Yeah some of the questions made me uncomfortable. Like one that was about "should MPs vote with their party on things of national benefit OR against their party on things of riding benefit". That's not an "or" question at all in my mind. MPs should not systematically be doing one or the other. They are governing a country, so of course they'll have to approve decisions for the collective good that doesn't benefit and sometimes even hinder their specific riding, but at the same time they are elected to represent their riding and are expected to stand up for its best interests. We shouldn't fall in the US trap of representatives only voting for bills if they include a hefty amount of pork for their riding, but at the same time MPs are not hand-puppets for the party leader.
Yeah, questions like that presuppose that the riding constituents cannot be for the greater good of the nation even at their own expense.
Same, I strongly disagreed on all online voting questions. Hopefully they will get the message before we have an election where one party wins with 2,147,483,647 votes.
Online voting is impossible to verify or audit. You can see the consequence of that if you look southward*.
It's full of hard to confirm attack vectors. Updating a database discreetly is way easier than stuffing voting boxes.
Also, I'm a "Critics", apparently. Their description does match: I want people to say what they want clearly, and I want it to be really obvious who fucked up at the next election.
*Whatever you do, don't look southward. It's profoundly terrifying.
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I belong to Innovators, apparently, and went heavily into shared responsibility.
Going by the spectrum they show, I am categorically opposed to Richy and everything he stands for! Down with Guardians!
As an Innovator, I am clearly Iron Man.
And as a Guardian, I clearly am a good match for Captain America. Also, your dad liked me better.
+2
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
How's immigration reform been going in Canada?
Because Canada could really go for having more people in the country to fight back if/when the US invades. With how badly the climate is going to get fucked and how nobody in this stupid country wants to do anything about it (and in fact, only wants to do things that will make things worse, faster), it's only a matter of time.
Because Canada could really go for having more people in the country to fight back if/when the US invades. With how badly the climate is going to get fucked and how nobody in this stupid country wants to do anything about it (and in fact, only wants to do things that will make things worse, faster), it's only a matter of time.
Ehhh.... If America wants to invade there's nothing we can really do about it, unfortunately.
It is going to be interesting seeing the ideological differences when it comes to immigration of JT vs the Donald.
Because Canada could really go for having more people in the country to fight back if/when the US invades. With how badly the climate is going to get fucked and how nobody in this stupid country wants to do anything about it (and in fact, only wants to do things that will make things worse, faster), it's only a matter of time.
America isnt going to invade, they are going to have Corporations come up to buy rights to resources to resell in the USA, the same as our Corporations and government already do.
I'm sure some people will eventually be priced out of some necessities, but for fucks sake, the USA isnt even willing to have affordable healthcare, I'm not sure that affordable drinking water will be that different.
Online voting is impossible to verify or audit. You can see the consequence of that if you look southward*.
It's full of hard to confirm attack vectors. Updating a database discreetly is way easier than stuffing voting boxes.
Also, I'm a "Critics", apparently. Their description does match: I want people to say what they want clearly, and I want it to be really obvious who fucked up at the next election.
*Whatever you do, don't look southward. It's profoundly terrifying.
Nah, it can be made verifiable. You just have to ship a key (ECC because of length) and signature to each voter, probably via a QR code. You'd need probably about ~70 bytes of information
Start by generating a master keypair
Then, for each voter: generate a keypair, sequence number and sign the public key + sequence number and private key + sequence number with the master key. Record the public keys, sequence number and public key signature in the database. Each signature can be verified by the master public key
Throw away the master private key, publish the master public key. No new ballots can be generated after this
Send the private key/signature to voters. To maintain anonymity, don't record which key goes to which voter
To vote, create a blob of plaintext recording the vote, sign it with the private key and send it to the server
The entire database could be public the entire time. You could load up the database and locate your vote. Votes cannot be changed without the private key, even with write access. In principle votes could be deleted, but can be pretty easily be restored from backups
The main worries are: extra ballots being created by the authority running the vote (in principle this is a risk for mail-in voting too), voting authority creates copies of private keys, a front-end web server compromise which can get access to the private keys client-side and alter ballots
If you still have in-person voting available as a backup then you can clamp down hard on the number of generated ballots = number of registered voters = number of ballots the post office received to mail, which should eliminate that vector
Online voting is impossible to verify or audit. You can see the consequence of that if you look southward*.
