I don’t like it. It completely removes the anonymity of the vote, has no counting transparency, and is subject to ballot stuffing.
See above. And one of the most important things I am concerned about is the transparency of counting the votes. Blockchain voting allows you, me, and millions of other people to see/count the votes, and the votes database is tamper-proof. No other system does that.
So, your main interest is to let the public count votes in elections?
Fully transparent votes. Votes are stored in a public archive that is tamper-proof and open to inspection/recount by anyone. Do you see something wrong with that?
Well, I’m trying to figure out why it is worth the effort. Are you looking for evidence that Donald Trump stole the election, and the boards of elections of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were in on it?
For that exact reason.
OK, you were in the room when the keys were issued, you watched very closely… I guess that’s your plan? However, now that the election is over and done, Citizens for Okrahoma have declared that, despite being able to count they votes as often as they’d like, they don’t think the 200 votes I have over you came from legitimate voters.
How do you convince them they you actually lost the election?
The inference from CfO is that BobLibDem, being the partisan hack that he is, secretly implanted malware in the token generator that assigned 250 of the 1000 tokens to fake voters and stored the private keys on a hidden thumb drive that he retrieved later. When you viewed the key associations the malware made it look like they were assigned to legitimate voters, but they really weren’t.
How do you verify that this didn’t happen and calm your supporters?
It really doesn’t inspire confidence in our election system when each recount gives a different number of votes. “Recount until our guy wins” shenanigans certainly do not. The system is opaque. Whenever it was somewhat exposed (“hanging chads” anyone?) it was just shown to be more and more ridiculous. Blockchain voting would would eliminate that. Why would you object?
And more fundamentally, there is the “does my vote count?” problem. When the error factor in counting votes is in hundreds if not thousands, that really makes your one vote meaningless.
Honestly, this is just a plain silly idea. It is incomprehensible, over-complicated, and would completely disenfranchise potential voters who are not tech-savvy.
Can’t do that. All the keys generated are recorded in the blockchain and timestamped at the time of generation. All undistributed (destroyed) keys are recorded in the blockchain and timestamped at the end of key distribution. All assigned keys are recorded in the blockchain and timestamped at the time of assignment. The recording of these keys is public, transparent, and the blockchain cannot be tampered with. That’s the whole point of blockchain. You cannot add the extra keys to the blockchain later. It is all fully verifyable.
How do you distribute these publicly recorded keys? And what about this invalidates the claims of CfO, that BobLibDem secretly distributed 250 of the keys to himself?
eta: To clarify, the accusation isn’t that BobLibDem generated fake keys, it’s that he generated real keys for phony voters, but made it look like the keys were for real voters.
Other issues aside, one barrier is the ignorant refusing to fight their own ignorance:
Post #44. All distributed keys are recorded in the blockchain at the time of distribution, and the registered voters are checked off in the registration books or however those records are kept.
You cannot “secretly” record these keys in the blockchain. The recording is fully public and transparent. Anyone can watch these being recorded.
So in this case, you looked at all the generated keys and made sure they matched up with valid SDMB accounts?
You’re recording the private keys in the blockchain?
I made sure that the number of keys distributed and recorded was the same as the number of registered voters marked off as having received them. As I watched them receiving them.
No. Public keys. Why would you need to record private keys?
What do you mean “watched them receiving them.” Was this done in person?
You wouldn’t. You distribute them. In this case, the accusation is that some number were distributed to a thumb drive. In secret. Secretly recorded to a thumb drive.
Yes. That one failure point - distribution of keys - has to be watched in person by observers from all parties. Later voting doesn’t have to be done in person.
Can’t. It’s done in person. Physically. People come in and leave with the keys. And each is marked off as having received them. The keys they received are publicly, transparently, recorded in the blockchain at the time they are distributed. You can put as many keys as you want on the thumb drive, but if they are not recorded in the blockchain, they are useless. And you cannot add them to the blockchain later because it is tamper-proof.
As noted in one of the links I provided, blockchain tech works best when the two sides of the transaction know and trust each other. How do you get people to trust the government?
As I already pointed out, there needs to be some trust of government at some point or points in the process. The scheme I proposed minimizes the need for that trust to one point in the process (distribution of keys) and adds supervision and verification at that one point.
If the voting isn’t done in person, what stops people from handing over keys to friends and/or family? What stops the homeless from handing over keys for a bit of cash or some cheap booze?
Two thoughts: first, you seem to be starting with a solution rather than a set of requirements. I think the logical first question is, “Should the world be able to inspect every ballot cast in our elections?” If the answer is yes, then we should design the system to do so. If the answer is no, your block chain idea, and all other similar concepts, are moot.
Second, in the list of issues with our electoral system, I don’t think an OCD-like insistence that all vote recounts be identical to the number rates as an actual problem.
That comment was based more on the OP’s initial reluctance to further explain his proposal by asserting that everyone else should spend their time researching his genius rather than him putting in an effort to make a case for it. His attitude has changed as this thread goes on.
But tell me: do you feel compelled to do a lot of research on every thread started on this board?