I see stories about how election is rigged or that there are security vulnerabilities and lots of people don’t believe the outcome. Why don’t they just open source everything so that anyone can look at the code and be sure the votes are tallied correctly?

  • MrGeekman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    A lot of folks unfortunately think open-source software is much more vulnerable than closed-source software because anyone can inspect it. The great irony of it, as everyone here knows, the opposite is actually often true.

    • wagesj45@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      unfortunately people are in general only smart about one or two subjects, and morons about everything else. i include myself in this assessment.

    • Freesoftwareenjoyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Our society is not able to understand modern technology. Most people haven’t even heard of concepts such as Open Source or Free Software. They have only been around for over 30 years, but ok.

      I see people here are cheering for some proprietary app for Lemmy called Sync. It just makes me sad. I guess they don’t want security on their devices.

      Everything made by the government should be Free Software. Public money, public code: https://publiccode.eu

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know about most, but I think the number of people in government willing to accept bribes and kickbacks for picking a particular overpriced vendor is probably greater.

    • sumofchemicals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Electronic voting could use open source software, but so can a machine that scans a marked ballot. The best practice is to have voters mark a physical ballot, then have them put it in a machine (running open source software) that scans and tabulates the results. If there’s a question about the integrity of the results, we can go back and count physical ballots.

        • Virkkunen@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. Every election you see a handful of right wingers claiming that the machines and/or code is unsafe and can be easily tampered with, but have absolutely nothing to back that up, and yet another election passes without anyone anywhere proving that our system is unsafe/a bad idea.

          This Tom Scott video is terrible, should be renamed "why electronic voting is a bad idea (for fascists)

    • dhdds@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      this video has 3 years.

      3 years is a lot to somethings to be mature. He tells about Trust & Anonymity. You can’t trust anonymity 'coz you can trace the vote and bla bla bla. Well, you can trace the regular method too. Trust, you can’t trust the way the vote leaves the booth to the central. You know the Hash initiative? Even a small number change will be shown to everyone.

      • xNIBx@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, you can trace the regular method too.

        Not as efficiently and in mass. It’s like saying “you could gather personal data before the internet/social media”. Sure, there were mailing lists and some companies had personal data manually gathered but that was 0.00001% of what you can gather today for like 5$.

        When it comes to data, scale and efficiency matter. As someone from a low trust country(Greece), any electronic voting is literally a threat to democracy, society and pretty much opens the window for a civil war. Which is why no political party even dares suggesting it.

        And it doesnt take much for a society to become low trust, you only need 1 bad actor(game theory). Though Greece was never not a low trust society. But i think all countries would benefit from an electoral system like the greek one, where all political parties can have representatives on every ballot, there is tight control for ballot envelopes, everything is opened and counted in front of everyone, basically all political parties keep their own tallies, at a local and national level.

        So if there is something fucky with the official results, it will be easily tracked and noticed. At least as long as you can have party representatives on every ballot. Obviously smaller parties cant do that. There have been conspiracy theories about neonazi votes not being counted, because literally all other parties despise them. And when i say neonazi, i dont mean “neonazi”, i mean literally a parliamentary party that had this as their symbol

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(Greece)#/media/File:Meandros_flag.svg

        And their second in command has a huge swastika tattoo, etc. At least their party became illegal and its leaders spent some time in prison but that only happened after they murdered a greek. As long as they were beating and killing immigrants, they were fine.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Importantly, Open Source is not feasible as a safeguard because there would be no way of verifying that the voting machine is running a build from the public source.

  • Hari Seldon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Voting machines are the most utterly stupid thing ever created. Why don’t you use papar ballots as other countries do?

    • local_taxi_fix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We do, there are very few counties in the US that are actually fully digital (stupid idea IMHO). The majority are paper ballots which are scanned into the machine for fast counting. The original paper the voter filled out is then stored in case it needs to be checked against the machine count for accuracy.

      • lol3droflxp@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Interesting that it takes so ridiculously long to count then, in Germany the votes are counted on paper by hand and they’re down within maximum 3 days.

        • Dandroid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It only started taking more than one day recently. My conspiracy theory is that it is so we have to watch the news for three days instead, which makes them a ton of money.

        • SolOrion@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          …does it take ridiculously long? I’ll admit I’m not usually on the edge of my seat waiting for election results, but it’s usually just a couple days after voting closes I think. Some places accept mail-in voting way after the election technically closes so they technically take longer to count votes, but that’s more the exception than the rule.