It's full of hard to confirm attack vectors. Updating a database discreetly is way easier than stuffing voting boxes.
Also, I'm a "Critics", apparently. Their description does match: I want people to say what they want clearly, and I want it to be really obvious who fucked up at the next election.
*Whatever you do, don't look southward. It's profoundly terrifying.
Nah, it can be made verifiable. You just have to ship a key (ECC because of length) and signature to each voter, probably via a QR code. You'd need probably about ~70 bytes of information
Start by generating a master keypair
Then, for each voter: generate a keypair, sequence number and sign the public key + sequence number and private key + sequence number with the master key. Record the public keys, sequence number and public key signature in the database. Each signature can be verified by the master public key
Throw away the master private key, publish the master public key. No new ballots can be generated after this
Send the private key/signature to voters. To maintain anonymity, don't record which key goes to which voter
To vote, create a blob of plaintext recording the vote, sign it with the private key and send it to the server
The entire database could be public the entire time. You could load up the database and locate your vote. Votes cannot be changed without the private key, even with write access. In principle votes could be deleted, but can be pretty easily be restored from backups
The main worries are: extra ballots being created by the authority running the vote (in principle this is a risk for mail-in voting too), voting authority creates copies of private keys, a front-end web server compromise which can get access to the private keys client-side and alter ballots
If you still have in-person voting available as a backup then you can clamp down hard on the number of generated ballots = number of registered voters = number of ballots the post office received to mail, which should eliminate that vector
So, yes, it's less secure.
That's the whole problem: it's way easier to fake data than to stuff a box.
The world where America invades Canada is a world where I'm pretty sure we're already fucked.
There's no chance US tanks roll over the border into Canada. That's the fictional dystopian future of stuff like Fallout.
That voice in my brain that says that a Trump presidency was the same kind of fictional dystopian future? You be quiet.
I've definitely had those moments of 'you know, it seems incredibly unlikely, but then Trump being president just happened sooo', but the latter is the result of a whole confluence of factors, exploited by a rich demagogue to propel himself to power.
If anything, I think there's a chance of the USA turning towards a more V for Vendetta fascist state and essentially closing the borders, because even though we're only 1/10th the population, if they annex/invade Canada that's a whole lot of people they also have to deal with.
I think the 'worst case' version of the next however many years is a United States that is basically a completely protectionist/isolationist state, with Canada reaching out to China and other countries to form trading and diplomatic ties, with our 'little brother' relationship with the US decaying until we're civil neighbors.
Even that, of course, assumes a lot of things going wrong.
Online voting is impossible to verify or audit. You can see the consequence of that if you look southward*.
It's full of hard to confirm attack vectors. Updating a database discreetly is way easier than stuffing voting boxes.
Also, I'm a "Critics", apparently. Their description does match: I want people to say what they want clearly, and I want it to be really obvious who fucked up at the next election.
*Whatever you do, don't look southward. It's profoundly terrifying.
Nah, it can be made verifiable. You just have to ship a key (ECC because of length) and signature to each voter, probably via a QR code. You'd need probably about ~70 bytes of information
Start by generating a master keypair
Then, for each voter: generate a keypair, sequence number and sign the public key + sequence number and private key + sequence number with the master key. Record the public keys, sequence number and public key signature in the database. Each signature can be verified by the master public key
Throw away the master private key, publish the master public key. No new ballots can be generated after this
Send the private key/signature to voters. To maintain anonymity, don't record which key goes to which voter
To vote, create a blob of plaintext recording the vote, sign it with the private key and send it to the server
The entire database could be public the entire time. You could load up the database and locate your vote. Votes cannot be changed without the private key, even with write access. In principle votes could be deleted, but can be pretty easily be restored from backups
The main worries are: extra ballots being created by the authority running the vote (in principle this is a risk for mail-in voting too), voting authority creates copies of private keys, a front-end web server compromise which can get access to the private keys client-side and alter ballots
If you still have in-person voting available as a backup then you can clamp down hard on the number of generated ballots = number of registered voters = number of ballots the post office received to mail, which should eliminate that vector
So, yes, it's less secure.
