How to Conduct a Checkable Vote

[indigoboy83]

My name: indigoboy83
Website: www.indigoboy83.com

I have a new innovative way to set up a vote, that's checkable, and still private:
(many more ideas on my website)

-----

    Here we will create a checkable vote, an election in which all the voters can verify his vote is correctly tabulated with privacy.

    The vote is to be handled by the officials.

    Every voter has with him his personal information which comprises of his name, address and anything else the votingstation requires for one to make a vote.

---->   We will demonstrate this paper with a running example.  Supposing; our voter is named "Santa Claus" and he lives at "The North Pole".  That's his personal information.

    At the time of administrating the vote, a voter will beforehand create a voter's key using a computer program called the key program.  This key program uses the voter's personal information, along with the time location of the vote and a voter's password.  The voter's password is to be known only to the individual voter; the voter should NEVER be asked to divulge this password unless he realizes that his vote is wrong; it is this password that ensures the secrecy of the ballot, maintaining the election as being private.  Before the voter leaves the voting box, he should be *required* to take note of his voter's personal information and his voter's password.

---->   Continuing our running example; perhaps the key program will create a voter's key "CGAFTE115", using Santa Claus's private password is "REDredRED".

    Now, exactly when a voter is administrating his vote, he will have to write down this voter's key on to the ballot itself, along with, of course, his actual vote.  The ballot should be put into a voting box.  The voter's key on the ballot privately identifies the individual to the ballot.

---->   Continuing our running example; out of the possible votes "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E", Santa Claus' actual vote is "B".

    The voting station will, of course, be required to keep all voting boxes ordered; that is, each box should have with it a name, date, time stamp of the actual station.

     The voting stations should send their voting boxes to a central location to be tabulated.  As one tabulates the votes within these boxes, we will create a list of all votes, which we henceforth call the Big List.  The Big List is simply a list of voter's keys along with the actual vote given by that particular voter.  The Big List should be put in some sort of order, perhaps alphabetically on the voter's keys.

     The Big List will be available to everyone in society in its entirety; that is, everyone should be allowed to retain a personal copy of it.  Essentially, the Big List is a list of the facts of the vote; and everyone should be able to compare one's individual Big List with someone else's so as to maintain that the facts of the election are agreed upon generally by all of the public.

---->   Continuing our running example; our Big List has at its 623 524 entries.  Santa Claus' entry is 154 012 entry.  It reads "CGAFTE115".  (I chose the numbers  623 524 and 154 012 randomly.)

    The voter's key should be as meaningless as one can create.  The reason is so that, from a voter's key, no one can ever determine *any* information whatsoever as to who, where, or when the vote was administered.  On the other hand, a voter, on his own, knows the information of who, where and when the vote was administered, and his private password, and can thus verify his vote using his voter's key in the Big List.  It is easy for a voter to determine his own personal voter's key from his personal information.  It is hard for anyone to determine a voter's personal information (and thus the ballot) from a voter's key; the officials should make this more that "hard", rather, try for impossible.

---->   Continuing our running example; There exists another voter, named "the Grinch", whose voter's key is "GHECGR241" and his actual vote is "D".  Both voters, Santa Claus and the Grinch have their own copies of the Big List, that are identical.  It turns out that in the list, on entry 451 220, there exists the info: "GHECGR241 D".  (Again, the number 451 220 was chosen randomly.)  Both Santa and the Grinch can compare their copies of the Big List so as to assure they are indeed identical, so that the facts of the vote are agreed upon, and they can check the Big List to verify their votes have been tabulated correctly.

    Now, supposing *every* voter has retained a copy of the Big List and they personally agree that their own particular vote was tabulated correctly, that is, within the Big List the voter's own actual vote is marked correctly beside the voter's key.  

    Then we have no problems!  It was a successful poll!  Hurray!  The vote is private and yet checkable; the voter can always make sure that his own personal vote is tabulated correctly.

   On the other hand, suppose some voter, a troubled voter, observes on his copy of the Big List that his own particular vote was misrepresented and not tabulated correctly.  What should he do?  He should go to the officials and complain!  

   With this problem, the first possible reason for the officials to consider is that this individual's Big List is not in agreement with the ones they have at hand.  If this is so then the problem is easily remedied by giving our troubled voter a correct Big List; and then, if his vote was represented correctly then the problem is immediately settled.  If not, however, if the officials agree with our troubled voter that our Big Lists are in agreement, then we've got a "pickle".  The troubled voter will attest that his vote was incorrectly tabulated.  We must remedy this situation somehow.  If there is just a few troubled voters then we can simply correct the actual votes for these voters, and everyone will update their Big List with the corrections made.  If there is turmoil and lots of troubled voters exists, we may very well have to redo the election.

