Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sheb]

Oh, we do, that's half of the reasons the Flemish are pissed at us. :p

[Frumple]

Still, the fact that you can't do recounts means that I'm pretty sure, it can't be deployed in some countries. And the system might be as secure as you want, people's computers aren't.

... couldn't you just, y'know, have people vote again? With a digital system, that wouldn't exactly take long. Why do you need to recount when it takes seconds to minutes (instead of hours) to re-vote?

[vagel7]

Still, the fact that you can't do recounts means that I'm pretty sure, it can't be deployed in some countries. And the system might be as secure as you want, people's computers aren't.

You can do a recount right away, it just takes minutes as the votes are stored on servers.

Also Ukrainian Ranger, the influencing of voters by non-ethical reasons is something that traditional voting is also very weak against. Who says that everybody in a certain voting station wasn't paid off or otherwise influenced by somebody to cast a certain vote?

[10ebbor10]

I think those living in the facilities can choose wherether they want to vote on Flemish politicians, or the Bruxelles parliament, or Walloon system. It's quite complicated, and it means that pretty much every election between 1980 and 2010 is technically unconstitutional.

Well, it got better. It used to be that the Equal sharing policy was a firm government policy. Actually known as the Waffle-Iron system, which said that funds for Public Works would be divided 50-50.

Meaning that for example, when the port of Brugges was expanded, the Walloon region got (entirely useless) world tallest boat lift system.   Link.  Another example was that when the Coastal streetcar system was provided with additional, Chaleroi received 50 streetcars as well, where it needed only 15.  Worked in reverse as well, when Mons got a University, Limburg got one as well.

There's lot of crazy stuff in the past. The Catholics and the socialists had a bit of quibble about School systems in 1960, which now results in the fact that my hometown has 6 different schools.

Still, the fact that you can't do recounts means that I'm pretty sure, it can't be deployed in some countries. And the system might be as secure as you want, people's computers aren't.

You can do a recount right away, it just takes minutes as the votes are stored on servers.

Also Ukrainian Ranger, the influencing of voters by non-ethical reasons is something that traditional voting is also very weak against. Who says that everybody in a certain voting station wasn't paid off or otherwise influenced by somebody to cast a certain vote?

Pretty sure digital votes don't count. After you can't validate that those votes are the originals, without also ensuring that they can be traced back to the original voters.

Just arguing from a bureaucratic perspective here.

[vagel7]

Digital votes are tied to your ID card, which is what is used for voting and the personal codes are to log into the system and then to cast the vote.

[10ebbor10]

Digital votes are tied to your ID card, which is what is used for voting and the personal codes are to log into the system and then to cast the vote.

Thereby preventing anonymous ballots. As I said, they're either tied to your ID, in which case you loose anonymous voting, or they're not tied to anything, in which case you can't verify the authenticity in case of a recount.

[vagel7]

Digital votes are tied to your ID card, which is what is used for voting and the personal codes are to log into the system and then to cast the vote.

Thereby preventing anonymous ballots. As I said, they're either tied to your ID, in which case you loose anonymous voting, or they're not tied to anything, in which case you can't verify the authenticity in case of a recount.

If they are traditionally done then they are only tied to the piece of paber that the number is written on. The link with the ID card is actually not accessible to those who operate the system.

[10ebbor10]

It's harder to mess with a piece of paper than to change a value in a computer.

[Sheb]

It's still going on: for exemple the SNCB/NMBS (the national railway operator) has to split its investments based on the population (so 60% in Flanders, 40% in Walloonia). Despite the fact that Walloonia is much bigger. You can pretty much say whether you're in Flanders or Walloonia based on the state of the railway stations.

[vagel7]

To change the value one must hack into a government level protected system.

Hell, it is easier to steal millions of dollars/euros from a bank that way than to change the votes.

[10ebbor10]

Those  who would want to do such a hack (ie, the political parties) do have inside knowledge. Then again, this might be colored by the fact that Belgium and CyberSecurity don't go well together.

[notquitethere]

I guess the real worry with e-voting isn't that it's more prone to fraud, but that if fraud is perpetuated it can be done so on a much grander scale. As it stands, any of you could have walked into my local polling station early last Thursday, given my name and address and voted instead of me: no ID was necessary. But that kind of fraud (as well as being very unlikely) is very limited in possible harm, but if someone were to manipulate the e-voting through a computer virus or somesuch, it could have much greater consequences. Still, a sufficiently robust system could avoid those kinds of worries.

[10ebbor10]

It's still going on: for exemple the SNCB/NMBS (the national railway operator) has to split its investments based on the population (so 60% in Flanders, 40% in Walloonia). Despite the fact that Walloonia is much bigger. You can pretty much say whether you're in Flanders or Walloonia based on the state of the railway stations.

Not that much bigger, 16,844 km² out of 30,528 square kilometres, but year.

[vagel7]

Cyber security does play a huge role in this and while Estonia is praised very highly of it's cyber defence, NATO cyber defence centre and all. There is money that must be invested in the infrastructure before e-voting can be applied in a country and although I am a huge supporter of the e-government and e-voting, I do support the fact that it can not be applied without a certain level of infrastructure.

[TheDarkStar]

Those  who would want to do such a hack (ie, the political parties) do have inside knowledge. Then again, this might be colored by the fact that Belgium and CyberSecurity don't go well together.

Just split up the required information so that no one can get to the voting data on their own.