Märt Põder@noaasm_ @janantos @dSour Bizarre indeed, but as Keres told to Eesti Ekspress, a lawyer has to do lots of PR nowadays -- we are talking about it and that serves the purpose. Helme did file his own complaints and might have mistaken, but maybe Keres just wanted to be first to make a fuss about it? I have filed those complaints, it's a bit annoying, but not really complicated -- in fact Keres bases his complaint on solution to my 2019 complaint on verification procedures. https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid/?asjaNr=5-19-20/2
@noaasm_ @janantos @dSour On Monday I also filed a complaint about a vote I submitted at 20:13 when e-voting was already over, which was counted for dubious reasons. It also appears that according to the law only *votes* are supposed to be counted, but the software operates with containers. This implies you have to make sure there is a vote in container before including it in the tally, but you can't do it without decrypting the vote -- but that you can't do because it would break vote secrecy.
Jan Antoš@janantos @noaasm_ @dSour Well this is no play of words, it's about actual votes I gave. Current vote counting procedure breaks down, when there are invalid ballots in the system and I provided them. Electoral commission invited me to discuss it tomorrow around 14 and it is guaranteed get to discussing angels on top a pin in no time. And if we don't find a way to count those votes, I will need to ask Supreme Court about their solution!
@janantos @noaasm_ @dSour This is a feature provided by official protocol. You can encrypt something that is not a proper candidate according to your voting district or you can create a ballot that the system fails to decrypt. If the container is properly signed and there is a ballot like entity inside, the system accepts it, but as it seems later it will have legal problems to properly count it. About technical part you can read a bit here in Estonian. https://digi.geenius.ee/eksklusiiv/digiaktivist-andis-e-valimistel-isetehtud-koodireaga-haale/
Digiaktivist andis e-valimistel isetehtud koodireaga hääle - Digigeenius
Digiaktivist Märt Põder on juba pikki aastaid omanud suurt huvi Eesti e-valimiste suhtes. 2015. aasta Riigikogu valimistel proovis ta, kas võrdväärselt pabersedeliga hääletamisele saab ka e-hääletades sedelit rikkuda. Äsja toimunud valimiste puhul katsetas Põder, kas tal õnnestub anda e-hääl isetehtud koodirea abil. Põder on ühtlasi e-hääletamise vaatleja ning koostas oma blogis ülevaate tähelepanekutest, kus tõi […]
Behind the paywall. If you want to gain credibility you release it publicly accessible. ;-)
Janwil@tramm @janantos @noaasm_ @dSour We have to distinguish two situations. One is where the container does not correspond to the format that the official voting application provides. The other situation is when the contianer looks correct, but the decrypted vote is a garbage.
With the latter everything is quite clear -- it is similar to the situation where a paper ballot with a garbage statement is slipped into the ballot box. It is an invalid vote.
The former is more interesting. It is possible that someone (pick your guess, who ;)) wrote their own voting application, but failed to debug it properly. Still, the cryptogram might contain a valid vote.
I am not entirely sure what the best solution here is. One may argue that, legally, correct votes should be counted, but this might prove difficult technically. Gathering such encrypted ballots separately and attempting to decrypt them using a different procedure is not a good option. It would be hard to protect secrecy of those few votes. It would also prolong the counting procedure (and we all know how the society loves late arrival of the e-votes).
My recommendation -- if you want to make sure that your e-vote gets properly counted, use the official voting application. If you do not trust it to encrypt your vote correctly, then also use the verification tool.
@janwil @janantos @noaasm_ @dSour Well, I just had a discussion with NEC and it seems they are opting for keeping my 20:13 vote and probably will try to ignore the fact, that there are undecryptable Schrödinger's votes involved of which the status is unknown. The discussion was crazy enough and went all the way from hate speech against experimenting to sincere gratitude for practically explaining the functioning and limitations of the e-voting system to the honourable commission.
@janwil @janantos @noaasm_ @dSour They have to write down their differing opinions though to make it official, but I suppose they will not change their mind any more -- at least they agreed to admit, that the QR code verification was closed 20:15 was violation of my rights as a voter and should be fixed next time. So I suppose I have to start preparing my appeal to Supreme Court to demand every vote should be counted according to the law! #evoting #estonia #rk2023