[jangerhofer]

I have two open-ended questions on the subject of technology in U.S. voting.

(1) Why doesn't our electoral system require public disclosure of each voter's record? What would the ramifications of publishing each voter's identity & ballot online be? My thinking, like other comments here, is that a transparent voting system would make results more easily verifiable, if not easy to verify.

(2) At what point could we transition toward more of a democracy (in contrast to the representative, republican system) through the use of digital voting, which has a lower "barrier to entry" than turning out to a polling center? Particularly on nationwide issues like healthcare, I presume there are relatively few technological barriers to letting every citizen vote individually on a bill and immense political and social consequences. I can't fathom the outcomes -- do you know of any discussion of such a system?

Non sequitur: I've always wanted to see a "name brand" professional sports team run, down to the minutiae, by online fan voting. I know it's out there in small leagues already.

[banned1]

(1) Things are crazy right now. As an example that is relevant for the HN audience, Republican voters would feel the wrath and hysteria of Liberals in San Francisco who would kick them out of companies or demand their dismissal. The same would happen to Democrat voters in some Republican stronghold in a Red state.

(2) Probably not in a long time in the US. The system is built under the assumptions that you can't trust voters know what is good for them, let alone what is good for the country overall.

[mentos]

(1) What if we gave everyone a voter uuid that they could verify on a website where hundreds of millions of other voteruuids and votes are posted for verification

[indigo0086]

The trend of wanting to give every citizen random ids tied to their identity is very scary. Also 'WE" won't give anyone anything. It will be a registration with a government agency that will eventually lead to their rights being violated by the govenrment at some point in the future. Why is it people want to do the government's job of infringing on rights with some faux altruistic intent.

[banned1]

Hmm, great point I did not think of. Doesn't the government already know your identity and voting record however? Not that that is not already scary, but if the point is to avoid fraud, then it is not incrementally scarier from a privacy perspective? Not that that is not depressing that we have to look for "holding the line" instead of reducing government's visibility into people's actions.

[xienze]

Parent may have worded it poorly, I don't see why you couldn't be given a UUID for your vote that could be checked online later.

[indigo0086]

how many promises of "no personal information will be stored" have we, as people in various levels of the tech field, know for a fact is a tricky worded lie.

[xienze]

Well that's why it needs to be open sourced.

[banned1]

Yes, this is an excellent idea. I had read somewhere (other posters here make this point) that we could give this UUID to each voter. Then, we could give voters a way to verify their vote in the final tallies. This way, if enough voters see their vote has been changed, we could detect government interference, hacking, or other forms of fraud.

[jangerhofer]

The hole in this system is that there is still no good mechanism for verification, at least in my eyes. What is to stop a tamperer from creating UUIDs not associated with a citizen? That's why I would consider tying to a person quite publicly.

At the same time, perhaps such a system reduces the surface area for bad actors. Now, perhaps, just the registry/database of UUIDs is a primary target.

[transitionnel]

Indeed, I believe it really is that simple.

[wang_li]

It also enables the local political machine/union/gang to come to your house post election and force you to show that you voted they way they ordered you to vote on pain of pain.

Not allowing people to photograph their ballots, to vote in public, etc. is a protective measure for the voter making it difficult to prove how they voted.

[mentos]

Then find a random uuid in the public list and claim it is yours? I don't think that is a realistic fear

[dublinben]

If the voter can prove that they've voted some way, then their spouse/boss/landlord will just demand that they show their record of voting the way they wanted you to. This destroys the secret ballot.

[richardwhiuk]

On 1, secrecy of ballot is fundamental to a open democracy. Otherwise, selling your ballot becomes very easy. Without secret ballots, there's no market for votes, because you can't verify I didn't just take your money and run.

[mixmax]

In Denmark it was public who voted for what until around 100 years ago. In the first secret election where employers, landlords and other people in power couldn't see who their subordinates voted for the workers party got markedly more votes.

Think about it, it's easy for an employer to say that he will only employ people who voted for X, a landlord that will only take in tenants that voted for the right party, or even family members that will make sure that everyone votes along party lines.

There's a very good reason why voting is secret.

[jangerhofer]

Interesting. Sure, voter intimidation is particularly possible w/ public information, but I wonder why voters should be any less accountable for their decisions & actions than elected officials. Do not both owe some sort of responsibility to the country?

[justadeveloper2]

(1) Secret ballots are important so your union rep doesn't come by with his buddies and beat you senseless for not voting as your were instructed to.

(2) Tyranny of the majority is a living hell.

[rexpop]

> What would the ramifications of publishing each voter's identity & ballot online be?

Retribution.

[indigo0086]

I don't understand how one couldn't see this as an obvious issue the way, especially today's youth treat discourse on any level wether political or social. The way people are being deemed racist, nazis, fascists, problematic and one of many other terms that have been trivialized because they don't understand how to disagree is scarry. To hand over that info tied directly to you is the most "problematic" suggestion of all. The discussion in this thread is disturbing.

[jangerhofer]

An obvious on to be sure. I think that if discrimination is the one and only malady then the benefit of transparency might well be worth it.