That's the whole problem: it's way easier to fake data than to stuff a box.
It is roughly equivalent in security to mail voting if you can keep a simple web server secure
EDIT:
I am apparently a "Guardians: My democracy is decisive and accountable". Unsurprisingly, I most align with urban males from Québec.
Why is the Canadian Politics thread now about a "personality" quiz?
*looks up at the link* Wait, that's what the Gov went with? That website could be much more informative and better designed but I can see they are trying to go for engagement with this thing.
Oh well, time to find out which silly label I get stuck with... Innovators.
Damn it, I am not with Tony Stark :P
CanadianWolverine on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
EDIT:
I am apparently a "Guardians: My democracy is decisive and accountable". Unsurprisingly, I most align with urban males from Québec.
Why is the Canadian Politics thread now about a "personality" quiz?
*looks up at the link* Wait, that's what the Gov went with? That website could be much more informative and better designed but I can see they are trying to go for engagement with this thing.
Oh well, time to find out which silly label I get stuck with... Innovators.
Online voting is impossible to verify or audit. You can see the consequence of that if you look southward*.
It's full of hard to confirm attack vectors. Updating a database discreetly is way easier than stuffing voting boxes.
Also, I'm a "Critics", apparently. Their description does match: I want people to say what they want clearly, and I want it to be really obvious who fucked up at the next election.
*Whatever you do, don't look southward. It's profoundly terrifying.
Nah, it can be made verifiable. You just have to ship a key (ECC because of length) and signature to each voter, probably via a QR code. You'd need probably about ~70 bytes of information
Start by generating a master keypair
Then, for each voter: generate a keypair, sequence number and sign the public key + sequence number and private key + sequence number with the master key. Record the public keys, sequence number and public key signature in the database. Each signature can be verified by the master public key
Throw away the master private key, publish the master public key. No new ballots can be generated after this
Send the private key/signature to voters. To maintain anonymity, don't record which key goes to which voter
To vote, create a blob of plaintext recording the vote, sign it with the private key and send it to the server
The entire database could be public the entire time. You could load up the database and locate your vote. Votes cannot be changed without the private key, even with write access. In principle votes could be deleted, but can be pretty easily be restored from backups
The main worries are: extra ballots being created by the authority running the vote (in principle this is a risk for mail-in voting too), voting authority creates copies of private keys, a front-end web server compromise which can get access to the private keys client-side and alter ballots
If you still have in-person voting available as a backup then you can clamp down hard on the number of generated ballots = number of registered voters = number of ballots the post office received to mail, which should eliminate that vector
So, yes, it's less secure.
That's the whole problem: it's way easier to fake data than to stuff a box.
It is roughly equivalent in security to mail voting if you can keep a simple web server secure
Except that it's significantly harder to validate it after the fact. No paper trail, no security. Generating and planting thousands of ballots is harder and more visible than updating a database.
+1
Options
BouwsTWanna come to a super soft birthday party?Registered Userregular
Innovator here, I HATED that OR question section. It's like, "we know you have a nuanced view, but boil it down to a binary for us". Shit man, I dunno!
Between you and me, Peggy, I smoked this Juul and it did UNTHINKABLE things to my mind and body...
As someone who has no formation whatsoever in sociology, I doubt that the binary questions are the main one.
I noticed a lot of "confirmation"/"incoherent idiot detector" questions in the non-binary part, and those mapped more or less one-to-one to the binary questions, as well as to the priorities part.