    • UltimoGato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My state only does paper ballots and voting by mail. I completely agree that voting machines are completely unnecessary.

    • Aer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m with you, The Tom Scott Video @puppy linked is amazing, goes over good reasons against electronic voting machines. Paper Ballots are great because the counts are done in the presence of all parties and by multiple people. It takes a while, but it’s a good example of technology not always being a viable option for everything.

      As said in the video, not everyone would understand code. The only reason why people vote is because they trust in the system. If they don’t trust in the system they don’t vote. They could open the code up and show people, but it wouldn’t dispell fears of those who aren’t knowledgeable about computers.

  • war@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you had open-source voting machine code, you would get people on Fox News saying something along the lines of, “We’ve looked at the code, and we found that the machines are rigged to give extra votes to the Democrats.” and all their viewers would believe them and start repeating that “fact” on social media forever and ever. At this point it is nothing short of naive to think that actual facts matter to these people.

  • cerevant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because there is too much money to be made in the business. Vendors are selected through a political process which is decided by what politicians benefit from the selection.

    Don’t kid yourself - the people screaming about rigged elections don’t actually care about solving the problem. They know they lost and they are happy for the excuse to continue grandstanding.

  • exohuman@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s because the government likes to corporatize everything. It should be open source and supported by several companies who all update the software and keep it bug free.

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just to be clear: People will argue bad actors whether it’s paper or electronic. I have not seen a single election since I became able to vote where the votes were not disputed.

    • MisterMoo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Assuming you’re talking about America, before 2000 votes were never closely scrutinized or thought of as fraudulent. In Florida there was the hanging chads thing in 2000, and a fringe clings to the idea that there was chicanery in 2004, perhaps in Ohio. But the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections weren’t seized on as needing to be “investigated,” although the Republican candidate in 2016 declared that if he didn’t win the forthcoming election, it’d be due to widespread fraud and he might not accept the result. In 2020, that came to pass, with a clear and validated loss and he didn’t accept the result, infusing his supporters with the idea that there was massive fraud despite the lack of any evidence or verifiable documentation of it. Now, of course, we do have one party that seems perpetually trapped in a cycle of questioning all election outcomes that don’t align with their political goals, and it seems likely to only get worse.

  • ritswd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know that that’s the reason, but I have an intuition from having been an election judge here in Illinois.

    A voting machine is a closed-circuit system that just counts votes and prints the tally. It is not connected to any network, and getting its software upgraded requires a key that only the voting machine company has, and a seal that is unique and that can only be replaced by that voting machine company.

    To make it clear with an example: a judge ruled in Illinois that ballots that would be in either English or Spanish were now void, they all had to be in both language at the same time. Because that didn’t use to be the case, the election judge has to choose for each person between “English”, or “Spanish”, or both in the UI, and if they don’t choose both, the ballot is void. It’d be a trivial UI fix, and critical enough that you’d think it would be a priority. And yet the past elections still had the old UI, because updating the software on there is that hard.

    So my intuition: if a CVE was found in one of the open-source solutions on there right before the election, the voting company would have to patch it, except it couldn’t realistically be done in time, so the election would be canceled until there is enough time without a CVE. Which of course doesn’t typically happen for very long. But if it’s all closed-source and the voting machine company is on the line for it, therefore that problem doesn’t exist.

    • rakudave@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      security through obscurity is a terrible idea - the problem is still there, and a determined attacker will find it anyway

  • Daniikk1012@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    How do you prove that the software installed is the same software the source code of which is available to the public?

    • sumofchemicals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @rockslice addressed this in another comment - you use signing certificates to verify it’s the correct code, which is a widely accepted method.

  • puppy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    How do you know that what’s open sourced is what’s installed and running? Someone should verify it and then you’ll have to trust that person as well.

      • puppy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I meant to say that open sourcing doesn’t make it immediately trustworthy. You have to place the trust somewhere. If you can’t trust that the open sourced code is what’s running, it is effectively the same as running closed source software.

  • neon_cat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are probably two reasons:

    1. It wouldn’t change how the public thinks about them. People wouldn’t understand how voting machines work, even if they were open source. Do you expect normal people to look at and understand code? Also people who have lost hope in democracy and want to believe that the election was a hoax will continue to do so anyway.

    2. It’s probably more comfortable for the manufacturers of those machines to keep them closed source. Why would they show the world how they work? That would disclose potential flaws which is bad for their reputation. And it would make it easier for competition to emerge.

    p.s. I agree that voting machines are bollocks.