[TreeBeard]

You’ve invented a more complicated way to vote at a voting booth.  Not impressed.  Why would we need to make it more complicated?  
 

Can’t I just vote from home?  Maybe by mail?  like I do already?

[herbie]

It's fine the way it is. The send me a card to show I'm on the list, check the list and cross me off to get a ballot.
It's up to me to get on the list if a card isn't sent and I have to have enough motivation to get off my ass and go to the polling station.

One day Treebeard you'll be able to vote from home, only if you first install the Feds VoteVPN with 2 factor authentication and have forgotten how well they did a Payroll system. or ArriveCan and have never used any abortion they call a web interface in your life.
Shit, hire a team of 6 with computer degrees and give them a week to apply for EI or CPP online for you!

 

[Yakuda]

On 1/15/2024 at 6:38 PM, TreeBeard said:

You’ve invented a more complicated way to vote at a voting booth.  Not impressed.  Why would we need to make it more complicated?  
 

Can’t I just vote from home?  Maybe by mail?  like I do already?

Why should it be less complicated? Why should you be allowed to vote from home? It's BS 

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

Why should it be less complicated? Why should you be allowed to vote from home? It's BS 

 

People who can’t make it to the polling place should still be able to vote, right?

[Yakuda]

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

People who can’t make it to the polling place should still be able to vote, right?

Not necessarily no. Tell me why they should. 

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Not necessarily no. Tell me why they should. 

Because voting is a right, and the goal should be to get as many people to vote as possible so as not to disenfranchise any eligible voter.  

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Because voting is a right, and the goal should be to get as many people to vote as possible so as not to disenfranchise any eligible voter.  

What does it being a right have to do with anything? I have a right to own a gun but have to jump through tons of hoops to get one. Where is that "goal" outlined? 

[TreeBeard]

40 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

What does it being a right have to do with anything? I have a right to own a gun but have to jump through tons of hoops to get one.

 

There is no right to own a gun in Canada.  
 

You don’t think the right to vote means anything?   Then I guess you’re not really part of this conversation if you don’t care about rights.  
 

43 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Where is that "goal" outlined? 

Do you think as many Canadians as possible should vote?

[Yakuda]

16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

There is no right to own a gun in Canada.  
 

You don’t think the right to vote means anything?   Then I guess you’re not really part of this conversation if you don’t care about rights.  
 

Do you think as many Canadians as possible should vote?

You're a Canadian? Never mind 

Where did I say the right to vote doesnt mean anything? You people pull this crap all the time. You turn everything into so kind of emotional rant. 

Yes I do but that has nothing to do with getting your sorry butt to the polls. 

[TreeBeard]

20 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Where did I say the right to vote doesnt mean anything?

If you need to ask this, it tells me that you don’t think it matters.  
 

“What does it being a right have to do with anything? “

 

 

20 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Yes I do but that has nothing to do with getting your sorry butt to the polls. 

What if the person can’t?   Do you lack imagination so much that you can’t think of any reasons why someone couldn’t get to a polling place?

 

Edited February 7 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

If you need to ask this, it tells me that you don’t think it matters.  
 

“What does it being a right have to do with anything? “

 

 

What if the person can’t?   Do you lack imagination so much that you can’t think of any reasons why someone couldn’t get to a polling place?

 

I also pointed out that here in the states we have the right to own a gun but the mongrel leftists make it as difficult as possible to exercise that ght so why is voting sny different? 

Oh i have imagination which makes me realize people can use their imagination to cIaim they cant. That posters suggestion was very good to ensure valid votes are being cast. Could there be exceptions? Yes but they should be VERY VERY rare. 

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

why is voting sny different?

You can’t tell the differences between owning a gun and voting?

 

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

Could there be exceptions? Yes but they should be VERY VERY rare. 

We clearly have different values when it comes to voting.  

I think it should be easy to vote.  Old people, people in hospitals, shift workers out in the boonies, etc should all have an opportunity to cast a ballot. 
 

https://www.hamiltonhealthsciences.ca/share/election/
 

Elections Canada gives people who are hospitalized the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.  It’s very important here in Canada. 
 

 

[Yakuda]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You can’t tell the differences between owning a gun and voting?

It's irrelevant they are both rights 

We clearly have different values when it comes to voting.  