So, I suspect that they are used as another level of confirmation.
Let's say we have 2 complementary question (C_1 and C_2), a binary question B and a pair of priority question P_1 and P_2 corresponding to the same dichotomy.
C_1 and C_2 are continuous between -1 and +1 (Ok, the actual questions are discrete since they map to a rational number but I'm lazy), B is binary -1 or +1. P_1 and P_2 are, in fact, disguised binary version of C_1 and C_2.
If someone is perfectly coherent, C_1 = -C_2, sign(C_1) = P_1, sign(C_2) = P_2, and sign(C_1) = B,
where sign(x) is the sign of x, that is -1 or +1, and assuming that the polarity of the binary question is the same as C_1.
If there's some incoherence, you can use a voting system to map all those questions to a value between -1 and +1.
For example, V = (C_1 - C_2 + B + P_1 - P_2)/5.
That's, of course, assuming they are doing some actual modelling in the background.
Online voting is impossible to verify or audit. You can see the consequence of that if you look southward*.
It's full of hard to confirm attack vectors. Updating a database discreetly is way easier than stuffing voting boxes.
Also, I'm a "Critics", apparently. Their description does match: I want people to say what they want clearly, and I want it to be really obvious who fucked up at the next election.
*Whatever you do, don't look southward. It's profoundly terrifying.
Nah, it can be made verifiable. You just have to ship a key (ECC because of length) and signature to each voter, probably via a QR code. You'd need probably about ~70 bytes of information
Start by generating a master keypair
Then, for each voter: generate a keypair, sequence number and sign the public key + sequence number and private key + sequence number with the master key. Record the public keys, sequence number and public key signature in the database. Each signature can be verified by the master public key
Throw away the master private key, publish the master public key. No new ballots can be generated after this
Send the private key/signature to voters. To maintain anonymity, don't record which key goes to which voter
To vote, create a blob of plaintext recording the vote, sign it with the private key and send it to the server
The entire database could be public the entire time. You could load up the database and locate your vote. Votes cannot be changed without the private key, even with write access. In principle votes could be deleted, but can be pretty easily be restored from backups
The main worries are: extra ballots being created by the authority running the vote (in principle this is a risk for mail-in voting too), voting authority creates copies of private keys, a front-end web server compromise which can get access to the private keys client-side and alter ballots
If you still have in-person voting available as a backup then you can clamp down hard on the number of generated ballots = number of registered voters = number of ballots the post office received to mail, which should eliminate that vector
I immediately question what the user has to do on their side to get this to work. Most people don't have any conception of public/private keys.
What if the user's device is compromised and auto-votes for them?
This all would still require a complementary system of offline voting, for people who don't have web access, so you have to unify the two systems somehow.
+7
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
I don't think voting at a polling station will ever go away, but I think that if they could clear the security hurdles there shouldn't be any reason why they couldn't give people the option of voting online.
I know the government is pretty adept at screwing things up (payroll conversion is still an issue?), but there are a lot of systems that just work and don't get any comment or debate because they are just part of daily life, I'd hope that online voting could get there.
Online voting is impossible to verify or audit. You can see the consequence of that if you look southward*.
It's full of hard to confirm attack vectors. Updating a database discreetly is way easier than stuffing voting boxes.
Also, I'm a "Critics", apparently. Their description does match: I want people to say what they want clearly, and I want it to be really obvious who fucked up at the next election.
*Whatever you do, don't look southward. It's profoundly terrifying.
