I love [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI) from Tom Scott in which he explains quite well why e-voting is inherently bad. I am very happy that here in Switzerland, even if we have to vote several times every year, we still do it the old fashion way :).
It's worth noting that this article is not about e-voting in the sense that the video seems to be presenting [1]. This is about the machines that tabulate the results, often from paper ballots manually filled in by voters.
The report itself [2] goes into more detail on the exact nature of the vulnerabilities.
[1] I admit I didn't watch the whole video; I find video to be an extremely tedious medium for transmitting information like this, but from skimming bits of it it seems that the speaker is more focused on distributed systems for voting and online voting systems, which are both horrifying ideas; although Oregon and Washington have made a good go at absentee-only voting.
Depends how it's done. In France, we register only once in the country, in our "voting neighborhood".
Once you enter the voting building, you give your ID, sign the register, go to the voting cell, put your vote in an envelope, give your sealed envelope to be counted in a sealed box that has a mechanical counter for each envelope it gets.
Unhackable, because anyone can check the counter, count the signatures, and participate to the closing count of cast votes.
The real issue is if you can get inscribed on two different voting neighborhoods though... is that what you describe? (which shouldn't happen, given how long it takes to get your name on one voting list, since the gvt probably crosses your name out of all other voting neighborhoods when you do)
We should make it exceedingly easy it seems instead of just saying well we won't have it at all?
If anything just to avoid the time and energy spent insinuating things and discussing if IDs are racist or not.
A country like India with more poverty and issues like open defecation somehow managed to get everyone an ID but here it this insurmountable problem, that everyone talks about yet nothing is done about it.
At best, voter ID is a solution to a problem that has not been shown to exist. At worst, it is a tool to limit the number of people who are able to vote on election day. It's really as simple as that.
No it's not racist, it can easily be implemented in the US today without issue.
Don't be so patronizing to minority groups, they are just as capable as everyone else and already have to get ID for numerous other activities.
The US is less racist than most other countries on Earth, yet somehow it is the US that couldn't properly implement voter ID cards?
Racism in America has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years according to multiple lines of research, the perception that racism is on the rise is false and misguided.
It's a shame voter ID can't be implemented on a nationwide basis in the US just because people have concerns that are longer valid.
Don’t be so ignorant about the motivations and techniques behind American voter ID laws. The people writing the laws have literally studied the demographics of who possesses which kind of ID so that they can write the laws to accept forms more likely to be held by white voters and reject forms more likely to be held by minorities. And then they’ll shut down or limit the hours of ID offices in minority areas to make it more difficult for them to remedy the situation.
We absolutely could properly implement voter ID. We just don’t.
Edit: I would encourage skeptics to look up the history of voter literacy tests. How can a literacy test be racist? Are you implying that minorities can’t learn to read? And yet they were highly effective at suppressing the minority vote for a long time.
Republican politicians and lobbying groups are literally on video admitting their political and racial motivation for the voter ID laws. Do you think they're lying?
How would you design a system where you do need an ID to vote without unfairly disenfranchising a lot of people?
This is not an impossible question by any means. You can absolutely design such a system. But the differences between that hypothetical system and the real systems used in the US are important and instructive.
Still, having few people casting two or more votes is much more secure of potentially having a successful attacker changing votes for thousands or even millions. We are talking about several orders of magnitude in difference. So yes, I take the paper system every day.
Here in Italy you can only vote in the commune you're registered at (main residency), once you have the required age you're automatically on the list, if you go voting you will get an entry in the list, no other voting is possible (there are always 3 people + two law enforcement helper. One of the three election helpers have one job only, write exactly down what happens, who came in, who got an voting form and ensure that the voter handed it back after coming from the voting cabinet (located in the same room).
You can only have one main residency, you cannot possibly be on two lists.
If you register for voting per snail mail you get pulled from your community list, if you come to vote the will know you mail voted and will be questioned by law enforcement.
If you want to show up twice law enforcement will get you out, if needed.
This is in a commune with ~1000 people, so it may be a bit different in bigger ones (but AFAIK, there's a certain limit to voter count at any voting point).
You effectively would need to corrupt >= 8 people (three election helpers are working any time, but they work in shifts, in total there 5 to 6 election helpers), as often outside law enforcement comes in this is particular hard to do. Also you get a fixed number of voting forms and all protocols are checked against by other gov. parts, so to pull this off without any notice would be close to impossible, IMO.
At least way easier to do this on proprietary, known error prone, voting machines... Get them open source, let them be verified and looked close upon by the public and some good pen-testers/security researches and you'd would have a really good system going....
He was indeed convicted and he also didn't believe it was bad to show off like that.
For those who don't know, Switzerland sends all the material at home, you then can go to the ballot and post it or send it by post if it's not an important votation (if i remember correctly).
