both encryption and hashing to preserve the confidentiality of the vote and the integrity.
I think using a digital signature which would give you all three elements (confidentiality, Integrity, and Non Repudiation) the problem is it's not scalable and will require network access for a centralized server as the key exchange for the voting machines.
So anything you do to digital voting machines will be dependent on other security countermeasures, this adds additional complexity.
It reminds me of NASA spending 3 million dollars for a pen that can right in space. The Russians just used a pencil.
Keep things simple as it worked for many of moons are best.
Might sound stupid but I think a risk with this is ink. If some ballots are only filled for President (because some people do really do that. Or they do a write in candidate) or for whatever other reason, not every ballot will have the same amount of ink.
Even if you had all candidates voted for on all ballots, what if somebody pressed harder with their ink and some people filled them in more lightly but still enough to count as a valid vote? Scale that up to millions of ballots and those differences in weight could make a difference.
For example - How much does a box of random filled out ballots of 1000 weigh? We’d have to average it out from sample boxes. Idk I’m not a mathematician but really got me thinking 🧐
Hmmmm it might be possible to use some statistics to estimate ballot counts, but that still doesn't beat an old fashioned hand recount.
Unfortunately I think we need to stick to older methods.
Personally I've been wondering how we can somehow try to anonymize ballots so that counters can only count results without knowing what results they are counting. But that's easier said than done.
Broken water main?
No voting machine.
HAND COUNT FUCKING BALLOTS.
I agree but I’m thinking more so for the hand counting happening in audits we have now
I don't know man, my take, the unibomber was right technology is fucked. I work in information security all these metrics you're suggesting can be manipulated in the source code. No access to the internet, use both encryption and hashing to preserve the confidentiality of the vote and the integrity.
I think using a digital signature which would give you all three elements (confidentiality, Integrity, and Non Repudiation) the problem is it's not scalable and will require network access for a centralized server as the key exchange for the voting machines.
So anything you do to digital voting machines will be dependent on other security countermeasures, this adds additional complexity.
It reminds me of NASA spending 3 million dollars for a pen that can right in space. The Russians just used a pencil.
Keep things simple as it worked for many of moons are best.
Might sound stupid but I think a risk with this is ink. If some ballots are only filled for President (because some people do really do that. Or they do a write in candidate) or for whatever other reason, not every ballot will have the same amount of ink.
Even if you had all candidates voted for on all ballots, what if somebody pressed harder with their ink and some people filled them in more lightly but still enough to count as a valid vote? Scale that up to millions of ballots and those differences in weight could make a difference.
For example - How much does a box of random filled out ballots of 1000 weigh? We’d have to average it out from sample boxes. Idk I’m not a mathematician but really got me thinking 🧐
Hmmmm it might be possible to use some statistics to estimate ballot counts, but that still doesn't beat an old fashioned hand recount.
Unfortunately I think we need to stick to older methods.
Personally I've been wondering how we can somehow try to anonymize ballots so that counters can only count results without knowing what results they are counting. But that's easier said than done.
I like this! Could be spoofed with added waits, but another metric to include in the process.