Nah, it can be made verifiable. You just have to ship a key (ECC because of length) and signature to each voter, probably via a QR code. You'd need probably about ~70 bytes of information
Start by generating a master keypair
Then, for each voter: generate a keypair, sequence number and sign the public key + sequence number and private key + sequence number with the master key. Record the public keys, sequence number and public key signature in the database. Each signature can be verified by the master public key
Throw away the master private key, publish the master public key. No new ballots can be generated after this
Send the private key/signature to voters. To maintain anonymity, don't record which key goes to which voter
To vote, create a blob of plaintext recording the vote, sign it with the private key and send it to the server
The entire database could be public the entire time. You could load up the database and locate your vote. Votes cannot be changed without the private key, even with write access. In principle votes could be deleted, but can be pretty easily be restored from backups
The main worries are: extra ballots being created by the authority running the vote (in principle this is a risk for mail-in voting too), voting authority creates copies of private keys, a front-end web server compromise which can get access to the private keys client-side and alter ballots
If you still have in-person voting available as a backup then you can clamp down hard on the number of generated ballots = number of registered voters = number of ballots the post office received to mail, which should eliminate that vector
I immediately question what the user has to do on their side to get this to work. Most people don't have any conception of public/private keys.
What if the user's device is compromised and auto-votes for them?
This all would still require a complementary system of offline voting, for people who don't have web access, so you have to unify the two systems somehow.
Visit a website and scan a QR code most likely. Or type a long hex string I guess. The webpage can verify the data locally
If the client is compromised then you've lost. However, it would have to hijack and replace the incoming webpage text, or modify the JS engine in order to not be incredibly obvious
Turn in your online ballot card when you vote offline, then use the embedded data to cancel the online vote
Online voting is impossible to verify or audit. You can see the consequence of that if you look southward*.
It's full of hard to confirm attack vectors. Updating a database discreetly is way easier than stuffing voting boxes.
Also, I'm a "Critics", apparently. Their description does match: I want people to say what they want clearly, and I want it to be really obvious who fucked up at the next election.
*Whatever you do, don't look southward. It's profoundly terrifying.
Nah, it can be made verifiable. You just have to ship a key (ECC because of length) and signature to each voter, probably via a QR code. You'd need probably about ~70 bytes of information
Start by generating a master keypair
Then, for each voter: generate a keypair, sequence number and sign the public key + sequence number and private key + sequence number with the master key. Record the public keys, sequence number and public key signature in the database. Each signature can be verified by the master public key
Throw away the master private key, publish the master public key. No new ballots can be generated after this
Send the private key/signature to voters. To maintain anonymity, don't record which key goes to which voter
To vote, create a blob of plaintext recording the vote, sign it with the private key and send it to the server
The entire database could be public the entire time. You could load up the database and locate your vote. Votes cannot be changed without the private key, even with write access. In principle votes could be deleted, but can be pretty easily be restored from backups
The main worries are: extra ballots being created by the authority running the vote (in principle this is a risk for mail-in voting too), voting authority creates copies of private keys, a front-end web server compromise which can get access to the private keys client-side and alter ballots
If you still have in-person voting available as a backup then you can clamp down hard on the number of generated ballots = number of registered voters = number of ballots the post office received to mail, which should eliminate that vector
I immediately question what the user has to do on their side to get this to work. Most people don't have any conception of public/private keys.
What if the user's device is compromised and auto-votes for them?
This all would still require a complementary system of offline voting, for people who don't have web access, so you have to unify the two systems somehow.
Visit a website and scan a QR code most likely. Or type a long hex string I guess. The webpage can verify the data locally
If the client is compromised then you've lost. However, it would have to hijack and replace the incoming webpage text, or modify the JS engine in order to not be incredibly obvious
Turn in your online ballot card when you vote offline, then use the embedded data to cancel the online vote
I don't think we're at the level yet where we can rely on people to distinguish between real sites and obviously fake ones.
Put it another way, we can absolutely have secure online voting if we trade away the secret ballot. Your vote would be shown online and you can correct it in person if necessary. You willing to make that trade?
Except that it's significantly harder to validate it after the fact. No paper trail, no security. Generating and planting thousands of ballots is harder and more visible than updating a database.
