Hacker News Reader

Comment by IanCal | Hacker News Reader

This makes voter intimidation much easier though. Nobody without a court order can check how I've voted, and can't ask me to show how I've voted.

View on HN

Then vote for the party your intimidator picked, show them you voted for them when asked. Then simply vote again for the party you want (during election day if you are afraid they will show up unexpectedly again before election day), voiding your intimidated vote. Your intimidator will never know who you voted for during election day (unless they spied on you, but you also have that problem for non-digital votes)

What in this is stopping the intimidator checking with you after the vote closes?

Then lie to your intimidator and tell them you didn’t vote in the physical election, only in the absentee.

It should be impossible even with a court order, and I think most voting systems are set up like that. How else do you guard against the party in power, that can get all the court orders it wants?

It's entirely possible in the UK, while "court order" is probably the wrong terminology, the core meaning is still there. Ballots are numbered and the number recorded against your name. You would need access to both to work out who voted for whom.

I don't know of any reason why it could be accessed, though since parliament is sovereign "if a judge agrees" is always a safe disclaimer to add since the underlying law can be set.

> Ballots are numbered and the number recorded against your name.

It's hard for me to express what a terrible idea this is. Pray you never get a government that would exploit this.

Yes, that downgrades the election from secret vote to concealed open vote.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19355603.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com