Hacker News Reader

Comment by mariusor | Hacker News Reader

You can bet money on the fact that when electronic ballots will have the similar tenure as paper ones, they will be equally secure.

I think Schneier, and possibly everyone else, is overlooking one simple thing, nothing needs to be perfect on the first try. Iteration on electronic voting is possible all the way up until you hinge serious stakes on it. A country level organization experimenting with technology to improve the experience of voting and lowering the bar for exercising one's citizenship rights should make us glad, not dismissive. The article series Schneier is basing his critique on is getting this right:

> The e-voting system currently being developed by Swiss Post has been significantly improved. However, further developments, some of them substantial, are still required.

View on HN

I am not sure why anyone should switch to something different so that it can eventually be as secure as paper - maybe I misunderstand.

What experience needs improving in the paper ballots that needs to go beyond paper? What bar needs to be lowered and is that desirable?

The main downside of paper ballots is the slowness and contrivance of the process. I think it's a phenomenon that's present in most countries that don't have mandatory voting law to see very low participation, especially with the younger demographic.

Having to set aside a whole day to exercise your rights as a citizen is ridiculous in my opinion and we can do a lot better. (Seeing as the article is about Switzerland, I would say their mail ballot initiative is a step in the right direction but to me it also looks less secure than paper ballots).

Another one is speed. People in this thread complain that some regions in the US only had their final counts for the last presidential election days, if not weeks after the voting ended. How is that acceptable?

In my opinion, when voting is as easy as pushing a button in an application or on a website, the democratic process will have a wider reach and could be used for many more things than the very important ones, like presidential elections or referenda (again the Swiss already do this AFAIK).

Swiss people have been able to vote via mail-in vote since forever and there were never any instances of large-scale fraud that I know of.

It's true that in-person voting is safer. If you mail in your ballot, nobody can verify that you were truly alone and weren't coerced into giving your vote. And of course, it's not rare for e.g. a child to fill out the ballot for its senior parent etc. But it's still hard to commit large-scale fraud, as you'd need to be in control of the mail delivery.

Speed is not a paper thing, it can have results within hours in large countries.

Voting with paper also doesn't have to take all day - a few minutes at a polling station or even less by mail ballot (fraud isn't an issue of paper here).

Also, voting is more than a right, it is exercising authority and that might perhaps need at least some minimum of hurdle in it to get focus.

In terms of broader and more fluid democracy - perhaps, but need to be careful to maintain focus and not end up in something gamified.

> but need to be careful to maintain focus and not end up in something gamified.

Sorry, but why?

In my opinion _any_ method to get more people involved in the democratic process is a win.

Because exercising authority on not only one's own future but that of society isn't a game. If the way to get engagement is to hide away consequences and reflection then that is the wrong way to get people to exercise authority responsibly.

I don't agree. Democracy is a process that should involve _all_ opinions and all attitudes, including those of the people who think it's a game.

It looks to me that you're looking at matters with rose tinted glasses to think for one second that the the people handling the current democratic process feel the burden of consequences for it.

Not for one second do I believe that all the people are thinking about the exercise of authority and the consequences thereof when they cast a vote, hence I don't want to further such attitudes.

That aside, you seem to advocate a pretty broad change to laws restricting voting when you want all(!) opinions and attitudes to count. What do you see as template there on how to shape the franchise (e.g., what to do about minimum age, insanity)?

Sorry, I probably got carried away and ended up not making myself understood.

I'm fine with the rules as they are for determining who is recognized to vote.

My intentions were for increasing participation in the demographics which are currently legitimate but are being kept out by external factors (they don't have child minders, they can't take a day off work, ie. the poor), or choosing by themselves to keep out of the process (it's lame to vote, all choices are the same, I have better things to do, ie. the young). You can't have a true democracy if these classes of people are underrepresented in your vote.

Fair.

I just don't see how there is a causal link between these issues and paper ballots. Poor voting implementations could make participation difficult regardless of the voting method, for example. Similarly, political apathy of sorts isn't cured by abstracting away the politics.

Voting day should be a national federal holiday, that would eliminate most concerns about the poor, lack of 'child minders', day of work, etc.

The arguments some people are making in this thread that it -shouldn't- take a day, should only take a 'click', are misguided imo. There is value in slowing down collectively, participating in the process, and seeing the results of that collective action.

Reducing it to a task to be completed as efficiently as possible is horribly misguided -- but eliminating the barriers to participate collectively is conversely an admirable goal, which could easily be mostly solved via federal holiday.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com