Why are you assuming only one database? You can have multiple independent databases, all slaved to the main one and updates can be recorded. Deleting is only permanent if you have root everywhere. Then you'd have to intercept it before it even reaches the first database. But, I understand you're fundamentally opposed to the whole idea so I won't say any more
I don't think we're at the level yet where we can rely on people to distinguish between real sites and obviously fake ones.
Put it another way, we can absolutely have secure online voting if we trade away the secret ballot. Your vote would be shown online and you can correct it in person if necessary. You willing to make that trade?
It is possible to still have a secret vote in that case. You just have one entity generate the ballot data and seal that, then give it plus a list of names/addresses to Canada Post and have them address them randomly and mail them out. No one organization knows which ballot is associated with which person, but the person with the ballot can verify that they are in possession of it and do all of that stuff
Posts
Yeah, questions like that presuppose that the riding constituents cannot be for the greater good of the nation even at their own expense.
MWO: Adamski
MWO: Adamski
STRONGLY DISAGREE
Same, I strongly disagreed on all online voting questions. Hopefully they will get the message before we have an election where one party wins with 2,147,483,647 votes.
MWO: Adamski
Going by the spectrum they show, I am categorically opposed to Richy and everything he stands for! Down with Guardians!
It's full of hard to confirm attack vectors. Updating a database discreetly is way easier than stuffing voting boxes.
Also, I'm a "Critics", apparently. Their description does match: I want people to say what they want clearly, and I want it to be really obvious who fucked up at the next election.
*Whatever you do, don't look southward. It's profoundly terrifying.
As an Innovator, I am clearly Iron Man.
Or his non-union Mexican Albertan counterpart.
I never finish anyth
And as a Guardian, I clearly am a good match for Captain America. Also, your dad liked me better.
Because Canada could really go for having more people in the country to fight back if/when the US invades. With how badly the climate is going to get fucked and how nobody in this stupid country wants to do anything about it (and in fact, only wants to do things that will make things worse, faster), it's only a matter of time.
Ehhh.... If America wants to invade there's nothing we can really do about it, unfortunately.
It is going to be interesting seeing the ideological differences when it comes to immigration of JT vs the Donald.
America isnt going to invade, they are going to have Corporations come up to buy rights to resources to resell in the USA, the same as our Corporations and government already do.
I'm sure some people will eventually be priced out of some necessities, but for fucks sake, the USA isnt even willing to have affordable healthcare, I'm not sure that affordable drinking water will be that different.
MWO: Adamski
Nah, it can be made verifiable. You just have to ship a key (ECC because of length) and signature to each voter, probably via a QR code. You'd need probably about ~70 bytes of information
Start by generating a master keypair
Then, for each voter: generate a keypair, sequence number and sign the public key + sequence number and private key + sequence number with the master key. Record the public keys, sequence number and public key signature in the database. Each signature can be verified by the master public key
Throw away the master private key, publish the master public key. No new ballots can be generated after this
Send the private key/signature to voters. To maintain anonymity, don't record which key goes to which voter
To vote, create a blob of plaintext recording the vote, sign it with the private key and send it to the server
The entire database could be public the entire time. You could load up the database and locate your vote. Votes cannot be changed without the private key, even with write access. In principle votes could be deleted, but can be pretty easily be restored from backups
The main worries are: extra ballots being created by the authority running the vote (in principle this is a risk for mail-in voting too), voting authority creates copies of private keys, a front-end web server compromise which can get access to the private keys client-side and alter ballots
If you still have in-person voting available as a backup then you can clamp down hard on the number of generated ballots = number of registered voters = number of ballots the post office received to mail, which should eliminate that vector
There's no chance US tanks roll over the border into Canada. That's the fictional dystopian future of stuff like Fallout.
That voice in my brain that says that a Trump presidency was the same kind of fictional dystopian future? You be quiet.
This is very true.
So, yes, it's less secure.
That's the whole problem: it's way easier to fake data than to stuff a box.
I've definitely had those moments of 'you know, it seems incredibly unlikely, but then Trump being president just happened sooo', but the latter is the result of a whole confluence of factors, exploited by a rich demagogue to propel himself to power.
