[dead]
I hope the will of the people prevails over the supreme court in Brazil eventually.
There will be no computing freedom until the silicon trojans embedded in all US designed CPUs are removed.
If you want freedom, you will have to ensure that no unseen radiation is enabling remote control of your devices.
Ask me anything about BadBIOS and hardware trojans.
One size does not fit all (threat models).
I agree with Germany's take on the matter: voting machines should be unconstitutional because citizens don't fully understand how it works. It's that simple. That's how a civilized country is supposed to work. Instead we have this circus where these judge-kings claim the machines are "unquestionable" and censor and fine and punish and ban from politics anyone who dares question anything.
We also have advanced (early) voting. You can vote one or two weeks early, election day is stress free.
Early votes counting starts at 9am in election day. So by the time that polls close most prelimary counting is already done.
The official count does take a couple of weeks, but around 10pm enough of the preliminary count is done that most electrotes have a winner.
How is that relevant? Australia is 29x the area of New Zealand and 5x the population; and like New Zealand, it uses paper-based instead of electronic voting. I see no reason why a paper-based process can’t be scaled to work for a country of any size, even one bigger than Brazil.
> We have election results 5h after election ends
A slower but more trustworthy process is superior to a faster but less trustworthy one. Nobody needs results ASAP
> and there is no evidence whatsoever of fraud.
Elections should be held to a higher standard than merely “no positive evidence of fraud”. We should demand everything reasonable has been done to make fraud as hard as possible. I think elections in Australia meet that standard (and probably several other countries too, such as New Zealand and Germany). I think Brazil, and the US, among others, fail it. Their election systems fail to take every reasonable measure to prevent fraud, and hence fraud is inherently more likely - and the absence of any specific evidence does nothing to alter that conclusion. Even in the absence of any specific evidence, claims of fraud are more likely to be true in a system which makes fraud easier
Due to its size and historical reasons, we have regional power that many times could try to benefit from physical voting receipts. It was common for local leadership to offer favors in exchange for votes.
> Nobody needs results ASAP
You don't know Brazil. The system's speed reduces the change of undemocratic action by those in power. Since 1889 Brazil has faced ten coup trials by the army (eleven if we consider what happened on 8th Jan of this year), and six were successful. Our current system's new republic is the most prolonged period of political stability (and the most successful from the socioeconomic perspective) in the country's history, largely due to our election system. Australia, New Zealand, and other countries have different histories and, therefore, different needs.
> Even in the absence of any specific evidence, claims of fraud are more likely to be true in a system which makes fraud easier
Everything is auditable. Both civil and state institutions audit the system. It could be better. Making all open-source would be a massive step in transparency. But there are multiple mechanisms:
- random sampling checking comparing digital and printed results (each machine prints a summary of the votes)
- voters receive a number to double-check if their vote was counted (however, they can't see who they voted for to guarantee vote secrecy).
- parallel voting: in randomly selected locations, the vote is cast to a shadow voting machine and computed in parallel to identify discrepancies.
- public software and hardware inspection: any institution, civil or not, can inspect the entire system. The army (yes, the one that is proud of the multiple coups) was acting to reduce the system's credibility and did an inspection and could not find anything substantial.
We can't compare different countries without a historical and social lens. NZ electoral system in Brazil would be a disaster.
That’s not how paper voting works in Australia or New Zealand. The voter never gets a “receipt” to say which way they voted - that would be illegal.
In Australia, the voter’s name is marked in a roll book (to detect duplicate voting), and then they are given ballot papers. They mark them with pencils and put them in cardboard boxes. Everything that is done with those boxes, and the counting of the ballots in them, is physically observed by representatives of the candidates/parties (scrutineers).
I'd like to make sure you know you aren't alone on this site. Even here on HN people will downvote to suppress views they disagree with instead of actually refuting any points raised. This can give posters the wrong impression.
I mean this in the nicest, least combative, way possible: I don't understand at all how this would help with vote auditing. How does printing a piece of paper, which remains in the possession of the machine, ease any concerns about fraud generally, or enable an individual to audit?
At the end of the day, the bag of paper votes is transported with their oversight (multiple parties from opposing sides) to a public place where all of them will count the papers, together, in a public session, with cameras.
It's actually what already happens when the e-voting machines fail and your backup also fails. You cast votes with paper and the votes are counted with this exact same process, with oversight from all parties.
The other two are superior courts, but they don't rule constitutional matters.
The reasons were (you can confirm by clicking on the link above):
Security and Secrecy of the Vote: The court argued that the printed vote would not maintain the current standard of security provided by exclusively electronic voting. The paper trail could potentially pose a risk to the secrecy of the vote, with the possibility of identifying which voter chose which candidate. This could threaten the free choice of the voters.
[I find this argument ridiculous to be honest. The paper trail is anonymous and there's no way it violates the secrecy of the vote]
Operational Difficulties and Costs: The court also noted the significant difficulties and high costs associated with implementing a paper trail. They argued that the potential benefits associated with the security of the electoral process were minuscule compared to the detriments stemming from the implementation of the measure.
Rapid Implementation: The court deemed that the law, which called for the immediate implementation of the paper trail in 2018, failed to consider the necessary time and resources for proper setup.
[For a country the size of Brazil, the 1 billion BRL (200 million USD) is actually cheap if it avoids the political distrust that the current e-voting system has - see what happened in January 8th with the invasion of Congress and the Supreme Court].
One big problem with the electoral court in Brazil is that it is the only public branch that concentrates the three powers in one entity: they legislate about elections, they execute the rules, and they judge any matters related to the election. As a result, they have chosen these arguments to shoot down any criticism or improvement suggestions to the election system.
The country deserves a non-politicized discussion on the ground of true technical and security merits of what the election system should be. Paper records with Risk-limiting audits would solve most of the problems. I agree with your [comments] above. The costs of implementing this pale in comparison to the benefits of having a more reliable voting process which is the basis of a strong democracy.
That's exactly what they should think. This is the system by which the power of the people is delegated to representatives. Why should they relinquish any power at all if there's any possibility the results were tampered with? They most certainly should not.
That's the standard of perfection the judge-king himself set when he said the system was "unquestionable". TSE needs to prove beyond shadow of doubt that it cannot be compromised. Anything short of that means the system cannot be trusted. So far I've seen nothing but censorship and persecution from the judge-kings. What are they so afraid of?
I'm going to need to assume that this is an oversimplifying summary then?
Bolsonaro decided to step up against all that, and the rest is history now.