Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
A hive of inactivity

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Did my vote count?

Electronic voting without the fraud
  [vote for,

Electronic voting can eliminate human counting error, reduce the number of individuals that have an opportunity to cheat, and provide very fast results. Most systems proposed to achieve these benefits are not fully observable from start to finish as a white- box system.

Proposed is an electronic election system with a keyed vote ID assigned to every voter at every election. (This is not a voter ID but rather gets assigned uniquely every year.) When the voter votes, a ticket will print at the voting machine with their vote ID (basically a random GUID). Later, they can go online and download the list of EVERY vote, and they'll be able to match their vote ID with the results that were actually recorded.

This vote ID will also display on the screen for the user to write down if the printer is out of paper (because you know they'll overwhelmingly run out of printer in the precincts that lean in favor of the underdog, by coincidence of course).

The media will be able to download these lists to ensure the reported totals match the individual votes.

Individual voters who wish to have a secret ballot will still get one.

Individual voters concerned with whether their vote actually counted will be ensured of such.

Fake votes will be curbed because the aggregate count of the votes can be tracked.

kevinthenerd, Apr 22 2016


       I quite like the idea of blockchain administered voting systems - both for the public at large, but also as a means of recording the actions of the legislature. Which seems to be sort of what you're proposing here.
zen_tom, Apr 22 2016

       This idea might ensure that votes get counted, but it doesn't ensure that extra votes weren't generated.   

       This needs one more step. When voting, a photo of the voter is taken. It must be verified as a clear photo by the person manning the voting station and retaken as necessary and certified as a good photo before voting could take place. The ticket printed would have two GUIDs: one associated with the photo and one associated with the ballot. So in the end we have a two databases: one with photos and the other with votes. You can go online and verify your photo and your vote. The number of photos and votes from each polling location must match which would be enforced by the software. Votes and photos would be stored locally then reported in batches with the order of both lists randomized to ensure voter confidentiality.   

       People looking for voter fraud could use facial recognition software to find matches. If the number of twins is higher than the statistical number of twins in the population, more serious investigations can be undertaken. Police can scan the photos for wanted criminals, but it will be delayed, and they would only know the precinct. If a person was caught by looking at photos, if they destroyed their receipts there would be no way to uncount the votes, but they could be put in jail and fined. Alternately if a single precinct had more than x% fraud, the entire precinct could be disqualified.   

       This wouldn't absolutely prevent voter fraud, but would make it more difficult to do on a large scale.
scad mientist, Apr 22 2016

       Not a new idea, or even remotely unique. This is what everyone uses as the introductory example to secure electronic voting.
notexactly, Apr 22 2016


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle