Argentina finds messenger to shoot after e-vote vuln allegations

"Democracy is in the counting" (Tom Stoppard)

When I studied cryptographic and electronic voting schemes I rapidly came to the conclusion that all of the practicable ones (i.e. ones which could be implemented and usable in practice) had the fatal flaw that you were trusting whoever had built and designed the system to be entirely honest in reporting the results.

The essential part of a voting system is not that your own vote is reported correctly, but that everyone else's vote is. Other important features are that the returning officers should be able to prove they have not cheated. In a system of paper ballots there is always the option for a recount, and anyone wanting to subvert the election has to forge a large number of ballots. With any electronic scheme, subverting the system is more feasible, if you you have the technical capability.

The problem is that electronic election systems are chosen by politicians, and designed by large corporation whose bosses want lucrative government contracts. Anyone remember the 'hanging chads' that got George W Bush elected, and the confusing voting paper in Florida - choesen by a republican politician?

As Tom Stoppard said - Democracy is not in the vcoting, but in the counting. The NAZIs subverted the democratic process by blatantly lieing about referenda results to deny rights to Jews (see Christabel Bielenberg's "The Past is Myself"). With an electrinic voting systems it is so much easier for those in power to cheat.

<OK, rant over>

You committed the worst crime possible

You showed up your government. Expect no mercy.

Evoting = bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

Quite a good explanation of why a pencil and standing in a church hall is actually a good thing

Evoting = bad

I cannot upvote this enough times. The notion that we need the election results by the 10PM or 11PM TV news report seems to be one driver of this electronic voting rubbish, along with probably untrue claims of money to be saved by the use of electronic vote recording and counting machines.

The requirement is not that the outcome of an election be reported quickly (Senator Al Franken's first election to the US Senate was not decided until six months into his first term). The true requirement is that it be determined by procedures that are uncomplicated, transparent enough that nearly every voter can understand them and those with an interest can see that it is being carried out without obvious fraud (or that attempted fraud is reasonably easy to detect), and auditable for recount purposes. While it also should be reasonably efficient, many or most of the costs occur no more than once a year, and nearly all less often; in any case, it is likely that even neglecting capital and machine maintenance expenditures, electronic voting or vote counting equipment costs at least as much as administering and counting paper ballots.

Never

I realize it is a violation of the 'Never say never' rule, but I have never believed in the accuracy (read honesty) of electronic voting, and I never will. To me it is just a fancier way to stuff ballot boxes, with the added advantage that the average lay person can't understand how the cheat is achieved and therefore is less likely to detect said cheat.

Defend whistleblowers

Mr. Sorianello deserves the support of all who care about the integrity of elections. In one case after another, governments and vendors have falsely claimed that their voting systems are secure. I hope the Register will follow this story. If Mr. Sorianello is not promptly exonerated, pressure should be brought to bear on the government for attacking the messenger rather than the real problem.

Pressure?

If "pressure" and public outcry have not been enough to produce an investigation of the murder of Alberto Nisman (Federal prosecutor who died under questionable circumstances while investigating government ties to a terror operation, possibly with Iran), it is _very_ unlikely to have any effect in this case.