If anything, I think there's a chance of the USA turning towards a more V for Vendetta fascist state and essentially closing the borders, because even though we're only 1/10th the population, if they annex/invade Canada that's a whole lot of people they also have to deal with.
I think the 'worst case' version of the next however many years is a United States that is basically a completely protectionist/isolationist state, with Canada reaching out to China and other countries to form trading and diplomatic ties, with our 'little brother' relationship with the US decaying until we're civil neighbors.
Even that, of course, assumes a lot of things going wrong.
It is roughly equivalent in security to mail voting if you can keep a simple web server secure
Why is the Canadian Politics thread now about a "personality" quiz?
*looks up at the link* Wait, that's what the Gov went with? That website could be much more informative and better designed but I can see they are trying to go for engagement with this thing.
Oh well, time to find out which silly label I get stuck with... Innovators.
Damn it, I am not with Tony Stark :P
Search your feelings, you know it to be true!
Wait, wrong franchise....
Except that it's significantly harder to validate it after the fact. No paper trail, no security. Generating and planting thousands of ballots is harder and more visible than updating a database.
Also hated the OR question section. I do think MPs should rep their constituents, unless their constituents are being a bunch of asshats. So, yeah.
I noticed a lot of "confirmation"/"incoherent idiot detector" questions in the non-binary part, and those mapped more or less one-to-one to the binary questions, as well as to the priorities part.
So, I suspect that they are used as another level of confirmation.
Let's say we have 2 complementary question (C_1 and C_2), a binary question B and a pair of priority question P_1 and P_2 corresponding to the same dichotomy.
C_1 and C_2 are continuous between -1 and +1 (Ok, the actual questions are discrete since they map to a rational number but I'm lazy), B is binary -1 or +1. P_1 and P_2 are, in fact, disguised binary version of C_1 and C_2.
If someone is perfectly coherent, C_1 = -C_2, sign(C_1) = P_1, sign(C_2) = P_2, and sign(C_1) = B,
where sign(x) is the sign of x, that is -1 or +1, and assuming that the polarity of the binary question is the same as C_1.
If there's some incoherence, you can use a voting system to map all those questions to a value between -1 and +1.
For example, V = (C_1 - C_2 + B + P_1 - P_2)/5.
That's, of course, assuming they are doing some actual modelling in the background.
I know the government is pretty adept at screwing things up (payroll conversion is still an issue?), but there are a lot of systems that just work and don't get any comment or debate because they are just part of daily life, I'd hope that online voting could get there.
Visit a website and scan a QR code most likely. Or type a long hex string I guess. The webpage can verify the data locally
If the client is compromised then you've lost. However, it would have to hijack and replace the incoming webpage text, or modify the JS engine in order to not be incredibly obvious
Turn in your online ballot card when you vote offline, then use the embedded data to cancel the online vote
I don't think we're at the level yet where we can rely on people to distinguish between real sites and obviously fake ones.
Put it another way, we can absolutely have secure online voting if we trade away the secret ballot. Your vote would be shown online and you can correct it in person if necessary. You willing to make that trade?
Why are you assuming only one database? You can have multiple independent databases, all slaved to the main one and updates can be recorded. Deleting is only permanent if you have root everywhere. Then you'd have to intercept it before it even reaches the first database. But, I understand you're fundamentally opposed to the whole idea so I won't say any more
It is possible to still have a secret vote in that case. You just have one entity generate the ballot data and seal that, then give it plus a list of names/addresses to Canada Post and have them address them randomly and mail them out. No one organization knows which ballot is associated with which person, but the person with the ballot can verify that they are in possession of it and do all of that stuff
theprovince.com/entertainment/police+service+apologizes+nickelback+takes+down+viral+joke+post/12468443/story.html
Wow.
I guess I'm more informed about Electoral Reform or something now?
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
I GOT INNOVATOR TOO.