No I hold voting in high regard but you haven't uttered one word to explain why voting should be less comply than owning a gun. "Because" isn't a reason 

I think it should be easy to vote.  Old people, people in hospitals, shift workers out in the boonies, etc should all have an opportunity to cast a ballot. 
I don't but that doesn't mean I don't think voting is important. 

https://www.hamiltonhealthsciences.ca/share/election/
 

Elections Canada gives people who are hospitalized the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.  It’s very important here in Canada. 
 

 

 

[TreeBeard]

11 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

It's irrelevant they are both rights 

So, if I’m allowed to own 7 guns, I should be allowed to vote 7 times, correct?  They’re both rights!

And you speak as if voting isn’t regulated. It’s very regulated.  

13 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

owning a gun

There are regulations on gun ownership and there are regulations on voting rights. 

[Yakuda]

16 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So, if I’m allowed to own 7 guns, I should be allowed to vote 7 times, correct?  They’re both rights!

And you speak as if voting isn’t regulated. It’s very regulated.  

There are regulations on gun ownership and there are regulations on voting rights. 

No i'm merely talking about access to the rights which is what we were actually talking about. The number of guns isn't the issue but you need to obscure the discussion it seems. 

So what? Maybe it should be regulated even more. There should be as many obstacles to voting as there is to owning a gun. 

Yes there are and one regulation except in very rare cases is get to the polls. 

[TreeBeard]

8 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Yes there are and one regulation except in very rare cases is get to the polls. 

Have you ever heard of voting by mail in the USA?  Even I have and I don’t live there.  “Getting to the polls” isn’t the only way to vote.  

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Have you ever heard of voting by mail in the USA?  Even I have and I don’t live there.  “Getting to the polls” isn’t the only way to vote.  

Yes I've heard of it. You know what i haven't heard? A cogent argument for why it should be made easier to vote. 

If youve heard of voting by mail in the US then you've also heard that some states like California in the last presidential election. They sent mail in ballots to everybody on the voter list at the last known addresses of those voters. There was no mechanism to ensure the ballots were valid. You need to make a cogent argument from voting should be made easier. BTW I've already said mail in ballots should e VERY VERY rare but like always people like you just don't pay attention.

[TreeBeard]

11 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

A cogent argument for why it should be made easier to vote. 

I’ve never heard a cogent argument as to why it shouldn’t be easier to vote. 
 

Did you like the fact that Elections Canada goes to hospitals to assist people in voting?  

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

I’ve never heard a cogent argument as to why it shouldn’t be easier to vote. 
 

Did you like the fact that Elections Canada goes to hospitals to assist people in voting?  

It's the method by which it is "made easier" that's the issue for me. I have no problem with making voting easier if we also make it easier to own a gun. 

That at least is a reasonable way to ensure the vote is valid. Sending mail in ballots to likely outdated addresses with no way to verify who is returning them isnt reasonable. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yakuda said:

I have no problem with making voting easier if we also make it easier to own a gun. 

Why would one be dependent on the other?  

 

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

Sending mail in ballots to likely outdated addresses with no way to verify who is returning them isnt reasonable.

Unverified ballots aren’t counted.  Do you even know how mail in ballots work?  Or are you repeating talking points from losing politicians?

[Yakuda]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

Why would one be dependent on the other?  

 

Unverified ballots aren’t counted.  Do you even know how mail in ballots work?  Or are you repeating talking points from losing politicians?

I didn't say they were I said they are both rights and if access to one right can be restricted why not any of the others? 

I do know how they work but prove it works the way you claim or is this just ANOTHER example of something you think is true based on belief? We know which it is. 

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

based on belief?

Where did you get this saying?   Everything we believe is a belief!  
 

My challenge was to name something besides God that you believe because of an argument, like Aquinas’ proofs, and not based on empirical evidence?

[Yakuda]

16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Where did you get this saying?   Everything we believe is a belief!  
 

My challenge was to name something besides God that you believe because of an argument, like Aquinas’ proofs, and not based on empirical evidence?

I didn't say everything we believe is belief. You can't even keep straight what I'm saying 

The second of claim of Aquinas, efficient cause, is all I need. Nothing causes itself. I believe that cause is God which is no different than anything you believe is true if you havent independently verified yourself. You could prove me wrong but you either can't or won't. 

Edited February 8 by Yakuda

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I didn't say everything we believe is belief.

But it is!  Everything we believe are beliefs!   It’s simple English!

 

6 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

The second of claim of Aquinas

That’s not what I asked at all. 
 

Is there anything else that you believe based on an philisophical argument?